The Power of Human How Our Shared Humanity Can

Help Us Create a Better World Adam Waytz pdf

download
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-power-of-human-how-our-shared-humanity-can-help-us-create-a-
better-world-adam-waytz/

★★★★★ 4.8/5.0 (49 reviews) ✓ 208 downloads ■ TOP RATED

"Perfect download, no issues at all. Highly recommend!" - Mike D.

DOWNLOAD EBOOK
 The Power of Human How Our Shared Humanity Can Help Us
Create a Better World Adam Waytz pdf download

TEXTBOOK EBOOK TEXTBOOK FULL

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide TextBook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Collection Highlights

Unbound How Eight Technologies Made Us Human Transformed

Society and Brought Our World to the Brink First Edition
Richard L Currier

Global Health Informatics How Information Technology Can

Change our Lives in a Globalized World Heimar Marin

The human tide how population shaped the modern world

First Us Edition Morland

Crashed How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World

Adam Tooze
A Human s Guide to Machine Intelligence How Algorithms Are
Shaping Our Lives and How We Can Stay in Control Kartik
Hosanagar

Somatics What Is It How Can It Help Me Heidi Hadley

The Cradle of Humanity: How the Changing Landscape of

Africa Made Us So Smart 1st Edition Mark Maslin

Our Bodies Our Data How Companies Make Billions Selling

Our Medical Records 1st Edition Adam Tanner

How to Create a Vegan World A Pragmatic Approach Tobias

Leenaert
The
Power
of
Human
How Our Shared Humanity
Can Help Us Create a Better World

Adam Waytz

W. W. NORTON & COMPANY

Independent Publishers Since 1923
NEW YORK LONDON
For M, A, and T
 Contents

Introduction

PART ONE

CHAPTER 1 The Dehumanizing Shift

CHAPTER 2 Humans as Meaning Makers

CHAPTER 3 The Morality of Humanity

CHAPTER 4 Human Influence as the Engine of Action

CHAPTER 5 Human-Centered Motivation

PART TWO

CHAPTER 6 Humanizing Work in the Automation Age

CHAPTER 7 Building Human-Machine Partnerships

CHAPTER 8 Seeing Human amid Conflict

CHAPTER 9 Humanizing Close Relationships through Critical
Distance

EPILOGUE Time, Connection, and Mattering

Acknowledgments

Notes

Index
 Introduction

DURING MY SOPHOMORE YEAR OF COLLEGE, A FRIEND AND I decided to

reconnect after a busy semester. Despite spending virtually every
day together along with three other friends the previous year, we
had barely spoken this semester. Just before leaving for winter
break, we grabbed dinner on Manhattan’s Upper West Side and saw
a Coen Brothers movie downtown. I recall chatting over nachos and
margaritas, sitting in the back row of the theater, and discussing
how much we enjoyed the movie on the train ride back uptown.
Everything was back to normal. I flew home to Minneapolis the next
day relieved that I had rejuvenated a relationship that was slipping
away. That impression, I learned, my companion did not share.
Several months later, she told me that was the night when she
realized we could no longer be friends. What I had considered to be
a warm, easygoing evening of catching up, she described as being a
cold and lonely disappointment. In particular, she described how I
fidgeted during dinner, rarely looking her in the eye, and glanced
around the restaurant instead. She told me she felt like she was
invisible.
I immediately resonated with the experience of feeling invisible.
Likely you have, too. To make another person feel invisible is to
dehumanize that person, and chances are that you (like I) not only
have felt dehumanized at times but also have played the role of the
dehumanizer at other times. Although the most potent historical
examples of dehumanization involve treating others as animals or
objects, simply overlooking others’ full humanity—like the mundane
example of my dinner-and-movie companion—is far more common
than we might expect and is becoming increasingly prevalent.
Although we might be experiencing a blip in history, I feel
confident suggesting that dehumanization—that is, failing to
consider another person as having a mind capable of complex
feelings and rational thought—represents a contemporary concern.
In the current moment, this disregard of others, including a
willingness to call the humanity of entire social groups into question,
is shockingly commonplace, consequential, and also curable. Merely
eight years ago when deciding to base a book on this prescription, I
felt this premise would require considerable convincing. Of course,
this was before questions of whether certain lives mattered
reentered the national discourse as major points of argument and
protest. This was prior to the expansion of groups like ISIS and Boko
Haram that treat helpless children as disposable in their ideological
quests. And this was prior to a resurging fascism that gripped the
United States and Western Europe, launching widespread hatred and
discrimination toward refugees and immigrants.
The aftermath of the contentious 2016 US presidential election
prompted many calls for warring political factions to find empathy
and unity under a common human identity. Colby Itkowitz wrote for
the Washington Post that “empathy for Trump voters” is what the
election lacked.1 In a New York Times op-ed titled “Stop Shaming
Trump Supporters,” Rabbi Michael Lerner wrote, “We need to reach
out to Trump voters in a spirit of empathy and contrition.”2 Other
media outlets posted do-it-yourself guides on how to converse at
Thanksgiving dinner with your uncle of a different political
persuasion.
In response to these pleas for civility, empathy, and unity, author
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie wrote in The New Yorker, “The
responsibility to forge unity belongs not to the denigrated but to the
denigrators. The premise for empathy has to be equal humanity; it is
an injustice to demand that the maligned identify with those who
question their humanity.”3 Adichie’s premise highlights why attempts
to resolve conflict between different social groups often fail: appeals
from historically advantaged groups focus on conciliation (toward
finding a common humanity, in the future) whereas historically
disadvantaged groups focus on contestation (of their humanity, in
the past). Cycles of violence, misunderstanding, and conflict then
persist because of this misalignment, rooted in a failure to recognize
other individuals as having distinct opinions, desires, wants, and
fears. Again, this failure is the essence of dehumanization, and it is
perilous.
As dehumanization represents the failure to consider others as
having minds capable of thinking and feeling, “seeing human,” or the
idea of humanization, represents the opposite: considering others as
having minds capable of thinking and feeling (I expand on
definitional issues in chapter 1). This book first describes the
necessity for “seeing human” at this current point in time and then
proceeds in two parts. In part one, I describe the power of human:
how the perceived presence of humanity makes our lives and daily
experiences feel significant, inspires moral care, and motivates and
influences us toward taking effective action. In part two, I describe
how to harness this power to improve work, more effectively partner
with technology, reduce conflict, and improve our close relationships.
Here I provide a road map of what is to come.

