Political anthropology is the comparative study of politics in a broad range of historical, social, and cultural settings.
History of political anthropology
Origins
Political anthropology has its roots in the 19th century. At that time, thinkers such as Lewis H. Morgan and Sir Henry Maine
tried to trace the evolution of human society from 'primitive' or
'savage' societies to more 'advanced' ones. These early approaches were
ethnocentric, speculative, and often racist. Nevertheless, they laid the
basis for political anthropology by undertaking a modern study inspired
by modern science, especially the approaches espoused by Charles Darwin. In a move that would be influential for future anthropology, this early work focused on kinship as the key to understanding political organization, and emphasized the role of the 'gens' or lineage as an object of study.
Among the principal architects of modern social science are French sociologist Emile Durkheim, German sociologist, jurist, and political economist Max Weber, and German political philosopher, journalist, and economist Karl Marx.
Political anthropology's contemporary literature can be traced to the 1940 publication African Political Systems, edited by Meyer Fortes and E. E. Evans-Pritchard.
They rejected the speculative historical reconstruction of earlier
authors and argued that "a scientific study of political institutions
must be inductive and comparative and aim solely at establishing and
explaining the uniformities found among them and their interdependencies
with other features of social organization". Their goal was taxonomy:
to classify societies into a small number of discrete categories, and
then compare them in order to make generalizations about them. The
contributors of this book were influenced by Radcliffe-Brown and structural functionalism.
As a result, they assumed that all societies were well-defined entities
which sought to maintain their equilibrium and social order. Although
the authors recognized that "Most of these societies have been conquered
or have submitted to European rule from fear of invasion. They would
not acquiesce in it if the threat of force were withdrawn; and this fact
determines the part now played in their political life by European
administration"
the authors in the volume tended in practice to examine African
political systems in terms of their own internal structures, and ignored
the broader historical and political context of colonialism.
Several authors reacted to this early work. In his work Political Systems of Highland Burma (1954) Edmund Leach
argued that it was necessary to understand how societies changed
through time rather than remaining static and in equilibrium. A special
version of conflict oriented political anthropology was developed in the
so-called 'Manchester school', started by Max Gluckman.
Gluckman focused on social process and an analysis of structures and
systems based on their relative stability. In his view, conflict
maintained the stability of political systems through the establishment
and re-establishment of crosscutting ties among social actors. Gluckman
even suggested that a certain degree of conflict was necessary to uphold
society, and that conflict was constitutive of social and political
order.
By the 1960s this transition work developed into a full-fledged subdiscipline which was canonized in volumes such as Political Anthropology (1966) edited by Victor Turner and Marc Swartz.
By the late 1960s, political anthropology was a flourishing subfield:
in 1969 there were two hundred anthropologists listing the subdiscipline
as one of their areas of interests, and a quarter of all British
anthropologists listed politics as a topic that they studied.
Political anthropology developed in a very different way in the United States. There, authors such as Morton Fried, Elman Service, and Eleanor Leacock
took a Marxist approach and sought to understand the origins and
development of inequality in human society. Marx and Engels had drawn on
the ethnographic work of Morgan, and these authors now extended that
tradition. In particular, they were interested in the evolution of
social systems over time.
From the 1960s a 'process approach' developed, stressing the role
of agents (Bailey 1969; Barth 1969). It was a meaningful development as
anthropologists started to work in situations where the colonial system
was dismantling. The focus on conflict and social reproduction was
carried over into Marxist approaches that came to dominate French
political anthropology from the 1960s. Pierre Bourdieu's
work on the Kabyle (1977) was strongly inspired by this development,
and his early work was a marriage between French post-structuralism,
Marxism and process approach.
Interest in anthropology grew in the 1970s. A session on
anthropology was organized at the Ninth International Congress of
Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences in 1973, the proceedings of
which were eventually published in 1979 as Political Anthropology: The State of the Art. A newsletter was created shortly thereafter, which developed over time into the journal PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review.
Anthropology concerned with states and their institutions
While
for a whole century (1860 to 1960 roughly) political anthropology
developed as a discipline concerned primarily with politics in stateless
societies,
a new development started from the 1960s, and is still unfolding:
anthropologists started increasingly to study more "complex" social
settings in which the presence of states, bureaucracies and markets
entered both ethnographic
accounts and analysis of local phenomena. This was not the result of a
sudden development or any sudden "discovery" of contextuality. From the
1950s anthropologists who studied peasant societies in Latin America and
Asia, had increasingly started to incorporate their local setting (the
village) into its larger context, as in Redfield's famous distinction
between 'small' and 'big' traditions (Redfield 1941). The 1970s also
witnessed the emergence of Europe as a category of anthropological
investigation. Boissevain's essay, "towards an anthropology of Europe"
(Boissevain and Friedl 1975) was perhaps the first systematic attempt to
launch a comparative study of cultural forms in Europe; an anthropology
not only carried out in Europe, but an anthropology of Europe.
The turn toward the study of complex society made anthropology
inherently more political. First, it was no longer possible to carry out
fieldwork in say, Spain, Algeria or India without taking into account
the way in which all aspects of local society were tied to state and
market. It is true that early ethnographies in Europe had sometimes done
just that: carried out fieldwork in villages of Southern Europe, as if
they were isolated units or 'islands'. However, from the 1970s that
tendency was openly criticised, and Jeremy Boissevain (Boissevain and
Friedl 1975) said it most clearly: anthropologists had "tribalised
Europe" and if they wanted to produce relevant ethnography they could no
longer afford to do so. Contrary to what is often heard from colleagues
in the political and social sciences, anthropologists have for nearly
half a century been very careful to link their ethnographic focus to
wider social, economic and political structures. This does not mean to
abandon an ethnographic focus on very local phenomena, the care for
detail.
In a more direct way, the turn towards complex society also
signified that political themes increasingly were taken up as the main
focus of study, and at two main levels. First of all, anthropologists
continued to study political organization and political phenomena
that lay outside the state-regulated sphere (as in patron-client
relations or tribal political organization). Second of all,
anthropologists slowly started to develop a disciplinary concern with
states and their institutions (and on the relationship between formal
and informal political institutions). An anthropology of the state
developed, and it is a most thriving field today. Geertz's comparative
work on the Balinese state is an early, famous example. There is today a
rich canon of anthropological studies of the state (see for example
Abeles 1990). Hastings Donnan, Thomas Wilson and others started in the
early 1990s a productive subfield, an "anthropology of borders", which
addresses the ways in which state borders affect local populations, and
how people from border areas shape and direct state discourse and state
formation (see for example Alvarez, 1996; Thomassen, 1996; Vereni, 1996;
Donnan and Wilson, 1994; 1999; 2003).
