Racial Ecologies

Humanity and usefulness are two of the central concepts of Erica Tom’s piece entitled Humanizing Animals. She explains how, in prison programs like Second Chances Horse Program, the humanity of the prisoner is heavily based on their ability to make themselves useful. While these programs seem positive on the surface, one must consider the stereotypes that they reinforce. For example, creating a program like SCHP implies that the prisoner’s have lost their humanity in some way, or perhaps their humanity was altered from the start. They reinforce the need for the general institution of prison by saying, “See! Look what they were missing! They would have never grown like this in the real world.

The idea that a program like SCHP enforcing the public’s belief in the need for prisons is quite interesting. It is altogether possible that such a program would have a similar impact if it existed as a separate entity, rather than at a prison. Prison is a terrible punishment. The effect of prison life on an incarcerated person creates a self-fulfilling prophecy with regards to the persons lack or loss of humanity. The public immediately views anyone that has been convicted of a crime as less than human. They lock the person in a cage like an animal. Then when the person finally emerges from that cage, having lost a piece of their self while inside, the public judges that they were justified in caging that person from the beginning. Rather than perpetuating a cycle of dehumanization, prison could be regarded as a last resort, and SCHP related programs could exist as branches of therapy or rehabilitation, rather than punishment.

Humanity in the context of Tom’s writing may be interpreted as a variety of traits; empathy, patience, discipline. No matter what was lost or missing, though, the primary intention when restoring “humanity” is restoring usefulness. Yes, the prisoners may have formed emotional connections with the horses they’re caring for, but most importantly, now they know how to take care of horses. New knowledge has been gifted to them by the people running the program.

In general, people are not born possessing some inherent humanity. Humanity is bestowed upon us. The time and location of one’s birth determines who has the power the bestow humanity upon them. In the United States, the government, which consists primarily of wealthy, white men, dole out humanity. The US government began stripping populations of their humanity before its inception. From the native tribes that occupied the land that would become the United States, to the slaves that would form the foundation of the American economy, to the immigrants trapped at the southern border, populations stripped of their humanity struggle to find a place in society. These populations, these non-humans, could earn their humanity only by proving themselves to be useful, in the same way that animals earn worth – and effectively humanity – when people domesticate them.

In this way, the concept of humanity in Tom’s writing is very connected to Charles Mill’s racial contract. Restricting who counts as human is one of the many ways that signatories can enforce the contract. Dehumanizing the populations which they’re oppressing relieves the signatories and beneficiaries of any moral qualms. These populations are easy to identify. Society has given them names which ostracize them from their human counterparts; the homeless, the felon, the illegal alien. When these terms function as nouns rather than adjectives, the circumstances of a person’s life become defining features of their existence. They delineate the “them” not only as other, but as something other than human.

Sources

Tom, Erica. “Humanizing Animals: Talking about Second Chances, Horses, and Prisoners.” Racial Ecologies, edited by Leilani Nishime and Kim D Hester Williams, University of Washington Press, 2018, pp. 123–138.