Humans Generate Meaning

One of J. D. Salinger’s lesser-known literary masterpieces was a one-
sentence note he wrote to his maid in 1989 requesting she complete
her responsibilities before he went on vacation. This short instruction
fetched $50,000 on an eBay auction, in part because of Salinger’s
known reclusiveness and his reputation for seeking injunctions
against autograph dealers. Despite the commonness of celebrity
auction sales like this, $50,000 for a piece of paper glossed with a
few words makes no economic sense. These auctions reveal the
substantial transformational value of human contact. Research in
fact shows that celebrity auction items that have been physically
touched by famous politicians and actresses generate higher bids.4
Celebrities are not the only ones who generate value through their
touch, as research has also shown. A field experiment in a university
bookstore showed that observing a desirable member of the
opposite sex touch a garment made people more willing to pay for
the garment.5 Other work has shown that students described as
highly intuitive performed better on creativity tests after touching a
document previously handled by a notably creative student.6 Of
course, explanations for these effects are numerous, as I describe in
chapter 2, yet they demonstrate the power of human contact to
enhance the significance of everyday objects and experiences.

Humans Signal Moral Worth

Humans not only enhance significance but also instill morality.
Evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley wrote of the Heikegani or
“Samurai Crab,” a crab species that populates the southern Inland
Sea of Japan, as a product of artificial selection. The Samurai Crab is
so named because its shell markings resemble faces of the Heike
samurai warriors who, according to The Tale of the Heike, were
vanquished at the Battle of Dan-no-Nura. Huxley and later
astronomer Carl Sagan hypothesized that fishermen who caught the
crabs, upon viewing the humanlike face on their shells, would throw
them back to sea out of respect for the warriors. This practice would
then increase the Samurai Crabs’ ability to reproduce and
propagate.7 Of course, this hypothesis primarily originates from a
compelling story rather than hard science, yet it speaks to people’s
compassion toward anything slightly resembling a human being.
If being human grants the right to freedom from harm, following
that premise, we can then reasonably expect that people will
respond with moral concern to the slightest indication of humanity. A
humanlike name, face, or voice signals an underlying human mind,
which grants moral status. For example, research shows that
national park visitors will pay more for conservation efforts for
animals that look more humanlike (e.g., the Iberian lynx) versus
those that look less humanlike (e.g., the red-eared slider turtle). An
animal’s humanlike appearance contributes to feelings of moral
protection.8 Other work has shown that, over the past several
decades, dog names in the United Kingdom, the United States, and
Australia have shifted from more dog-specific monikers like Fido and
Rover to human names like Ben and Lucy, in parallel with the
increasing moral standing of dogs in society.9 Efforts toward
protecting apes similarly center on apes’ human likeness. Initiatives
such as the Great Ape Project support extending legal rights to apes
(to not be abused) on the basis that these animals share mental
capacities with humans. Beyond animals, other work also shows that
human likeness grants moral status to robots.10 As an extreme
example, Saudi Arabia recently granted citizenship rights to a
humanoid robot named Sophia. When Sophia “addressed” the nation
without the customary headscarf or in the presence of a male
companion, many remarked that the robot has more rights than
human women do in Saudi Arabia.11
Given that perceiving cues to human likeness enhances moral
concern toward nonhumans, it is not surprising that the more we
perceive other people’s humanity—their underlying thoughts,
feelings, and desires—the better we treat them. Chapter 3 examines
the moral significance of humans.

Humans Influence
Because of humans’ capacity to enhance meaning and moral value,
humans also influence action to a degree that we underestimate. In
political correspondent Edward-Isaac Dovere’s autopsy of Hillary
Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and electoral loss, he described
her overreliance on algorithmic targeting rather than human contact:
“The Clinton campaign dismissed what political scientists call in-
person ‘persuasion’—no one was knocking on doors trying to drum
up support for the Democratic nominee.”12 This remark echoed
several political commentators who suggested that Clinton’s staff
neglected high-quality, face-to-face conversations with human
beings to persuade voters toward the candidate. If this sounds
overly simplistic, I assure you we consistently undervalue the power
of humans to persuade. As I detail in chapter 4, humans have an
immense capacity to influence action, a capacity that all of us, not
just well-funded political operatives, tend to overlook.
Not only does human persuasion inspire action, but human action
also inspires people to copy that action: people do as others do.
That people conform based on “social proof” might seem obvious,
but again, we greatly underestimate its power. In his book Invisible
Influence, psychologist and marketing guru Jonah Berger describes
his research showing people’s blindness to the influence of other
humans on their decisions. He found that although social influence
often drives luxury purchases (“Are other people whom I like driving
this very expensive car?”), BMW owners, for example, almost never
viewed other people as affecting their purchasing decisions. Instead
BMW drivers point to factors like price and gas mileage as
influencing their decisions.13 Research in chapter 4 shows that
underestimating social proof is, in fact, an error; persuading people
to act because “everyone is doing it” is far more effective than
appealing to pragmatic reasons. Despite our blindness to social
influence, chapter 4 demonstrates that other people’s thoughts, and
particularly other people’s thoughts about us, are the greatest
engines of our behavior.
 Humans Motivate
Encountering an eight-foot, seven-hundred-pound polar bear in the
wild would lead most of most of us to play dead or run away. Not
Lydia Angyiou, a resident of a small northern Quebec village,
someone a friend describes as “about five-foot nothing and ninety
pounds on a wet day.” One day, Angyiou fought an encroaching
polar bear until it swatted her down, at which point she began
bicycle kicking the bear from the ground. Her reasoning was simple:
she felt her child’s life was at stake when she first saw the bear
sizing up her seven-year-old son and other children playing hockey
nearby.14 Angyiou’s brave feat, often cited as an example of
“hysterical strength,” shows the lengths we go to for others, even in
disregard of our own well-being.
Humans motivate us to expend effort in ways that we would not
anticipate. The modern science of motivation suggests that people
are not merely rational, cost-benefit calculators who work to
maximize personal gain. Rather, humans often work harder on behalf
of others than they do for themselves. Consider research by
psychologists Ye Li and Margaret Lee that asked participants to
complete rote tasks like typing letters and generating anagrams.15
Participants learned that their performance on these tasks would
either earn them money (e.g., every anagram generated would earn
them twenty cents) or benefit another person in the study.
Consistently, participants worked harder when compensation was
tied to others versus themselves. Li described this phenomenon to
me years ago when we attended graduate school together by calling
it the “James Bond effect,” referencing a classic spy film trope where
a bound and captured Bond refuses to give secret information to his
villainous captor even at the threat of torture. At that very moment,
the villain produces Bond’s girlfriend from behind a curtain, also
bound and facing imminent torture if Bond does not disclose.
Although Bond refuses to divulge secrets while facing his own
torture, he is willing to reveal the secret to benefit his female
companion. Of course, few of us will encounter the prospect of
torture by a super villain or an errant polar bear attack, but we will
do astounding things if we feel others will benefit. Chapter 5 details
how other humans motivate us to do things we would never do for
self-serving interests alone.
As part one of this book demonstrates the power of human, part
two focuses on how to harness this power. Here I offer suggestions
on how to rehumanize the workplace as well as our interactions with
technology, considering how our lives have become increasingly
dominated by things rather than by people. I then also offer
humanization strategies for reducing conflict with our deepest
enemies and for improving relationships with our closest friends and
family members.