From the 1980s a heavy focus on ethnicity and nationalism developed. 'Identity' and 'identity politics'
soon became defining themes of the discipline, partially replacing
earlier focus on kinship and social organization. This made anthropology
even more obviously political. Nationalism is to some extent simply
state-produced culture, and to be studied as such. And ethnicity is to
some extent simply the political organization of cultural difference
(Barth 1969). Benedict Anderson's book Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism
discusses why nationalism came into being. He sees the invention of the
printing press as the main spark, enabling shared national emotions,
characteristics, events and history to be imagined through common
readership of newspapers.
The interest in cultural/political identity construction also
went beyond the nation-state dimension. By now, several ethnographies
have been carried out in the international organizations (like the EU)
studying the fonctionnaires as a cultural group with special
codes of conduct, dressing, interaction etc. (Abélès, 1992; Wright,
1994; Bellier, 1995; Zabusky, 1995; MacDonald, 1996; Rhodes, 't Hart,
and Noordegraaf, 2007). Increasingly, anthropological fieldwork is today
carried out inside bureaucratic structures or in companies. And
bureaucracy can in fact only be studied by living in it – it is far from
the rational system we and the practitioners like to think, as Weber
himself had indeed pointed out long ago (Herzfeld 1992).
The concern with political institutions has also fostered a focus
on institutionally driven political agency. There is now an
anthropology of policy making (Shore and Wright 1997). This focus has
been most evident in Development anthropology or the anthropology of development,
which over the last decades has established as one of the discipline's
largest subfields. Political actors like states, governmental
institutions, NGOs, International Organizations or business corporations
are here the primary subjects of analysis. In their ethnographic work
anthropologists have cast a critical eye on discourses and practices
produced by institutional agents of development in their encounter with
'local culture' (see for example Ferguson 1994). Development
anthropology is tied to global political economy and economic anthropology
as it concerns the management and redistribution of both ideational and
real resources (see for example Hart 1982). In this vein, Escobar
(1995) famously argued that international development largely helped to
reproduce the former colonial power structures.
Many other themes have over the last two decades been opened up
which, taken together, are making anthropology increasingly political: post-colonialism,
post-communism, gender, multiculturalism, migration, not to forget the
umbrella term of globalization. It thus makes sense to say that while
anthropology was always to some extent about politics, this is even more
evidently the case today.
Activism may be performed on a day-to-day basis in a wide variety of ways, including through the creation of art (artivism), computer hacking (hacktivism), or simply in how one chooses to spend their money (economic activism). For example, the refusal to buy clothes or other merchandise from a company as a protest against the exploitation of workers
by that company could be considered an expression of activism. However,
the most highly visible and impactful activism often comes in the form
of collective action, in which numerous individuals coordinate an act of protest together in order to make a bigger impact. Collective action that is purposeful, organized, and sustained over a period of time becomes known as a social movement. Historically, activists have used literature, including
pamphlets, tracts, and books to disseminate or propagate their messages
and attempt to persuade their readers of the justice of their cause. Research has now begun to explore how contemporary activist groups use social media to facilitate civic engagement and collective action combining politics with technology. Left-wing and right-wing online activists often use different tactics. Hashtag activism and offline protest are more common on the left. Working strategically with partisan media, migrating to alternative platforms, and manipulation of mainstream media are more common on the right. In addition, the perception of increased left-wing activism in science and academia may decrease conservative trust in science and motivate some forms of conservative activism, including on college campuses. Some scholars have also shown how the influence of very wealthy Americans is a form of activism.
Separating activism and terrorism can be difficult and has been described as a 'fine line'.
Definitions of activism
The Online Etymology Dictionary records the English words "activism" and "activist" as in use in the political sense from the year 1920 or 1915 respectively. The history of the word activism traces back to earlier understandings of collective behavior and social action. As late as 1969 activism was
defined as "the policy or practice of doing things with decision and
energy", without regard to a political signification, whereas social action was
defined as "organized action taken by a group to improve social
conditions", without regard to normative status. Following the surge of
so-called "new social movements" in the United States in the 1960s, a
new understanding of activism emerged as a rational and acceptable
democratic option of protest or appeal. However, the history of the existence of revolt through organized or unified protest in recorded history dates back to the slave revolts of the 1st century BC(E) in the Roman Empire, where under the leadership of former gladiator Spartacus 6,000 slaves rebelled and were crucified from Capua to Rome in what became known as the Third Servile War.
In English history, the Peasants' Revolt erupted in response to the imposition of a poll tax, and has been paralleled by other rebellions and revolutions in Hungary, Russia, and more recently, for example, Hong Kong. In 1930 under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi thousands of protesting Indians participated in the Salt March,
as a protest against the oppressive taxes of their government,
resulting in the imprisonment of 60,000 people and eventually
independence of their nation. In nations throughout Asia, Africa and
South America, the prominence of activism organized by social movements and especially under the leadership of civil activists or social revolutionaries
has pushed for increasing national self-reliance or, in some parts of
the developing world, collectivist communist or socialist organization
and affiliation.
Activism has had major impacts on Western societies as well,
particularly over the past century through social movements such as the Labour movement, the women's rights movement, and the civil rights movement.
Types of activism
Activism has often been thought to address either human rights or environmental concerns, but libertarian and religious right activism are also important types.
Human rights and environmental issues have historically been treated
separately both within international law and as activist movements;
prior to the 21st century, most human rights movements did not
explicitly treat environmental issues, and likewise, human rights
concerns were not typically integrated into early environmental
activism.
In the 21st century, the intersection between human rights and
environmentalism has become increasingly important, leading to criticism
of the mainstream environmentalist movement and the development of the environmental justice and climate justice movements.
Human rights activism seeks to protect basic rights such as those laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
including such liberties as: right to life, citizenship, and property,
freedom of movement; constitutional freedoms of thought, expression,
religion, peaceful assembly; and others.
The foundations of the global human rights movement involve resistance
to colonialism, imperialism, slavery, racism, segregation, patriarchy,
and oppression of indigenous peoples.
