Reading Response 10: Humans and Non-humans
The subject of anthropology is vast and entails the study of both humans and non-humans. In the reading, the author brings to our attention the meaning of humans and non-humans. This response will specifically concentrate on non-human parts. In the definition, the writer states that non-humans are entities that display some features that are similar to that of humans. However, such characteristics do not qualify them to be classified as humans. They may also refer to objects that have been developed by human intelligence and can perform some of the human actions (Johnson, 1988). In simple, terms non-humans are things that are not humans based on some characteristics. As I responded to this article, it is important to recognize the definition of humans for a better understanding of non-humans. In this context, humans are the kind of species with the ability to do things that no other thing can do. They have special skills with high intellectual ability. Humans are the opposite of non- humans.
From the article, I agree with how the author creates his case of humans and non-humans. First, the differences between the two are highlighted, and then insights are provided on the few similarities. Finally, the author relates the tow concepts to the primary topic, which is the study of human evolution and how we came to exist. The paper is very comprehensive and critically organized to present ideas chronologically. In the end, the meaning, implication, and relation of humans and nonhumans are brought clearly with ease to understand.
References
Johnson, Jim [Bruno Latour] (1988). Mixing humans and non-humans: The sociology of a door closer. Social Problems 35(3): 298–310.