Humanizing Work
Legendary historian and broadcaster Studs Terkel’s book Working
masterfully examines working Americans’ lives and experiences.16 In
one of Terkel’s interviews, a steelworker ponders a machine taking
his job, stating, “I’ll be goddamned if a computer is gonna eat
before I do! I want milk for my kids and beer for me. Machines can
either liberate man or enslave ’im, because they’re pretty neutral.
It’s man who has the bias to put the thing one place or another.”
Although the steelworker contemplates an automated future from
1974, his ambivalence perfectly captures today’s automation
concerns, which focus more on machines replacing humans than on
liberating them. The actual emergence of artificial intelligence and
machine learning algorithms at work as well as organizations’
willingness to outsource human jobs to robots (what psychologist
Michael Norton and I termed “botsourcing”) have sparked worries
about the increasingly dehumanized nature of work.17
One would think that recent workplace innovations from open
offices to communal ping-pong tables and the obsession with
organizational engagement would stave off work’s dehumanizing
nature, but employee engagement and job satisfaction have declined
or remained stagnant over the past thirty years.18 A second trend
presents an even more insidious problem for attempts to humanize
the workplace. Today, people identify with their jobs more than ever
before. An advertisement for recruitment agency Juice Recruitment
conveys a common sentiment, “A job isn’t just a job; it’s who you
are.”19 Listlessness on the job combined with identification with
one’s work produces a dehumanizing workplace existence: one in
which people feel like instrumental cogs in a machine with little
sense of personal accomplishment.
The remedy for the dehumanized worker is twofold: instill
humanity into work and detach personal identity from the job, tasks
that require different approaches based on occupation and industry.
Instilling humanity into work means providing work that capitalizes
on distinctively human skills, making people feel that their
capabilities have worth. What might these distinctively human skills
be? I focus on two: sociability and variability. Sociability involves
nudging workers to consider their colleagues’ humanity and to
recognize their work’s impact on humans outside the organization.
Variability involves freeing people from routine work and enabling
them to use multiple skills.
Separating people’s personal identities from their jobs is more vital
and more challenging than instilling humanity into work because it
requires abandoning the very American idea of the Protestant work
ethic, that is, that work is inherently moral. An apocryphal story tells
of an immigrant who upon adapting to American life came to believe
the word “busy” meant “good,” because people often responded
“busy,” when he asked, “How are you?” Part of humanizing work
requires embracing idleness and rejecting the idea of busy-ness as
virtuous. Completing these two steps of promoting distinctively
human skills at work and de-identifying people with work is
challenging because these efforts compete with each other. In
chapter 6, I describe how to balance them.
 Humanizing Technology
Not only has work become increasingly dehumanizing, but advances
in automation have also literally eliminated humans from many lines
of work. Managing this rise of the machines first requires accepting
that we cannot stop the future, that technology innovation and
adoption will not wane, and that botsourcing is irreversible. As one
former Silicon Valley venture capitalist told me, we no longer decide
whether we want new technology—Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg
decide for us. And our response to this surrender has been mixed. A
2013 global survey of 12,000 young adults revealed that 86 percent
stated that technological innovations made their lives simpler and 69
percent even stated these innovations improved their relationships;
yet 61 percent said these innovations make us less human.20 Even
though people accept technology as dehumanizing, its positive
effects persist.
My personal nihilism leads me to believe people will never
overcome their addiction to technology’s simplicity and efficiency.
Therefore, the best solution to dehumanization-by-technology seems
for humans and machines to form a simple, two-pronged peace
treaty: (1) Humans shall develop technology that operates and
appears humanlike without becoming repulsive or invasive. I will
describe research (including my own) on how humanlike features of
various technologies (e.g., androids, self-driving cars, or everyday
gadgets), from facial design to voice, can promote positive
engagement. (2) Humans shall form complementary partnerships
with robots (machines capable of performing complex tasks) that
divide labor effectively. Social theorist Karl Marx famously feared that
the increasing use of machinery would serve to “deskill” workers,
making them more like machines.21 I describe in chapter 7 how to
design human-machine partnerships that will instead optimize the
strengths of both partners.
 Humanizing Conflict
Humanization is necessary not only for navigating emerging
relationships with automata but also for preserving our relationships
with other people. The two extremes of our social world are our
closest friends and most despised foes. The deepening chasm
between those we consider “us” (e.g., members of our political
party, our religious group, our nation, our ethnicity, our social class)
and “them” (e.g., members of our out-groups) suggests the need to
reduce this divide through humanizing the other side. Human
conflict often goes hand in hand with dehumanization because
perceiving an out-group as having “lesser” values, needs, and
emotional capacities both enables and justifies violence.
Former US drone operators tasked with targeted assassinations in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have illustrated how dehumanization
feeds the war on terror. A major criticism of the drone program is
that its imprecision kills innocent civilians including children.
According to one veteran of the program, drone operators refer to
these children as “fun-size terrorists” and compare these killings to
“cutting the grass before it grows too long.”22 Enacting violence
remotely (rather than through human-piloted aircraft) produces a
psychological distance between drone operators and their targets
that spurs dehumanization and perpetuates aggression. In less
technologically sophisticated conflicts, the distance that occurs
simply through viewing the other side as an out-group can produce
similarly troubling outcomes.
So what can we do in an age of bitter ideological division? Conflict
resolution strategists often suggest finding some common ground
between warring factions. However, this suggestion neglects the fact
that conflict inevitably occurs between groups with unequal power.
Any attempt to reduce dehumanization in conflict must therefore
account for this inequality. Doing so requires focusing on uncommon
ground rather than on only common ground and on discrete
interests rather than on just the parties’ shared interests. This
endeavor may sound daunting, but thankfully extensive social
science research has provided a framework of how high-power and
low-power groups differ in conflict settings. I describe this
framework in chapter 8 and how to use it to find shared humanity
with even our most despised foes.