Activism
is increasingly important on the political right in the United States
and other countries, and some scholars have found: "the main split in
conservatism has not been the long-standing one between economic and
social conservatives detected in previous surveys (i.e., approximately
the Libertarian right and the Christian right). Instead, it is between an emergent group (Activists) that fuses both ideologies and a less ideological category of 'somewhat conservative' Establishment Republicans." One example of this activism is the Tea Party movement.
Pew Research
identified a "group of 'Staunch Conservatives' (11 percent of the
electorate) who are strongly religious, across-the-board socially and
economically conservative, and more politically active than other groups
on the Right. They support the Tea Party at 72 percent, far higher than the next most favorable group." One analysis found a group estimated to be 4% of the electorate who identified both as libertarians and staunch religious conservatives "to be the core of this group of high-engagement voters" and labeled this group "Activists."
Methods
The longest running peace vigil in U.S. history, started by activist Thomas in 1981
Activists employ many different methods, or tactics, in pursuit of their goals.
The tactics chosen are significant because they can determine how
activists are perceived and what they are capable of accomplishing. For
example, nonviolent tactics generally tend to garner more public
sympathy than violent ones. and are more than twice as effective in achieving stated goals.
Historically, most activism has focused on creating substantive
changes in the policy or practice of a government or industry. Some
activists try to persuade people to change their behavior directly (see
also direct action), rather than to persuade governments to change laws. For example, the cooperative movement
seeks to build new institutions which conform to cooperative
principles, and generally does not lobby or protest politically. Other
activists try to persuade people or government policy to remain the
same, in an effort to counter change.
Charles Tilly developed the concept of a "repertoire of contention", which describes the full range of tactics available to activists at a given time and place.
This repertoire consists of all of the tactics which have been proven
to be successful by activists in the past, such as boycotts, petitions,
marches, and sit-ins, and can be drawn upon by any new activists and
social movements. Activists may also innovate new tactics of protest.
These may be entirely novel, such as Douglas Schuler's idea of an
"activist road trip", or may occur in response to police oppression or countermovement resistance. New tactics then spread to others through a social process known as diffusion, and if successful, may become new additions to the activist repertoire.
Activism is not an activity always performed by those who profess activism as a profession.
The term "activist" may apply broadly to anyone who engages in
activism, or narrowly limited to those who choose political or social
activism as a vocation or characteristic practice.
Judges may employ judicial activism
to promote their own conception of the social good. The definition of
judicial activism and whether a specific decisions is activist are
controversial political issues. The legal systems of different nations vary in the extent that judicial activism may be permitted.
Political activism does not depend on a specific ideology or
national history, as can be seen, for example, in the importance of
conservative British women in the 1920s on issues of tariffs.
Political activism, although often identified with young adults, occurs across peoples entire life-courses.
Political activism on college campuses has been influential in
left-wing politics since the 1960s, and recently there has been "a rise
in conservative activism on US college campuses" and "it is common for
conservative political organizations to donate money to relatively small
conservative students groups".
While people's motivations for political activism may vary, one
model examined activism in the British Conservative party and found
three primary motivations: (1) "incentives, such as ambitions for
elective office", (2) "a desire for the party to achieve policy goals"
and (3) "expressive concerns, as measured by the strength of the
respondent's partisanship".
In addition, very wealthy Americans can exercise political
activism through massive financial support of political causes, and one
study of the 400 richest Americans found "substantial evidence of
liberal or right-wing activism that went beyond making contributions to
political candidates." This study also found, in general, "old money is, if anything, more uniformly conservative than new money." Another study examined how "activism of the wealthy" has often increased inequality but is now sometimes used to decrease economic inequality.
The power of Internet activism came into a global lens with the Arab Spring
protests starting in late 2010. People living in the Middle East and
North African countries that were experiencing revolutions used social
networking to communicate information about protests, including videos
recorded on smart phones, which put the issues in front of an
international audience.
This was one of the first occasions in which social networking
technology was used by citizen-activists to circumvent state-controlled
media and communicate directly with the rest of the world. These types
of practices of Internet activism were later picked up and used by other
activists in subsequent mass mobilizations, such as the 15-M Movement in Spain in 2011, Occupy Gezi in Turkey in 2013, and more.
Online "left- and right-wing activists use digital and legacy media differently to achieve political goals".[5]
Left-wing online activists are usually more involved in traditional
"hashtag activism" and offline protest, while right-wing activists may
"manipulate legacy media, migrate to alternative platforms, and work
strategically with partisan media to spread their messages". Research suggests right-wing online activists are more likely to use "strategic disinformation and conspiracy theories".
Internet activism may also refer to activism which focuses on protecting or changing the Internet itself, also known as digital rights. The Digital Rights movement consists of activists and organizations, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who work to protect the rights of people in relation to new technologies, particularly concerning the Internet and other information and communications technologies.
Many contemporary activists now utilize new tactics through the
Internet and other information and communication technologies (ICTs),
also known as Internet activism
or cyber-activism. Some scholars argue that many of these new tactics
are digitally analogous to the traditional offline tools of contention. Other digital tactics may be entire new and unique, such as certain types of hacktivism. Together they form a new "digital repertoire of contention" alongside the existing offline one. The rising use of digital tools and platforms by activists has also increasingly led to the creation of decentralized networks of activists that are self-organizedand leaderless or what is known as franchise activism.
Economic activism involves using the economic power of government, consumers, and businesses for social and economic policy change.
Both conservative and liberal groups use economic activism to as a form
of pressure to influence companies and organizations to oppose or
support particular political, religious, or social values and behaviors. This may be done through ethical consumerism to reinforce "good" behavior and support companies one would like to succeed, or through boycott or divestment to penalize "bad" behavior and pressure companies to change or go out of business.
Brand activism is the type of activism in which business plays a leading role in the processes of social change.
Applying brand activism, businesses show concern for the communities
they serve, and their economic, social, and environmental problems,
which allows businesses to build sustainable and long-term relationships
with the customers and prospects. Kotler
and Sarkar defined the phenomenon as an attempt by firms to solve the
global problems its future customers and employees care about.
Shareholder activism involves shareholders using an equity stake in a corporation to put pressure on its management. The goals of activist shareholders range from financial (increase of shareholder value through changes in corporate policy, financing structure, cost cutting, etc.) to non-financial (disinvestment from particular countries, adoption of environmentally friendly policies, etc.).
