Dehumanization: Is it inevitable or is there room for change?

The Department of Social Science, along with the Maryland Theta chapter of Pi Gamma Mu (International Social Science Honor Society), is pleased to announce the winners of the 4th annual UMUC Social Science Essay Contest. This yearly contest invites all UMUC students to submit essays applying social science theory to social issues and problems and is adjudicated by a panel of UMUC faculty members. PolicTaking the prize for third place is Michelle Shores, for her essay, “Dehumanization: Is It Inevitable or Is There Room for Change?” Michelle is a Psychology major and anticipates graduating from UMUC in December 2011. She wrote her essay for the Individual and Society course in the sociology department, inspired by sociologist George Ritzer’s book The McDonaldization of Society. According to Michelle, “It was an awakening for me to consider that society was becoming ‘dehumanized,’ with people being forced along the conveyor belt of life. How can we guard against this dehumanizing effect or loss of self? This question is where my essay begins.” Michelle, who lives in Maryland, has done advocacy work for People with Disabilities within both educational and political institutions and plans to complete a Master’s degree in educational counseling.Michelle Shores Major: Psychology Email: mdshores@yahoo.com DEHUMANIZATION IS IT INEVITABLE OR IS THERE ROOM FOR CHANGE? Many people go to the movies to see science fiction, adventure-packed shows involving humans interacting with or being transformed into robots. Movie goers view this as futuristic. As we look at today’s society, one has to wonder what type of control society has on each of us, wondering if we have become dehumanized, acting as “human robots” of society, and if this is true, where is our adventure? Sociologists have studied this phenomenon of ���dehumanization” in society, and have developed theories that explain the interaction between the individual and society. The question: are individuals really in control of society or are we being controlled by society? Examples of Dehumanization In The McDonaldization of Society 5, author George Ritzer (2008) provides examples of the “dehumanization” of individuals within the work place. For example, Ritzer (2008) depicts that McDonald employees have “scripted” communication with customers. Ritzer (2008) notes the “fake friendliness” that is mandated by management to produce repeat customers. Scripted communication is also used in telemarketing and politics (Ritzer, 2008). It was noted that Ronald Reagan had his speeches written, and George W. Bush answered only questions that were pre-authorized (Ritzer, 2008). Not only is communication scripted, Ritzer (2008) notes that the experience at Starbucks is relative to acting on stage with various actors and settings. The stage is the actual store; the employees are instructed on how to act, as are the customers in that we all line up and wait patiently for our purchases (Ritzer, 2008). Ritzer (2008) suggests that this is to set the scene for the next customers. Ritzer (2008) refers the Starbucks experience in relation to Goffman’s dramaturological approach, which suggests that our environment is a stage and social behavior is scripted to fit the environment (Charon, 2010). We know that “in all social interaction there are rules we are expected to follow” (Charon, 2010). I would agree that the scripted communication and posing in line or lounging in the chairs (Ritzer, 2008), would support Goffman’s dramaturological approach. Within our social groups we are taught what is appropriate in different situations and will most likely act accordingly. For instance, one would act differently if they were in a court room compared to when they were at a basketball game. Our actions are most likely responsive to our environment. Continued reading of The McDonaldization of Society 5 (Ritzer, 2008), depicts additional dehumanization of the worker. Ritzer (2008) discusses how nonhuman technologies are controlling the worker. In particular, he discusses the work environment of Customer Service Representatives (CSR) for airlines, referred to as “phoneheads” (Ritzer, 2008). Ritzer (2008) talks of the CSR being treated in nonhuman fashion, such as having to account for their time, including pushing the “potty button” to indicate where they are, to the eaves-dropping observation by management that sits in the “tower,” and how the workers were treated like prisoners. Ritzer (2008) writes of one CSR who “became an extension of the computer terminal…emptied of self.” I believe that this example of dehumanization (being controlled by management) is best explained by Charon (2010) as the “social structure and the control of thought”. According to the social structure we see the world through our positions (Charon, 2010). The way workers think depends on their position within the company (Charon, 2010). Many lower workers are not being given the opportunity to be creative or think about what they are doing, let alone go to the restroom without big brother watching. I believe that this is a significant form of dehumanization. Nickel and dimed: On (not) getting by in America, by Barbara Ehrenreich (2001) investigates the plight workers who earn a low-wage by going undercover. Ehrenreich (2001) shares that during her time working for Wal-Mart she felt like she did not have control over any part of the job. She relates that when she finally figured out a system to working, management would change the design of the department. Ehrenreich (2001) further relates how two weeks into her job management changed her shift without telling her, and how she had to accommodate lunch and bathroom breaks into the longer shift that was dictated. She had to figure out minutes and seconds that it took her to walk between the time clock, to punch in and out, to the restaurant to get a drink (Ehrenreich, 2001). I would believe that this example would be supported by the Conflict Theory. The Conflict Theory is based on the works of Karl Marx which addresses inequalities between groups (Charon, 2010). It is a power play between those who have and those who do not have, and are therefore at the mercy of those who do. Ehrenreich portrayed this difference throughout her book. Nickel and dimed: On (not) getting by in America (Ehrenreich, 2001) also showed the impact that nonhuman technologies had on workers. When working for the Maids, she was watching the training videos, which instructed on how to dust and vacuum (Ehrenreich, 2001). The worker was instructed how to start and finish dusting in each room and during the video instruction on vacuuming, the instructor even said “I am the vacuum” (Ehrenreich, 2001). The training basically instructed the worker not to think, but to just act as they were instructed. This type of conditioning would be based on social structure and control of thought (Charon, 2010). Both The McDonaldization of Society 5 by George Ritzer (2008) and Nickel and dimed: On (not) getting by in America, by Barbara Ehrenreich (2001) shared numerous examples of situations where individuals were placed in dehumanizing positions. Is there any way to stop this kind of treatment of individuals? Is Change Possible? While reading the The McDonaldization of Society 5 (Ritzer, 2008), and Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America (Ehrenreich, 2001), I felt as if we as a society were doomed to succumb to dehumanization and that there is no turning back. Although as I thought further I realized that there is the possibility of oscillation away from, although not fully void of, dehumanization. In my opinion, the advancement of technology is a major obstacle in ridding our society of dehumanization. According to Ritzer (2008), the use of nonhuman technology is a major contributor to the dehumanization of the worker. Businesses depend on the use of computerized equipment to either replace or control the individual’s participation in the work place. In addition, personal use of technology with items such as Blackberries, IPhones, IPads, etc., allows for what society views as greater efficiency and control. Many people use scripted language such as texting as a quick communication compared to face-to-face conversation or a telephone conversation. Society values how quickly things can be accomplished with the use of technology, from the scripted texting to the constant contact. Until entire cultures can be convinced of the de-humanizing effect that technological advancements has on society, I fear that dehumanization will continue. In addition, I believe that globalization is another force to be contended with in the fight for movement away from dehumanization. Globalization refers to how different cultures interact with one another, whether person to person, politically, or economically. As we need to find a common ground to work together, it will place more pressure for individuals to become more autonomous in order to survive as a whole (Ritzer, 2008). The consequences of dehumanizing individuals in our society can be horrific. This type of oppression is multifaceted. It includes a lack of creativity, a lack of adventure because things are the same everywhere you go (Ritzer, 2008), loss of morals, and ultimately the loss of self, resulting in more psychological issues. As dehumanization continues to move forward I believe that our society will eventually feel the effects of deindividuation, which is the “psychological state characterized by reduced self-awareness brought on by external conditions, such as being an anonymous member of a large crowd” (Baron, Branscombe, & Byrne, 2008). As individuals are forced to act like “robots”, they may wake up and find themselves in a new group. Deindividuation occurs when the individual loses sight of themself and adapts to the norms of the group. Groups are a “collection of people who are perceived to be bonded together in a coherent unit to some degree” (Baron, Branscombe, & Byrne, 2008). Groups can have a positive or negative impact on society. For example, if the group becomes unruly, even though the individual is not prone to such action, they too will take on the unruly behavior. I believe that the consequences of dehumanization are being felt now. The fast food industry has been charged with causing poor health and obesity (Ritzer, 2008). The educational system is teaching to the test, and using standardized tests to evaluate students (Ritzer, 2008). Students should not be standardized. Many students are either exceptionally gifted in learning or have a learning disability. Therefore these students