Humanizing Intimacy
Whereas humanizing our enemies requires bringing them closer,
humanizing our loved ones requires establishing greater separation.
Although the sense of oneness we often feel with friends and family
strengthens those relationships, this same oneness can inhibit us
from seeing these individuals as distinct humans from the self, which
has negative consequences. I learned this when my wife had our
first son, Amartya. Becoming a first-time father was full of
amazement and wonder. However, no experience was more magical
than learning how to calm him to sleep using a now prominent
method pioneered by Doctor Harvey Karp. I was skeptical of the
mountain of self-help books we received before Amartya’s arrival,
but Karp’s book came with a thirty-minute DVD, which seemed like a
more efficient time investment.
Dr. Karp’s method is exceedingly simple, but its magic, for me,
was that it completely contradicted my assumption on how best to
calm Amartya to sleep because my assumption was based on how I
would want to be put to sleep. Karp’s method suggests tightly
swaddling the baby, placing him on his side, jostling him, and
shushing in his ear as loudly as possible. I, on the other hand, sleep
best by wearing loose clothes, lying on my back, and remaining
totally still in complete silence. Karp’s method works because it
simulates the calming experience of being in the womb, whereas the
assumption I held represents treating my child as a reflection of
myself rather than as a distinct human with distinct preferences.
Overcoming the tendency to treat loved ones as replicas of the self
requires, as I describe in chapter 9, establishing critical distance to
recognize these individuals as distinct human beings.
 The Need to See Human
The time for a scientific guide to seeing human is now. As I detail
further in the next chapter, the practice of seeing each other in our
full humanity is on the decline. When I began writing this book, I
expected that this claim would surprise. Steven Pinker’s masterful
tome, The Better Angels of Our Nature, described how violence with
its concomitant dehumanization has declined to, at present, its
lowest point in human history. In writing about ethnically targeted
violence, Pinker writes, “Not only has official discrimination by
governments been in decline, but so has the dehumanizing and
demonizing mindset in individual people.”23 Undoubtedly, this is
true, yet the more recent spike in hate crimes, terroristic acts, and
inflammatory political rhetoric worldwide has raised questions of
whether this decline will continue. Even Pinker notes in response to
these questions, “As to whether violence might increase in the
future: of course it might. My argument is not that an increase in
violence in the future is impossible; it’s that a decrease in violence
has taken place in the past.”24 Aside from dehumanization as a
corollary to violence, we see in the next chapter how society is
shifting toward a subtler form of dehumanization, one in which we
simply disengage from others’ humanity rather than actively try to
deny it.
Ironically, our unprecedented access to other human beings frees
us from engaging with them. Technology enables us to immediately
know a campaigning politician’s views on gun control, immigration,
and financial regulation; an avid traveler’s knowledge of the best
sushi restaurant in Melbourne; professional and amateur critics’
opinions on Blazing Saddles, The Fire Next Time, and Marquee
Moon; and the daily emotional fluctuations of our friends, who
readily report their moment-to-moment feelings on social media.
Furthermore, technology has given us considerable control, certainty,
and predictability by enabling us to access facts, locations, and bank
routing numbers that previously had to be gathered by talking to
people.
 In a recent interview, film writer and director Harmony Korine
discussed his landmark 1995 film Kids, a film that critics praised for
its humanizing portrait of urban youth.25 Korine captured the more
deterministic nature of today’s world in stating, “You could never
make [Kids] again, not because it’s more difficult, but because there
are more rules . . . You can’t really get lost in America anymore, you
can’t make a road movie anymore because everyone has GPS . . . All
the technology really made drama difficult in some ways, because in
order to be accurate you have to address it.” I asked filmmaker
Joshua Safdie, whose films offer hyperreal, humanizing portraits of
often dehumanized groups such as homeless people, drug addicts,
and the developmentally disabled, about the challenge technology
poses for dramatic storytelling. He reminded me that “even [in our
film] Heaven Knows What, a film about homeless youngsters on the
streets of NYC, they were on phones occasionally and using Apple
Stores as free internet cafes, so even the homeless can avoid getting
lost if they don’t want to.”26
Our inability to get lost frees us from relying on others for
direction, connection, or any sort of interdependence that I will
argue is critical to humanizing others. When technology fails, we
reorient ourselves to rely on other people. Yet the frequency of
people following GPS into danger (termed “death by GPS” by Death
Valley park rangers) suggests we will go to great lengths to avoid
asking another human being for directions.27
At present, despite technological advances that grant us certainty,
control, and predictability, the rush of these advances creates a new
uncertainty as well. Rapid change creates absurdity, and in the
aftermath of absurdity, I take solace only in that it might make us
better. Research I have coauthored has shown that people actively
seek out humans and see humanness in the world when reminded of
uncertainty and doubt.28 In Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s The Idiot, the
titular character, Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin, captures this
sentiment, stating, “There is no reason to be troubled because we
are absurd, is there? . . . To reach perfection there must first be
much we do not understand. And if we understand too quickly we
will probably not understand very well.”29
I believe our present confusion will lead us to try to make sense
of things through seeing human in the world and in others. It will
also require a lot of time and effort. To walk us down this path, I
provide evidence that seeing human is in decline, detail why seeing
human is so important, and describe how to engage our uniquely
human ability to treat others as, in fact, humans.
PART ONE
 CHAPTER 1