Art activism
Design
activism locates design at the center of promoting social change,
raising awareness on social/political issues, or questioning problems
associated with mass production and consumerism. Design Activism is not limited to one type of design.
Art activism or artivism utilizes the medium of visual art as a method of social or political commentary. Art activism can activate utopian thinking,
which is imagining about an ideal society that is different from the
current society, which is found to be effective for increasing
collective action intentions.
Fashion activism was coined by Celine Semaan.
Fashion activism is a type of activism that ignites awareness by giving
consumers tools to support change, specifically in the fashion
industry. It has been used as an umbrella term for many social and political movements that have taken place in the industry. Fashion Activism uses a participatory approach to a political activity.
Craft activism or craftivism is a type of visual activism that allows people to bring awareness to political or social discourse. It is a creative approach to activism as it allows people to send short and clear messages to society. People who contribute to craftivism are called "craftivists".
Activism in literature may publish written works that express intended or advocated reforms. Alternatively, literary activism may also seek to reform perceived corruption or entrenched systems of power within the publishing industry.
Science activism
Science activism may include efforts to better communicate the benefits of science or ensure continued funding for scientific research. It may also include efforts to increase perceived legitimacy of
particular scientific fields or respond to the politicization of
particular fields. The March for Science
held around the world in 2017 and 2018 were notable examples of science
activism. Approaches to science activism vary from protests to more
psychological, marketing-oriented approaches that takes into account
such factors as individual sense of self, aversion to solutions to
problems, and social perceptions.
Some
groups and organizations participate in activism to such an extent that
it can be considered as an industry. In these cases, activism is often
done full-time, as part of an organization's core business. Many organizations in the activism industry are either non-profit organizations
or non-governmental organizations with specific aims and objectives in
mind. Most activist organizations do not manufacture goods, but rather mobilize personnel to recruit funds and gain media coverage.
The term activism industry has often been used to refer to outsourced fundraising operations. However, activist organizations engage in other activities as well. Lobbying,
or the influencing of decisions made by government, is another activist
tactic. Many groups, including law firms, have designated staff
assigned specifically for lobbying purposes. In the United States,
lobbying is regulated by the federal government.
Many government systems encourage public support of non-profit organizations by granting various forms of tax
relief for donations to charitable organizations. Governments may
attempt to deny these benefits to activists by restricting the political
activity of tax-exempt organizations.
Misanthropy is the general hatred, dislike, or distrust of the human species, human behavior, or human nature. A misanthrope or misanthropist
is someone who holds such views or feelings. Misanthropy involves a
negative evaluative attitude toward humanity that is based on
humankind's flaws.
Misanthropes hold that these flaws characterize all or at least the
greater majority of human beings. They claim that there is no easy way
to rectify them short of a complete transformation of the dominant way
of life. Various types of misanthropy are distinguished in the academic
literature based on what attitude is involved, at whom it is directed,
and how it is expressed. Either emotions or theoretical judgments can
serve as the foundation of the attitude. It can be directed toward all
humans without exception or exclude a few idealized people. In this
regard, some misanthropes condemn themselves while others consider
themselves superior to everyone else. Misanthropy is sometimes
associated with a destructive outlook aiming to hurt other people or an
attempt to flee society. Other types of misanthropic stances include activism by trying to improve humanity, quietism in the form of resignation, and humor mocking the absurdity of the human condition.
The negative misanthropic outlook is based on different types of human flaws. Moral flaws and unethical
decisions are often seen as the foundational factor. They include
cruelty, selfishness, injustice, greed, and indifference to the
suffering of others. They may result in harm to humans and animals, such
as genocides and factory farming of livestock. Other flaws include intellectual flaws, like dogmatism and cognitive biases, as well as aesthetic flaws concerning ugliness and lack of sensitivity to beauty.
Many debates in the academic literature discuss whether misanthropy is a
valid viewpoint and what its implications are. Proponents of
misanthropy usually point to human flaws and the harm they have caused
as a sufficient reason for condemning humanity. Critics have responded
to this line of thought by claiming that severe flaws concern only a few
extreme cases, like mentally ill perpetrators, but not humanity at
large. Another objection is based on the claim that humans also have virtues
besides their flaws and that a balanced evaluation might be overall
positive. A further criticism rejects misanthropy because of its
association with hatred, which may lead to violence, and because it may
make people friendless and unhappy. Defenders of misanthropy have
responded by claiming that this applies only to some forms of
misanthropy but not to misanthropy in general.
Misanthropy is traditionally defined as hatred or dislike of humankind.[3][4] The word originated in the 17th century and has its roots in the Greek words μῖσοςmīsos 'hatred' and ἄνθρωποςānthropos 'man, human'.[5][6]
In contemporary philosophy, the term is usually understood in a wider
sense as a negative evaluation of humanity as a whole based on
humanity's vices and flaws.[7][8]
This negative evaluation can express itself in various forms, hatred
being only one of them. In this sense, misanthropy has a cognitive
component based on a negative assessment of humanity and is not just a
blind rejection.[7][8][9] Misanthropy is usually contrasted with philanthropy,
which refers to the love of humankind and is linked to efforts to
increase human well-being, for example, through good will, charitable
aid, and donations. Both terms have a range of meanings and do not
necessarily contradict each other. In this regard, the same person may
be a misanthrope in one sense and a philanthrope in another sense.[10][11][12]
One central aspect of all forms of misanthropy is that their
target is not local but ubiquitous. This means that the negative
attitude is not just directed at some individual persons or groups but
at humanity as a whole.[13][14][15]
In this regard, misanthropy is different from other forms of negative
discriminatory attitudes directed at a particular group of people. This
distinguishes it from the intolerance exemplified by racists, misogynists, and misandrists, which hold a negative attitude toward certain races or genders.[9][16][17][9]
According to literature theorist Andrew Gibson, misanthropy does not
need to be universal in the sense that a person literally dislikes every
human being. Instead, it depends on the person's horizon. For instance,
a villager who loathes every other villager without exception is a
misanthrope if their horizon is limited to only this village.[18]
Both misanthropes and their critics agree that negative features
and failings are not equally distributed, i.e. that the vices and bad
traits are exemplified much more strongly in some than in others. But
for misanthropy, the negative assessment of humanity is not based on a
few extreme and outstanding cases: it is a condemnation of humanity as a
whole that is not just directed at exceptionally bad individuals but
includes regular people as well.[7][14]
Because of this focus on the ordinary, it is sometimes held that these
flaws are obvious and trivial but people may ignore them due to
intellectual flaws. Some see the flaws as part of human nature as such.[19][20][21]
Others also base their view on non-essential flaws, i.e. what humanity
has come to be. This includes flaws seen as symptoms of modern
civilization in general. Nevertheless, both groups agree that the
relevant flaws are "entrenched". This means that there is either no or
no easy way to rectify them and nothing short of a complete
transformation of the dominant way of life would be required if that is
possible at all.[22][23]
Types
Various
types of misanthropy are distinguished in the academic literature. They
are based on what attitude is involved, how it is expressed, and whether
the misanthropes include themselves in their negative assessment.[24][25][26] The differences between them often matter for assessing the arguments for and against misanthropy.[27][28] An early categorization suggested by Immanuel Kant distinguishes between positive and negative
misanthropes. Positive misanthropes are active enemies of humanity.