would be marginalized when taking standardized tests, and many will probably lose their motivation to learn, eventually creating a negative impact on society. When trying to determine how we can act as a “change agent” within our society, we first need to realize that there is a problem; that dehumanization is “quietly” changing how we function as a society. Prior to reading these books, I am sad to say that, I did not know how vastly we were affected by this process. My thought process was focused on the significant impact of technology, and how it has and will influence the way that we behave or interact with others. I also noted that because of technology we were expected to become more productive and efficient. I had no idea of the depth and mindset that created this “McDonaldization” of society (Ritzer, 2008). I had always thought of myself as thinking “outside of the box” regarding many things, such as time constraints, seeking out personalized service, not interacting with computers if possible, and placing the family dinner at home as a priority when my children were growing up. As I read and thought about my own, almost daily, experiences that I had encountered with efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control, and oppression, I began to realize that I was being controlled and I did not appreciate it. I do not want to become dehumanized. I am certain that there are many more people out there that would say the same. I have shared some of the contents of the book with friends and family, and they too were unaware of the process. I believe that educating people about the subtle influences that are controlling us as an individual and ultimately as a society will help to activate a change. In order for change to happen, individual sacrifices will need to happen. According to Ritzer (2008) many people accept and embrace the benefits of knowing what to expect within their daily interactions, believing that this makes them more efficient. In order to fight dehumanization, people may need to forego what they consider to be comforts or conveniences within their daily living, and this may be easier said than done. For example, the family meal may need to be instituted. Busy schedules, different needs of family members, and rising costs of healthy food in the grocery markets, are just a few of the reasons that fast food restaurants are utilized by so many. If we were to challenge dehumanization it may require that dinners would be made at home. Some may not value the time together or see the need in the time it takes to create and serve a meal. I do not believe that everyone is willing to change, or even see it as a problem, because it will ultimately cause them do something different. As people are educated about the control that is being imposed upon them, and if they make a choice to challenge that control, they can gather together to make more of an impact on society. For example, in Nickel and Dimed: On (not) getting by in America (Ehrenreich, 2001), revealed that the workers at the maid service and at Wal-Mart did not understand the controls that were being imposed until Ehrenrich told them what she saw as an outsider. The workers at Wal-Mart were urged to gather and create a union in order to protect them from the negative effects of management, or dehumanization (Ehrenreich, 2001). I believe that in order to fight oppression (or dehumanization) individuals need to gather, creating groups of people who have the same beliefs, values, and norms. Most recently, a group of female employees from Wal-Mart have submitted a gender discrimination case against Wal-Mart (Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, No. 10-277). The case is due to be heard in the Supreme Court to determine “whether hundreds of thousands of female workers have enough in common to join together in a single suit” (Liptak, 2011). If someone had not voiced the concern about gender discrimination chances are that it would have continued on in silence. Since someone was brave enough to voice a concern, many have stepped up to confirm the allegations of gender discrimination. This potential landmark case will hopefully change the dehumanizing gender related factors present not only at Wal-Mart, but also in many other corporations. With dehumanization on the rise and as it gains momentum around the world, it appears that individualism is at stake and will soon diminish, leaving us as robots in a science fiction movie of old. I hold strong that if individuals are made aware of what is happening to them, many will group together in order to challenge the oppression (dehumanization) of the creativity and sense of self that would otherwise be lost. References Baron, R.A., Branscombe, N.R., & Byrne, D. (2008). Social psychology (12th ed.). Boston: Pearson. Charon, J. (2010). Ten Questions: A sociological perspective. (7th ed.).Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Ehrenreich, B. (2001). Nickel and dimed: On (not) getting by in America. New York: Holt. Ritzer, G. (2008). The McDonaldization of Society: New Century Edition 5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Liptak, A. (2011). Supreme Court to weigh sociology issue in Wal-Mart Discrimination Case. Retrieved March 28, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/us/28scotus.html?_r=