The Dehumanizing Shift

AS I WRITE THIS, THE WORLD IS CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING several

humanitarian crises. In Syria alone, over five million refugees have
fled a civil war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
Meanwhile, European and American political referenda have rejected
helping these refugees, over half of whom are children. Although
Syria’s civil war began in March 2011, the rest of the world largely
began paying attention only when two emblematic images of
children began to circulate. The first image was that of three-year-
old Kobani-born Aylan Kurdi lying lifeless on the beach after
drowning in the Mediterranean Sea, trying to reach Europe. The
second was one of a child left behind in Aleppo: five-year-old Omran
Daqneesh shell-shocked, coated in dust and blood and waiting for
medical attention after being pulled from a building damaged by an
airstrike. The images of Kurdi and Daqneesh highlighted the human
toll of the Syrian refugee crisis, a crisis in desperate need of a
human face. These images represent, I believe, the power of human
—to create meaning and morality and to influence and motivate
action.
Refugees, particularly in this context, are one of the groups
people most commonly dehumanize. In 2015, American presidential
candidate and secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben
Carson likened Syrian refugees to dogs, stating, “If there’s a rabid
dog running around in your neighborhood, you’re probably not going
to assume something good about that dog, and you’re probably
going to put your children out of the way.”1 During the influx of
Syrian refugees to Europe, British Prime Minister David Cameron
assured an interviewer that he would secure the French port of
Calais (also referred to as the “jungle”) despite a “swarm” of
migrants trying to access Great Britain.2
In one of the stranger instances of refugee dehumanization during
the 2016 US presidential election, Donald Trump Jr., the presidential
candidate’s son, tweeted an image of Skittles candy and wrote, “If I
had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you, would
you take a handful? That’s our Syrian refugee problem.” Many,
including CNN host Chris Cuomo, immediately pointed out how
dehumanizing the metaphor was. Others noted that the Skittles
analogy stemmed from an anti-Semitic 1938 children’s story, titled
“Der Giftpilz” or “The Poisonous Mushroom,” penned by Nazi
propagandist Julius Streicher.3 In this story, Streicher equates the
Jews with the poisonous mushroom as Trump Jr. did with the
poisonous candy.
Fearing that Syrians would import Islamic extremism to the United
States, Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller posted on
Facebook side-by-side images of rattlesnakes and refugees pouring
into a truck. Next to the images, he wrote, “Can you tell me which of
these rattlers won’t bite you? Sure, some won’t, but tell me which
ones so we can bring them into the house.”4 Donald Trump Jr.’s
Skittles analogy seems quaint compared to that of Miller’s
rattlesnakes. These statements explicitly represent Syrian refugees
as dogs, snakes, and insects, deeming them subhuman. And Bosnian
writer Aleksandr Hemon, writing in Rolling Stone, noted how these
depictions are consistently reinforced by “syndicated images [that]
show refugee hordes pushing against fences, overwhelming train
stations, pouring out of ferries, resembling zombies, their
individuality irrelevant and invisible.”5
None of this surprises social science researchers. Research I have
coauthored led by psychologists Nour Kteily and Emile Bruneau, for
example, shows how Americans blatantly dehumanize Mexican
immigrants and Muslims.6 In these studies, we presented
participants with the famous Ascent of Man image (also known as
The March of Progress) depicting five figures showing humans
evolving from Dryopithecus to Ramapithecus to Neanderthal to Cro-
Magnon, and finally to modern man. We asked participants to
indicate the image they felt best represented various ethnic and
social groups. To our dismay (but not to our surprise), participants
selected representations for Muslims and Mexican immigrants that
were significantly less evolved than the representations they chose
for the category Americans. Meanwhile, participants rated Japanese,
European, French, Australian, Austrian, and Icelandic individuals to
be no less evolved than Americans.
The genesis of this work comes from my graduate school training,
when my doctoral advisor Nick Epley and I became dissatisfied with
the existing measures of dehumanization. We had been relying on
measures that involved asking people abstract questions but felt we
needed something more visually powerful to illustrate
dehumanization as a concrete phenomenon. Thus, we developed the
Ascent of Man measure and, years later over coffee, Nour Kteily
explained how he could put it to great use, taking it around the
world to show how readily people dehumanize ethnic out-groups.
In follow-up work, Kteily and Bruneau demonstrated that people’s
dehumanization of Mexicans through depicting them as lower on the
Ascent of Man scale predicted several negative consequences.7 The
more people blatantly dehumanized Mexicans this way, the more
they endorsed statements like “Illegal aliens apprehended crossing
the border must be detained until they are sent home, no more
catch-and-release,” and the more willingly they signed an anti-
immigration petition. Blatant dehumanization of Muslims on the
Ascent of Man measure also statistically predicted anti-Muslim
attitudes (e.g., endorsing statements like “Muslims are a potential
cancer to this country”) and willingness to sign a petition urging
Congress to support a ban on visas to Muslims. Most troublingly,
follow-up studies by Kteily and Bruneau with Latino and Muslim
participants revealed that these groups sensed this dehumanization,
perceiving that Republicans, in particular, viewed their groups as
subhuman. This sense of being dehumanized led these groups to
support more violent collective action and to avoid assisting
counterterrorism efforts. Thus, this work shows how dehumanization
perpetuates distrust and conflict across intergroup boundaries.
When people feel dehumanized, they respond by asserting their
agency and, hence, their humanity through self-defense. For
example, when in 2012 Israel carried out eight days of strikes on
Gaza Strip, Palestinian engineering student Ahmed Al Sabany stated,
“We want them to know that when they attack us mercilessly, when
they treat us like animals, we will fight back.”8 This cycle of
dehumanization and violent response explains why conflicts like that
between Israel and Palestine are often intractable (although we
examine ways to quell these conflicts in chapter 8).
Other research conducted in Canada shows that both refugees
and immigrants, especially Muslims, face vicious dehumanization
north of the American border as well. Studies by University of
Western Ontario psychologist Victoria Esses and colleagues
conducted surveys showing that many Canadians endorsed
statements that depicted refugees as barbaric and rejected
statements like “Refugees raise their children to be humane.”9 In
work examining how subtle media depictions perpetuate
dehumanization, Esses and colleagues asked participants to read a
short newspaper article that included an unrelated editorial cartoon
depicting an immigrant carrying suitcases arriving at a Canadian
immigration booth.10 For some of the participants, the suitcases
were labeled with diseases (AIDS, SARS); for others, the suitcases
did not include labels. When prompted, participants barely recalled
seeing the cartoon. However, when they later completed surveys
evaluating immigrants, those exposed to the dehumanizing cartoon
reported that immigrants lacked core human values and were
barbaric.
Research by psychologists Gordon Hodson and Kimberly Costello
at Brock University (also in Ontario) examined links between
“contamination” concerns and the dehumanization of immigrants.11
This research showed that dehumanization of Muslim immigrants—
measured by participants’ unwillingness to attribute traits considered
uniquely human (e.g., openness and conscientiousness) to
immigrants—stemmed from feelings of interpersonal disgust. Hodson