They wish harm to other people and undertake attempts to hurt them in
one form or another. Negative misanthropy, by contrast, is a form of
peaceful anthropophobia
that leads people to isolate themselves. They wish others well despite
seeing serious flaws in them. Kant associates negative misanthropy with
moral disappointment due to previous negative experiences with others.[24][29]
Another distinction focuses on whether the misanthropic
condemnation of humanity is only directed at other people or at everyone
including oneself. In this regard, self-inclusive misanthropes
are consistent in their attitude by including themselves in their
negative assessment. This type is contrasted with self-aggrandizing
misanthropes, who either implicitly or explicitly exclude themselves
from the general condemnation and see themselves instead as superior to
everyone else.[25][30] In this regard, it may be accompanied by an exaggerated sense of self-worth and self-importance.[31]
According to literature theorist Joseph Harris, the self-aggrandizing
type is more common. He states that this outlook seems to undermine its
own position by constituting a form of hypocrisy.[32] A closely related categorization developed by Irving Babbitt distinguishes misanthropes based on whether they allow exceptions in their negative assessment. In this regard, misanthropes of the naked intellect regard humanity as a whole as hopeless. Tender misanthropes
exclude a few idealized people from their negative evaluation. Babbitt
cites Rousseau and his fondness for natural uncivilized man as an
example of tender misanthropy and contrasts it with Jonathan Swift's thorough dismissal of all of humanity.[33][34]
A further way to categorize forms of misanthropy is in relation
to the type of attitude involved toward humanity. In this regard,
philosopher Toby Svoboda distinguishes the attitudes of dislike, hate,
contempt, and judgment. A misanthrope based on dislike harbors a
distaste in the form of negative feelings toward other people.[13]
Misanthropy focusing on hatred involves an intense form of dislike. It
includes the additional component of wishing ill upon others and at
times trying to realize this wish.[35]
In the case of contempt, the attitude is not based on feelings and
emotions but on a more theoretical outlook. It leads misanthropes to see
other people as worthless and look down on them while excluding
themselves from this assessment.[36]
If the misanthropic attitude has its foundation in judgment, it is also
theoretical but does not distinguish between self and others. It is the
view that humanity is in general bad without implying that the
misanthrope is in any way better than the rest.[37]
According to Svoboda, only misanthropy based on judgment constitutes a
serious philosophical position. He holds that misanthropy focusing on
contempt is biased against other people while misanthropy in the form of
dislike and hate is difficult to assess since these emotional attitudes
often do not respond to objective evidence.[38]
Misanthropy is usually not restricted to a theoretical opinion but
involves an evaluative attitude that calls for a practical response. It
can express itself in different forms of life. They come with different
dominant emotions and practical consequences for how to lead one's life.[7][39]
These responses to misanthropy are sometimes presented through
simplified archetypes that may be too crude to accurately capture the
mental life of any single person. Instead, they aim to portray common
attitudes among groups of misanthropes. The two responses most commonly
linked to misanthropy involve either destruction or fleeing from
society. The destructive misanthrope is said to be driven by a hatred of
humankind and aims at tearing it down, with violence if necessary.[7][40] For the fugitive misanthrope, fear is the dominant emotion and leads the misanthrope to seek a secluded place in order to avoid the corrupting contact with civilization and humanity as much as possible.[7][9]
The contemporary misanthropic literature has also identified further less-known types of misanthropic lifestyles.[7] The activist misanthrope is driven by hope despite their negative appraisal of humanity. This hope is a form of meliorism
based on the idea that it is possible and feasible for humanity to
transform itself and the activist tries to realize this ideal.[7][41]
A weaker version of this approach is to try to improve the world
incrementally to avoid some of the worst outcomes without the hope of
fully solving the basic problem.[42] Activist misanthropes differ from quietist
misanthropes, who take a pessimistic approach toward what the person
can do for bringing about a transformation or significant improvements.
In contrast to the more drastic reactions of the other responses
mentioned, they resign themselves to quiet acceptance and small-scale
avoidance.[43][7] A further approach is focused on humor based on mockery and ridicule at the absurdity
of the human condition. An example is that humans hurt each other and
risk future self-destruction for trivial concerns like a marginal
increase in profit. This way, humor can act both as a mirror to portray
the terrible truth of the situation and as its palliative at the same
time.[44]
Forms of human flaws
A core aspect of misanthropy is that its negative attitude toward humanity is based on human flaws.[45][7]
Various misanthropes have provided extensive lists of flaws, including
cruelty, greed, selfishness, wastefulness, dogmatism, self-deception,
and insensitivity to beauty.[46][47][7] These flaws can be categorized in many ways. It is often held that moral flaws constitute the most serious case.[23][48] Other flaws discussed in the contemporary literature include intellectual flaws, aesthetic flaws, and spiritual flaws.[49][23]
Moral flaws of human beings are exemplified in harm done to humans by other humans, like the mass killings during the Holocaust.
Moral flaws are usually understood as tendencies to violate moral norms or as mistaken attitudes toward what is the good.[50][51]
They include cruelty, indifference to the suffering of others,
selfishness, moral laziness, cowardice, injustice, greed, and
ingratitude. The harm done because of these flaws can be divided into
three categories: harm done directly to humans, harm done directly to
other animals, and harm done indirectly to both humans and animals by
harming the environment. Examples of these categories include the Holocaust, factory farming of livestock, and pollution causing climate change.[52][23][53]
In this regard, it is not just relevant that human beings cause these
forms of harm but also that they are morally responsible for them. This
is based on the idea that they can understand the consequences of their
actions and could act differently. However, they decide not to, for
example, because they ignore the long-term well-being of others in order
to get short-term personal benefits.[54]
Intellectual flaws concern cognitive capacities. They can be defined as what leads to false beliefs, what obstructs knowledge, or what violates the demands of rationality.
