To what extent should we use our own humanity to study human behavior?

To what extent should we use our own humanity to study human behavior?

            There is central question that human science researchers have been trying to answer for many years: can the attitudes of one society, culture or individual be used to generalize to help explain human behavior. Researchers in this field attempt to answer similar questions by means of experimentation and case studies as well as through observation and the usage of the scientific method. In this sense, the human sciences, which include psychology, economic, sociology and anthropology, are very similar to the natural sciences who, strive to conduct research and make predictions about the natural world. Human sciences, however, attempt to study humanity. With this perspective, one must ask if one can study humans without their humanity. Can, for many days, humans use objectivity to study things like pain, loss, joy? In studying different culture, can one empty their full cup and for a few hours, let new customs and different ways of being fill them? To an extent, no. Humans need and depend on their humanity to compare, study, observe and truly understand humans and all of their complexity.

            Humans rely on their own humanity to understand someone else’s emotion and society. Emotion and societies are universal. Everybody feels emotions and knows what it is. A cultures understanding of emotion might differ in definition but it is emotion and most people understand a version of sadness; a version of happiness. For example, I’ve never had someone close to me die but I understand the sort of sadness and devastation one feels when someone dies. It is emotion and I know a version of it. Similarly are societies; all share a structure. There are the leaders and common people. Workers and peasants. The rich and the poor. You’ll find that there is a lose structure of government, a ruling class in almost all societies. Whether it is in China, where it claims that the people have the power when it’s only a fraction, or it’s in an American Indian reservoir, where the Elders make the decisions. Across the world, people share emotion and societies. A researchers would have a difficult time trying to study such things without the use of their humanity. Take, for example, what happened with the Europeans when they first come to the new world. They would observe and take notes on the things the Native Americans did such as their patterns and daily routine. If the civilization they were observing were the Mayans, they would have most likely seen rituals that required human sacrifices. Such a think being uncommon in Europe, they would have regarded the Indians as savages. However, there would have been few who would have tried to understand why this was acceptable and after investigation and interviews discovered more about the rituals. They knew the facts, they knew why but many didn’t understand. They viewed the natives as less than them. This example shows how emotions are needed to understand emotion; to use humanity to understand humanity. One can observe emotion, like scientists observe organisms, but there is a difference in understanding it. The goal and purpose of the human scientists is to understand why humans do something. The reason, the motivation for acting in some way can be traced to emotion. Researches will not understand the importance of such things if they exclude their humanity, if they exclude their emotions. It is very difficult to study emotions when one lacks that ability to understand and realize what those emotions mean.

Similarly, it is difficult to study societies if you remain objective. To be in a new society, whilst similar to your own perhaps, one needs that humanity. Let’s say, for example, that someone from Brazil were to travel to Saudi Arabia. They would be around people that have different customs than they are normally aware of. Their society runs differently and as a result beliefs and ways of doing things are also different. If one were to remain objective and not use their humanity, their observations would be different than that if someone that had been using their humanity. For one thing, these people could be open to judge and be misled in their observations. They would not understand where this way of being came from. They would know that facts that this ruler did this and that, but the core, the reason and understand for why that person would do that wouldn’t be there. To understand societies one needs to know and understand how such things came to be. Brene Brown, a sociologist, realized this and it helped her with her research. Previously to this research she was the type of human science research that wanted to measure everything. Her motto was: “if you can’t measure it, it doesn’t exist.” This might have helped her in some aspects of her research until she came upon emotion. She wanted to discover how, in her society, vulnerability was threaded through the people’s lives. She began with connection and how shame and fear played a part in that. She find out that people who are vulnerable life better lives and have more connections. When Brown reached this hypothesis, she had a “breakdown” or “spiritual awakening”. She was the type of person that dealt with measurements and thought that emotion could be measured. But she didn’t understand how all these emotions were related until she exposed herself to feel and understand such things.

Of course, the person that does understand and that uses their humanity could be in peril of misreading the information. They are at risk of not being able to study the society or emotion because they’ve immersed themselves too deeply into the situation. It would be like entering a dark room, turning off the light, and trying to read and watch other people in that room. They would be lost and might start misinterpreting things. They would we be a victim to confirmation bias. This means that they only notice what they want to and ignore other evidence subconsciously. They are seeking to confirm their bias. When this happens, the researcher stops observing and if this happens they are unaware of evidence that goes against what they hypothesis. An example of this can be seen with Professor Zimbardo and his Stanford Prison case study in 1971. Zimbardo wanted to discover what would happen if good people were put in a bad environment. He devised an experiment which would test this and gathered participants. Zimbardo placed himself in the experiment as the prisons warren. He immersed himself in the society and planted his emotions with him. Knowing humans, one can predict the following. Zimbardo was so emotionally involved into the society that the reality of the experiment vs. real life got blurred for him. He believed that he really was the warren of a prison. As a result, he didn’t run an experiment, he was running an oppressive environment.   

            Humans should use their humanity to study human behavior to the extent that they aren’t blinded. Humanity can help researchers understand humans, how they work and process. To attempt to do with without any knowledge or understanding of the human behavior can lead to misinterpretation and false conclusions. On the other hand, if one goes too deep into this path and isn’t able to detach themselves to reflect then they aren’t getting a good perspective on this behavior. 

            Word Count: 1,222