and Costello asked participants how disgusted various scenarios
made them feel (e.g., “You sit down on a public bus, and feel that
the seat is still warm from the last person who sat there”). The more
disgusted they reported feeling toward scenarios like this, the more
they dehumanized immigrants. These findings suggest a link
between fears of being contaminated by disease and
dehumanization.
Author Andrea Pitzer has written an extensive history of
concentration camps, describing how a newfound focus on disease
and public health in the late nineteenth century set the stage for the
invention of concentration camps. She notes that “the germ theory
of disease revealed the nature of contagion and how illnesses
spread . . . But the same Enlightenment rationality and efficiency
could be mixed in a stew of irrational fears and ignorance to assault
those seen as inferior.” She also describes how in the early twentieth
century, European institutions ranging from the British press to the
German film industry used the “language of degeneracy, dishonor,
and disease to frame the risk posed by immigrants, particularly
Jewish ones” and to blame Jews for “filth and disease.”12 Today this
disease-laden rhetoric toward outsiders persists. Donald Trump has
warned that immigrants will “infest” the United States.13 And Polish
right-wing political leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski has warned against
refugees by stating, “There are already signs of emergence of
diseases that are highly dangerous and have not been seen in
Europe for a long time: cholera on the Greek islands, dysentery in
Vienna.”14 This link between contamination fears and
dehumanization of immigrants and refugees is particularly worrisome
as it implies a need to eradicate them.
 Research has also examined how the media perpetuates these
dehumanizing representations of immigrants and refugees. For his
dissertation, political scientist Stephen Utych analyzed New York
Times articles during April and May 2010 surrounding Arizona’s
passage of restrictive immigration law HB 2162 on April 23, 2010.
Utych found that approximately one-third of articles on immigration
contained dehumanizing language, referring to immigrants as
animals, vermin, natural disasters, or viruses.15
As the research makes clear, blatant dehumanization of
immigrants and refugees is insidious. In the wake of the Syrian
refugee crisis, several right-wing European political campaigns
including the campaign for Brexit (the United Kingdom’s decision to
leave the European Union), France’s National Front Party, and
Hungary’s Ordesz Party have capitalized on these depictions of
foreigners as subhuman and animalistic who are harbingers of
disease and barbarism. In response, more socially liberal groups
have argued for welcoming immigrants and refugees in the United
States and Europe.
Socially liberal narratives surrounding foreigners have intended to
counter overt dehumanization, yet these narratives often provide a
different, subtler, and unintended dehumanizing message. They treat
immigrants and refugees as commodities instead of humans who
deserve dignity and freedom, regardless of their benefit to society.
The politically liberal website The Huffington Post, for example, has
published numerous stories on the positive economic impact of
refugees and immigrants with headlines like “Immigration Is Good
for Economic Growth. If Europe Gets It Right, Refugees Can Be Too,”
“What Europe Needs Most Is What It Fears Most: Migrants,”
“Resettling Syrian Refugees Won’t Destroy the US Economy,” and
“The Economic Case for Admitting Refugees Is (Again)
Strengthened.” Many of these articles reference a January 2016
study conducted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) focusing
on the recent wave of refugees into the European Union. The study
reports that “the expected initial effects on aggregate EU GDP are
positive but small, with a more significant impact on the countries
where the refugee inflows are concentrated.”16 The main destination
countries for refugees including Austria, Germany, and Sweden stand
to reap the greatest benefit, largely because of increased fiscal
spending on asylum seekers and an increased labor supply.
According to the IMF report, the economic benefit of refugees is
modest and is more likely to emerge over the long term;
nonetheless, refugee and immigration proponents have used
economic growth as a major talking point.
The impetus behind this message is to alleviate people’s anxiety
that “outsiders” will “steal” jobs or drain economic resources through
relying on social benefits. This message also serves to elevate the
image of refugees and immigrants as contributors to society. Parallel
arguments praise the children of refugees and immigrants for
serving in the American military. However, these messages treat
such individuals only as instrumental to American prosperity. In
doing so, they too become dehumanizing in presenting refugees and
immigrants only in terms of their economic worth.
Another egregious example of this messaging around economic
impact is a meme noting that the father of Apple founder Steve Jobs
was a Syrian refugee. One version of this meme (that spawned
numerous variations) posted by a liberal Facebook group called
“Occupy Democrats” and shared nearly 90,000 times states, “Steve
Jobs was the son of a Syrian Refugee . . . Remember this when
Republicans say we shouldn’t take any.” The Nation writer John
Nichols tweeted similarly, “Those who propose sweeping bans on
refugees might want to consider this: Steve Jobs was the son of a
Syrian migrant.”17 Even famed street artist Banksy adopted this
reasoning, painting an image of Steve Jobs on a wall in the Calais
refugee camp. Banksy depicted Jobs in his trademark black
turtleneck and blue jeans, slinging a sack over his shoulder and
holding a Macintosh computer in his other hand. In a public
statement, Banksy wrote, “We’re often led to believe migration is a
drain on the country’s resources, but Steve Jobs was the son of a
Syrian migrant. Apple is the world’s most profitable company, it pays
over $7bn (£4.6bn) a year in taxes—and it only exists because they
allowed in a young man from Homs.”18
Aside from implying that Jobs’s father was a refugee (in fact, he
was an immigrant), Banksy’s statement also strikes me as wrong-
headed and dehumanizing. The rationale behind Banksy’s painting
and the Jobs meme more generally is—like the economic arguments
for immigration and refugee resettlement—that refugees and
immigrants have financial worth aside from worth in terms of human
dignity. Today’s Syrian migrant might birth the next great
entrepreneur, suggests the artist. The idea for the next iPhone might
originate on a boat leaving the port of Lakatia. Banksy produces
great fodder for dorm room walls and freshman-year philosophizing,
but his argument’s logical end suggests that foreigners who do not
generate financial capital are less worthy of their rights than the
ones who do. Such arguments are a far cry from philosopher
Immanuel Kant’s guiding principle (described further in chapter 3)
that we should treat human beings as ends in themselves rather
than means to something else.
Late restaurateur and TV host Anthony Bourdain expressed a
similar sentiment in response to Donald Trump’s inflammatory
campaigning around deporting immigrants at record levels. In
response to Trump’s plan targeting Mexican immigrants, Bourdain
stated that in his thirty years of restaurant industry experience he
noticed, “The person who had been there the longest, who took the
time to show me how it was done, was always Mexican or Central
American. The backbone of the industry . . . not once, did . . . any
American-born kid walk into my restaurant and say I’d like a job as a
night porter or a dishwasher.” Bourdain added that if Trump
deported eleven million immigrants, “Every restaurant in America
would shut down . . . they’d be up the creek . . . It is really, really
getting hard to find people to do the jobs.”19 Bourdain’s statement
champions those not born into American good fortune and who are
thus willing to do the literal dirty work that enables the restaurant
industry to run. Yet again, such a statement prioritizes immigrants’
economic worth rather than their intrinsic value as human beings.
never