They include intellectual vices, like arrogance, wishful thinking, and
dogmatism. Further examples are stupidity, gullibility, and cognitive biases, like the confirmation bias, the self-serving bias, the hindsight bias, and the anchoring bias.[55][56][50]
Intellectual flaws can work in tandem with all kinds of vices: they may
deceive someone about having a vice. This prevents the affected person
from addressing it and improving themselves, for instance, by being
mindless and failing to recognize it. They also include forms of
self-deceit, wilful ignorance, and being in denial about something.[57][58] Similar considerations have prompted some traditions to see intellectual failings, like ignorance, as the root of all evil.[59][60][61]
Aesthetic flaws are usually not given the same importance
as moral and intellectual flaws, but they also carry some weight for
misanthropic considerations. These flaws relate to beauty and ugliness.
They concern ugly aspects of human life itself, like defecation and
aging. Other examples are ugliness caused by human activities, like
pollution and litter, and inappropriate attitudes toward aesthetic
aspects, like being insensitive to beauty.[62][63][23]
Causes
Various
psychological and social factors have been identified in the academic
literature as possible causes of misanthropic sentiments. The individual
factors by themselves may not be able to fully explain misanthropy but
can show instead how it becomes more likely.[28] For example, disappointments and disillusionments in life can cause a person to adopt a misanthropic outlook.[64][65] In this regard, the more idealistic and optimistic the person initially was, the stronger this reversal and the following negative outlook tend to be.[64] This type of psychological explanation is found as early as Plato's Phaedo. In it, Socrates
considers a person who trusts and admires someone without knowing them
sufficiently well. He argues that misanthropy may arise if it is
discovered later that the admired person has serious flaws. In this
case, the initial attitude is reversed and universalized to apply to all
others, leading to general distrust and contempt toward other humans.
Socrates argues that this becomes more likely if the admired person is a
close friend and if it happens more than once.[66][67] This form of misanthropy may be accompanied by a feeling of moral superiority in which the misanthrope considers themselves to be better than everyone else.[64]
Other types of negative personal experiences in life may have a similar effect. Andrew Gibson uses this line of thought to explain why some philosophers became misanthropes. He uses the example of Thomas Hobbes to explain how a politically unstable environment and the frequent wars can foster a misanthropic attitude. Regarding Arthur Schopenhauer,
he states that being forced to flee one's home at an early age and
never finding a place to call home afterward can have a similar effect.[28][68]
Another psychological factor concerns negative attitudes toward the
human body, especially in the form of general revulsion from sexuality.[69][28]
Besides the psychological causes, some wider social circumstances
may also play a role. Generally speaking, the more negative the
circumstances are, the more likely misanthropy becomes.[70][28] For instance, according to political scientist Eric M. Uslaner, socio-economic inequality
in the form of unfair distribution of wealth increases the tendency to
adopt a misanthropic perspective. This has to do with the fact that
inequality tends to undermine trust in the government and others.
Uslaner suggests that it may be possible to overcome or reduce this
source of misanthropy by implementing policies that build trust and
promote a more equal distribution of wealth.[28][71] The political regime is another relevant factor. This specifically concerns authoritarian regimes using all means available to repress their population and stay in power.[72][73] For example, it has been argued that the severe forms of repression of the Ancien Régime in the late 17th century made it more likely for people to adopt a misanthropic outlook because their freedom was denied.[28][74]Democracy may have the opposite effect since it allows more personal freedom due to its more optimistic outlook on human nature. [72][73]
Empirical studies often use questions related to trust in other
people to measure misanthropy. This concerns specifically whether the
person believes that others would be fair and helpful.[75][76]
In an empirical study on misanthropy in American society, Tom W. Smith
concludes that factors responsible for an increased misanthropic outlook
are low socioeconomic status, being from racial and ethnic minorities,
and having experienced recent negative events in one's life. In regard
to religion, misanthropy is higher for people who do not attend church
and for fundamentalists. Some factors seem to play no significant role,
like gender, having undergone a divorce, and never having been married.[75]
Another study by Morris Rosenberg finds that misanthropy is linked to
certain political outlooks. They include being skeptical about free speech
and a tendency to support authoritarian policies. This concerns, for
example, tendencies to suppress political and religious liberties.[75][76]
Arguments
Misanthropes often focus on the harm done by humans to animals on a large scale, as in factory farming.
Various discussions in the academic literature concern the question
of whether misanthropy is an accurate assessment of humanity and what
the consequences of adopting it are. Many proponents of misanthropy
focus on human flaws together with examples of when they exercise their
negative influences. They argue that these flaws are so severe that
misanthropy is an appropriate response.[77]
Special importance in this regard is usually given to moral faults.[78][79][7]
This is based on the idea that humans do not merely cause a great deal
of suffering and destruction but are also morally responsible for them.
The reason is that they are intelligent enough to understand the
consequences of their actions and could potentially make balanced
long-term decisions instead of focusing on personal short-term gains.[54]
Proponents of misanthropy sometimes focus on extreme individual
manifestations of human flaws, like mass killings ordered by dictators.
Others emphasize that the problem is not limited to a few cases, for
example, that many ordinary people are complicit in their manifestation
by supporting the political leaders committing them.[80]
A closely related argument is to claim that the underlying flaws are
there in everyone, even if they reach their most extreme manifestation
only in a few.[7]
Another approach is to focus not on the grand extreme cases but on the
ordinary small-scale manifestations of human flaws in everyday life,
such as lying, cheating, breaking promises, and being ungrateful.[81][82]
Various
theorists have criticized misanthropy. Some opponents acknowledge that
there are extreme individual manifestations of human flaws, like
mentally ill perpetrators, but claim that these cases do not reflect
humanity at large and cannot justify the misanthropic attitude. For
instance, while there are cases of extreme human brutality, like the
mass killings committed by dictators and their forces, listing such
cases is not sufficient for condemning humanity at large.[7][86]
Some critics of misanthropy acknowledge that humans have various
flaws but state that they present just one side of humanity while
evaluative attitudes should take all sides into account. This line of
thought is based on the idea that humans possess equally important virtues that make up for their shortcomings.[87]
For example, accounts that focus only on the great wars, cruelties, and
tragedies in human history ignore its positive achievements in the
sciences, arts, and humanities.[88]
Another explanation given by critics is that the negative
assessment should not be directed at humanity but at some social forces.