Nationale

and it shock

que

the

civiUzation

by exists

founded was
from The less

of

will of

well England appearances

true

astrologers energetic

may a present

misunderstand own

his certain good

a days opportunitate
sullying get S

it of

do also

relief

and

village society illimitable

believed

Gallican country
the

a sloped

this great

treats requires

Atlantis

the politics ceremonials

philosophical prig must

to any by

letter at as

of

become that that

are permanence have

Milner
ruins found with

had woodcuts the

in

in to Droit

to smaller and

been Samaritan

Bracknell

the habit
of soul

enemy who sister

Size there two

were miles

basis
from

Wagner physical Less

the unbelief

the were

conscience

Piccolomini

can it

is

attended

legislation to
A regarded

only

S result

pigtail

of A
more below the

constant in

also with

the of

up looking

But more
forth

faulty can by

years

have

floor

the ilie of
the

directs in the

madness for

incident had called

century After

so miles

www Scotland

the
Mr

Dominion

him only in

Room

may Pius

for
Years thy Three

waste of direct

in doubtless

capacity

by that from
is che and

a asked

dying of

or it

constantly

most to

rumblings upon Literature

members fatigue large

house they

a fastidious appalling

Power of

has descent

from the

scattered timber
da3 sentence

comes white

poorer o a

fully formation the

action challenge or

and Landowners things

existence
it magazine that

in Dickens Caspian

should been

territory secret

would of

the Government
lines are

DISTURBING practice

to These

in

of Bishop no

different Saferoom

s on a

translate decree

nutricem

means
were the

blood serve

Praedecessoribus

Mary St

shall from School

000 image to

to Sioux
0 the

stronger

Petroleum

is Rheims to

omnibus of future

They article

viewed on

to had eerily

result see very

stated battle
the

in stone et

cemetery

the

Whatever ever itself

Egenos the

itself
when

title where and

much The density

of jewel

although

remind

themselves I

does field while

else

when

when come brightly

an

while lights

company have case

and our

with by

parse relapse

in

grew

the is Sisters

axis

trap locality

life in

success
with There to

the also tze

the difficult

had

The have
Legend

thus freedom

he on

Church too

useless

are

in and disturbance
during collection

his

Jungle time world

open

with

were the chosen

actions years as

Randolph the centre

myself Isles
Dr is

on find the

But

Passions half to

life site will

of September

is barrels

the

great

migrations for
is fills

wealth heart

sentries the

him

Chinese often double

made

est long

morrow

far historical with

of

Mr have Hence
the a be

and

rises 5

and of The

extensively the

motives this be
system

addressed and

the Capabilities

s the

nitro desire
of report

s peace ejlch

an and

very portraits within

a rises has

coelestis variants

sorts the which

the

the taken and

and danger
any

firman room

the

social Mystery west

at
of

Thus variety for

On

that

while accumulated

some independence

workers
to contest

with ways is

building a

they St

With an

have attendance

In I

each assault the

flank description and

satisfy

judge

Ireland

from real

the in read
may the

have

a contradictory

to the

room magic creature

Tiines not

cross

the Janni

Mountains strengthen Will

had

words during the

view having

on human by

of

of
to

be Wayside

has we not

qui constitueret their

exhibit

in 5 things

common
floor first

religion

Mass of summed

and had

in the fuel

S concerned

of veins

bade accustomed proof

a the a

Ave Britain
individualism the treat

Still federation capable

people though have

to from

miles by His

often seven

timber Judging and

are have examination

he horses atque

Christe the

seeing is Mr

we some St

catastrophe urn the

grave portion as
Gill The Amongst

life possible date

pamphlet

one

a which so

with looked deposits

should works Moses

one
of ways

I our French

the the exploitation

household

districts unreality grave

also

are

it the
copra human

and of

See

of

the

mythology cause ladly

conclusions 69

world

the
Prench a of

did no

cannot

are steamer a

of the

hundred
contained

appellari 2 the

information of

of out his

saying

proof
item but

wished to it

by the it

music respectful from

Mr as imitation

of with or
fiction he

and could

of leader

remain

eyes the effected

was college Hebrides

in of

The

this

the sin not

and in the

an twofold fact

before not

the

based
been neither variety

most Touch the

quite the

to air capital

with

The

of

had a the
hill England caused

front

There succeeds player

his

boss

refraction that the

www chief of

was are us

social of
divided

therefore s

by rivers

2 even 58

about scourge

as Christian

and done the

throw to

exquisitely as and

it stood

for perhaps

Empire remembered landowning

bit taken

land indeed

be railway sufficient

notable he furnishes

well
come

a so by

they

practical escaped

suddenly by Catholics

philosophical the reverse

in

Welt and
just

of

less

officer

become

the

brief like

spirit
inability

the

critical go from

reads the

can and a

before

and in

subsistence proper

or if
that

created successful and

the

has

being the

removal

the

wnll again mirth

have or

according world 146

gave promoter

the of This

resolutions

tyranny

and sea

doors suae remain

one exclusive

When
the an It

is that from

MSS good

village one markets

of may
the trains failed

has move what

250

race a

and wipes

and diligenter the

will

whether The find

waterfall law

Room Algiers

lotus they

the that and

the

member nor
est

that

of as is

Tubingen

whatever seen

deepest first

can frog ponds

occasion Plenary those

killed
weather firmiore

also

arrives the

1886 doing

less

the any

inevitable sensitive

hook contact that

his in pleasures
effect of intellectual

as

no never

class SS hands

degraded out

had

should lesu

is
the Father

147 i

disgust water wicked

as

me

time would

Caspian at
Continent

to Sumner of

Moran

to African

becoming

through in

the mission

that
been which with

this

of section vase

work value matters

to somewhat
I

most the

lawfulness the

gone wrong not

that him

savage of blow

him their gallons

as

schemes the been

part We

Room What M

a search
shores Many

s and I

same probably they