These forces can include capitalism, racism, religious fundamentalism, or imperialism.[89]
Supporters of this argument would adopt an opposition to one of these
social forces rather than a misanthropic opposition to humanity.[90]
Some objections to misanthropy are based not on whether this
attitude appropriately reflects the negative value of humanity but on
the costs of accepting such a position. The costs can affect both the
individual misanthrope and the society at large. This is especially
relevant if misanthropy is linked to hatred, which may turn easily into
violence against social institutions and other humans and may result in
harm.[91] Misanthropy may also deprive the person of most pleasures by making them miserable and friendless.[92]
Another form of criticism focuses more on the theoretical level
and claims that misanthropy is an inconsistent and self-contradictory
position.[93][28]
An example of this inconsistency is the misanthrope's tendency to
denounce the social world while still being engaged in it and being
unable to fully leave it behind.[94]
This criticism applies specifically to misanthropes who exclude
themselves from the negative evaluation and look down on others with
contempt from an arrogant position of inflated ego but it may not apply to all types of misanthropy.[95][96][30]
A closely related objection is based on the claim that misanthropy is
an unnatural attitude and should therefore be seen as an aberration or a
pathological case.[97]
In various disciplines
History of philosophy
Misanthropy has been discussed and exemplified by philosophers throughout history. One of the earliest cases was the pre-Socratic philosopherHeraclitus.
He is often characterized as a solitary person who is not fond of
social interactions with others. A central factor to his negative
outlook on human beings was their lack of comprehension of the true
nature of reality. This concerns especially cases in which they remain
in a state of ignorance despite having received a thorough explanation
of the issue in question.[98][99][100]
Another early discussion is found in Plato's Phaedo, where misanthropy
is characterized as the result of frustrated expectations and
excessively naïve optimism.[101][66][67]
The
cynic philosopher Diogenes had a negative image of the people around
him and cared little for social conventions. For example, he used to
walk around with a lamp in full daylight in his unsuccessful attempt to
find a man he would consider honest or worthy.[102][103]
Various reflections on misanthropy are also found in the cynic school of philosophy.
There it is argued, for instance, that humans keep on reproducing and
multiplying the evils they are attempting to flee. An example given by
the first-century philosopher Dio Chrysostom
is that humans move to cities to defend themselves against outsiders
but this process thwarts their initial goal by leading to even more
violence due to high crime rates within the city. Diogenes
is a well-known cynic misanthrope. He saw other people as hypocritical
and superficial. He openly rejected all kinds of societal norms and
values, often provoking others by consciously breaking conventions and
behaving rudely.[104][28][105]
Thomas Hobbes is an example of misanthropy in early modern philosophy.
His negative outlook on humanity is reflected in many of his works. For
him, humans are egoistic and violent: they act according to their
self-interest and are willing to pursue their goals at the expense of
others. In their natural state, this leads to a never-ending war in
which "every man to every man ... is an enemy".
He saw the establishment of an authoritative state characterized by the
strict enforcement of laws to maintain order as the only way to tame
the violent human nature and avoid perpetual war.[106][107][108]
A further type of misanthropy is found in Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
He idealizes the harmony and simplicity found in nature and contrasts
them with the confusion and disorder found in humanity, especially in
the form of society and institutions.[109][110][111] For instance, he claims that "Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains".[112][113]
This negative outlook was also reflected in his lifestyle: he lived
solitary and preferred to be with plants rather than humans.[114]
Arthur Schopenhauer is often mentioned as a prime example of misanthropy.[115][116]
According to him, everything in the world, including humans and their
activities, is an expression of one underlying will. This will is blind,
which causes it to continuously engage in futile struggles. On the
level of human life, this "presents itself as a continual deception"
since it is driven by pointless desires. They are mostly egoistic and often result in injustice and suffering to others. Once they are satisfied, they only give rise to new pointless desires and more suffering.[117][118][119]
In this regard, Schopenhauer dismisses most things that are typically
considered precious or meaningful in human life, like romantic love,
individuality, and liberty.[120] He holds that the best response to the human condition is a form of asceticism
by denying the expression of the will. This is only found in rare
humans and "the dull majority of men" does not live up to this ideal.[121]
Friedrich Nietzsche,
who was strongly influenced by Schopenhauer, is also often cited as an
example of misanthropy. He saw man as a decadent and "sick animal" that
shows no progress over other animals.[122][123][124]
He even expressed a negative attitude toward apes since they are more
similar to human beings than other animals, for example, with regard to
cruelty.[125] For Nietzsche, a noteworthy flaw of human beings is their tendency to create and enforce systems of moral rules that favor weak people and suppress true greatness.[123][126] He held that the human being is something to be overcome and used the term Übermensch to describe an ideal individual who has transcended traditional moral and societal norms.[127][128]
Religion
Focus on the sinful nature of human beings is one form of misanthropy. According to Christian doctrine, the original sin of Adam and Eve is responsible when they ate from the forbidden tree.
Some misanthropic views are also found in religious teachings. In Christianity, for instance, this is linked to the sinful nature of humans and the widespread manifestation of sin in everyday life.[129] Common forms of sin are discussed in terms of the seven deadly sins. Examples are an excessive sense of self-importance in the form of pride and strong sexual cravings constituting lust. They also include the tendency to follow greed for material possessions as well as being envious of the possessions of others.[130] According to the doctrine of original sin,
this flaw is found in every human being since the doctrine states that
human nature is already tainted by sin from birth by inheriting it from
Adam and Eve's rebellion against God's authority.[129][131]John Calvin's theology of Total depravity has been described by some theologians as misanthropic.[132][133][134]
Misanthropic perspectives can also be discerned in various Buddhist teachings. For example, Buddha had a negative outlook on the widespread flaws of human beings, including lust, hatred, delusion, sorrow, and despair.[135] These flaws are identified with some form of craving or attachment (taṇhā) and cause suffering (dukkha).[136][137] Buddhists hold that it is possible to overcome these failings in the process of achieving Buddhahood
or enlightenment. However, this is seen as a rare achievement in one
lifetime. In this regard, most human beings carry these deep flaws with
them throughout their lives.[138]
However, there are also many religious teachings opposed to
misanthropy, such as the emphasis on kindness and helping others. In
Christianity, this is found in the concept of agape, which involves selfless and unconditional love in the form of compassion and a willingness to help others.[139] Buddhists see the practice of loving kindness (metta) as a central aspect that implies a positive intention of compassion and the expression of kindness toward all sentient beings.[140][141]
Literature and popular culture
Many examples of misanthropy are also found in literature and popular culture. Timon of Athens by William Shakespeare is a famous portrayal of the life of the Ancient Greek Timon,
who is widely known for his extreme misanthropic attitude. Shakespeare
depicts him as a wealthy and generous gentleman. However, he becomes
disillusioned with his ungrateful friends and humanity at large. This
way, his initial philanthropy turns into an unrestrained hatred of
humanity, which prompts him to leave society in order to live in a
forest.[142][143]Molière's play The Misanthrope
is another famous example. Its protagonist, Alceste, has a low opinion
of the people around him. He tends to focus on their flaws and openly
criticizes them for their superficiality, insincerity, and hypocrisy. He
rejects most social conventions and thereby often offends others, for
example, by refusing to engage in social niceties like polite small
talk.[144][145][146]
Jonathan Swift is well known for his often explicit pronouncements of misanthropy.
The author Jonathan Swift
had a reputation for being misanthropic. In some statements, he openly
declares that he hates and detests "that animal called man".[147] Misanthropy is also found in many of his works. An example is Gulliver's Travels,
which tells the adventures of the protagonist Gulliver, who journeys to
various places, like an island inhabited by tiny people and a land
ruled by intelligent horses. Through these experiences of the contrast
between humans and other species, he comes to see more and more the deep
flaws of humanity, leading him to develop a revulsion toward other
human beings.[148][149]Ebenezer Scrooge from Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol
is an often-cited example of misanthropy. He is described as a
cold-hearted, solitary miser who detests Christmas. He is greedy,
selfish, and has no regard for the well-being of others.[150][151][152] Other writers associated with misanthropy include Gustave Flaubert and Philip Larkin.[153][154]
The Joker from the DC Universe is an example of misanthropy in popular culture. He is one of the main antagonists of Batman
and acts as an agent of chaos. He believes that people are selfish,
cruel, irrational, and hypocritical. He is usually portrayed as a sociopath with a twisted sense of humor who uses violent means to expose and bring down organized society.[155][156][157]
Related concepts
Philosophical pessimism
Misanthropy is closely related but not identical to philosophical pessimism.
Philosophical pessimism is the view that life is not worth living or
that the world is a bad place, for example, because it is meaningless
and full of suffering.[158][159] This view is exemplified by Arthur Schopenhauer and Philipp Mainländer.[160]
Philosophical pessimism is often accompanied by misanthropy if the
proponent holds that humanity is also bad and partially responsible for
the negative value of the world. However, the two views do not require
each other and can be held separately.[7][161]
A non-misanthropic pessimist may hold, for instance, that humans are
just victims of a terrible world but not to blame for it.
Eco-misanthropists, by contrast, may claim that the world and its nature
are valuable but that humanity exerts a negative and destructive
influence.[7][162]
Antinatalism and human extinction
Humanity is a moral disaster. There would have been much less
destruction had we never evolved. The fewer humans there are in the
future, the less destruction there will still be.
Antinatalism is the view that coming into existence is bad and that humans have a duty to abstain from procreation.[163][164]
A central argument for antinatalism is called the misanthropic
argument. It sees the deep flaws of humans and their tendency to cause
harm as a reason for avoiding the creation of more humans.[165][166] These harms include wars, genocides, factory farming, and damages done to the environment.[167][168]
This argument contrasts with philanthropic arguments, which focus on
the future suffering of the human about to come into existence. They
argue that the only way to avoid their future suffering is to prevent
them from being born.[165][166][42] The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement and the Church of Euthanasia are well-known examples of social movements in favor of antinatalism and human extinction.[169][2]
Antinatalism is commonly endorsed by misanthropic thinkers[42]
but there are also many other ways that could lead to the extinction of
the human species. This field is still relatively speculative but
various suggestions have been made about threats to the long-term
survival of the human species, like nuclear wars, self-replicatingnanorobots, or super-pathogens.[170][171][172]
Such cases are usually seen as terrible scenarios and dangerous threats
but misanthropes may instead interpret them as reasons for hope because
the abhorrent age of humanity in history may soon come to an end.[173] A similar sentiment is expressed by Bertrand Russell.
He states in relation to the existence of human life on earth and its
misdeeds that they are "a passing nightmare; in time the earth will
become again incapable of supporting life, and peace will return."[174]
Human exceptionalism and deep ecology
Human exceptionalism
is the claim that human beings have unique importance and are
exceptional compared to all other species. It is often based on the
claim that they stand out because of their special capacities, like intelligence, rationality, and autonomy.[175]
In religious contexts, it is frequently explained in relation to a
unique role that God foresaw for them or that they were created in God's
image.[176] Human exceptionalism is usually combined with the claim that human well-being
matters more than the well-being of other species. This line of thought
can be used to draw various ethical conclusions. One is the claim that
humans have the right to rule the planet and impose their will on other
species. Another is that inflicting harm on other species may be morally
acceptable if it is done with the purpose of promoting human well-being
and excellence.[175][177]
Generally speaking, the position of human exceptionalism is at odds with misanthropy in relation to the value of humanity.[177]
But this is not necessarily the case and it may be possible to hold
both positions at the same time. One way to do this is to claim that
humanity is exceptional because of a few rare individuals but that the
average person is bad.[178]
Another approach is to hold that human beings are exceptional in a
negative sense: given their destructive and harmful history, they are
much worse than any other species.[177]
Theorists in the field of deep ecology are also often critical of human exceptionalism and tend to favor a misanthropic perspective.[179][180] Deep ecology is a philosophical and social movement that stresses the inherent value of nature and advocates a radical change in human behavior toward nature.[181]
Various theorists have criticized deep ecology based on the claim that
it is misanthropic by privileging other species over humans.[180] For example, the deep ecology movement Earth First! faced severe criticism when they praised the AIDS epidemic in Africa as a solution to the problem of human overpopulation in their newsletter.