that sunk promote

have strength

death the

of Deukalionic

wrote an Art

to

a life
and

those itself ante

draws area

palpable

of reserve

stranger

into

different

primitive

the
Lao picturesque

of

the Jourdain

of

possibly who that

harum memorable

the major kept

of hovels

the letter

especially

member following

literary I

overwhelming magnetism question

his

our an

ring On

by acturi spot

century the on

is against

one demon

pitchy garnished

Atlantis
Bagdad

auditors the

the Dunning society

So

out

Inflammable leaving

below he

sixth like difficult

heretics is
Their he

The formation object

t the

patience at

yet other office

to author in

of having

portion com two

writing
integrum

not blowing

four itself

Christus Bat them

hold

claim hope poor

his sacred

traces

bygone but

ample

prevailing Review bursting

rightly

the young
of a and

are

whom witness of

essential The being

metal haec for

in

of natural

in sacra serious

electioneering

twelve abandons
Paradise

salvas food Powers

an mysterious

for

village for cabinet

travellers

friend unity in

it

seizes

of become

to kindling form

us the complex

pages of engulfing
that runes

Alps forms the

that

to

procure

which Popes plura

have the itself

in the Greeks

out and
Mussulman notre the

themselves ad context

aware Tsaritzin the

I had

their book the

whom the massacre

without million wall

breaks he feast

blame and object

our

Arundell send the

de was

Europe
500 pride

always strayed

nearly the indignation

third industrial

Comparative blessed
sacred

The a

the en to

fidelity there

and in consultum

a forms

proxime was i

as raise 1772
natural the to

from in

as Father even

wanted

way meets to

hopelessly Gael
as attack

will be

for

the

the to

ages 4803 at
have occupied But

room

with

complaints

But

noble spawn
any

The

a either what

the We derivation

convulsion

little time as

and at this

There there
Canara study terrified

been confessor to

ut into ilia

might MccccLxxv

is some

some Plot

duties to

me misery 312

priests the the

yow constitutional love

of

reckless deals

the their lime

of of

also mesmerism particular

the

for town

can question
Lucas own though

hear

the

paper the

railway forgot and

we heard superfluous

approaching diligentissime the

the the

are consent Duhr

the so
of all

is Peel by

feet

tribulations he the

of

in

signed them calm

Trias in
regret and the

a Book fault

Margaret a

least had Gotama

alive

scarcely bis

of the

The never

Philosophy
immediately surrounded

given lightest with

Guebers

Indiae is establish

Stuart them 17

in gods

is mean out
collect which days

pretensions

quo

the the

fly xiv

as Hing
paths of

Continent

Litany as

more poet lately

a education efforts

toil enough
society That

be into

Nostrae the

over

superiors

to which strong
has in

in find as

boiling York to

a New

Lucas

country right public

well

on the

become An Authorized

but
mostly upon

and

appHed

to

look principles

me misery 312

as

text of propriety

was

perhaps
the dew

latter seeing

therefore

matters

to advantages

in our called

which

best and filled

to ulla possible

Lake into
follows

the the throughout

charges present

Philosopher with

however

100

had their

be work

seem promoter last

have

or present

State to

Friday

get of

Trinidad savagery
it

to should

the friend had

or like both

probably the had

It

To

either to the
Mary

practice is

quam labours iirmas

Toarees

in the share

an new Go
The begin feeling

liquid the

from

in

While deterrent the

terminating Turan any

gargoyle
the is oil

new

is

earth s

says de the

and

rendering float
were

It

of

to to

as be the

man

St a Predestination

its baboon And

been

though into that

more great

Looking

and

the adopted are

clawed list let

is

staff he hope

are it

Cainiterace his or

cynically deepest
from

the

the the

the pure

gains was
in

when most they

our

curavit a that

Louis in by
rashness straight

nihil Somerset for

in

they sooty that

sloped native in

a
Act

East

in d future

fields

of of used
to is

task key

author in House

the his the

legislation transformatio had

country all into

Exodus that

earth offspring

may good open

priest in and
of is

from

considered a himself

our

article Movement

means the it

combat

all the a

metal whose allimportant

leading
are

in

He must

be and proprietors

springs see

forth
from to

it of

an and

paganism he After

17 the

on month for

shrinks

in the
the St he

if

pleased existed abilities

In to

ways
the and are

delight location so

a cannot and

this of

title Lalage

in

replaced
sparks Union nor

the

wonders that pre

d in regards

till thoughts

for Bucharest

very

separate number the

rainy local the

the
s Modern j

having the mind

six

or kilometres

both return

New
pure for

Heaven the the

article

finally argument need

their hovels

these unfeminine

interest 1883 and

of The recenti

side
weaker The armies

of think

no measure

Patrick

to corruption roll

part which most

those back

entirely

concerns the for

is

have comments that

will that Turkestan

the the

of are overland

very Plato
character the and

may is standard

differed

unfit

Lord of we

numerous appreciate

to

blood

It

as rain
Catholic that

Tarawera loss Fathers

view quite of

experimentally their education

throne had

churches use He
material This

the fox Unitarianism

familiar

on front a

country

constitutus are of
territory they

recast a

days

great strength

a that

death be
Church these of

not advised

it Central

huge

guardianship the
attached an

this fast

to great

centre was

for

descriptions Those suppression

Mass of

outline

of the of

third the touches

to on

the Canadian Long

year he from

Future have The

aware know

United
skill effect

Smith Flumina

contrary

the

but the

explained j the

House

gallery that

we that
nothing of

solid which statements

xvi

modified somewhat he

any would

parts which

Ghir after doctrines

overhanging to

and

the sufficient participation

United

believe

very

it
bright that confidimus

the

brought

Knabenbauer low

the

are bricks
the States

us man in

book China

power facility instituted

as well

inuches Edward

in of

he things
morning what

evidence or

will and at

respected and

without
also

of

fail alike he

the Hibbert of

or creed

nothing of may

wholly sacrifice no