When I heard the statement a few weeks ago, it wasn’t the first time I’d heard it. And when I tell you about it, it won’t have been the first time you’ve heard it, either. I think it was when I heard it a few weeks ago, however, that it really solidified in my head. Or, perhaps it just re-surfaced, having been a long-standing pet peeve. Come to think of it, I’ll go with the latter.
I’ll omit the context, but it was during a keynote address at a presentation, as I recall, and the presenter encouraged those in the audience to “use” professionals in a certain field with which those in the audience frequently work. She encouraged her listeners to “use” these professionals because they are “a great resource.”
I imagine that many of my readers who are trapped in the confines of corporate America have heard that exact phrase. In fact, I’m sure it’s not confined to corporate America, or even to America. If not, think about whatever job you have, and I’m relatively certain that the employer for which you work has a “human resources” department.
Right. Because humans are resources.
I’m not just being obsessive about the minutiae of language, here. Think about this. A definition of the word “resource” renders the most natural meanings of the word as possessions, or things to be used. If we have learned anything from dark histories of slavery, gender discrimination, and human trafficking (all things that still occur in our back yards, incidentally), it’s that human beings are in no way possessions, or things to be owned. If the Christian theology upon which a great deal of our Western philosophical system is constructed has taught us nothing else, it’s that human beings are of infinite worth, regardless of ethnic background, gender, sexuality, economic status, etc. What troubles me about the concept of “human resources” is that the phraseology is coming from somewhere, a cultural philosophy or metaphysical perspective. Assuming that’s correct, then the concept of an employee being a “resource” means that the employee (typically identified by a number…I don’t find that to be a coincidence) is viewed as a possession, or thing, that is to be used for the best interest of the company. Only the voluntary nature of the employment separates this from slavery. And, even then, the central problem remains that the person is seen as an object.
In a word, he or she is de-humanized.
This is really the same phenomenon that occurs when the pornography industry plays on fantasies that are degrading to women, or that portray women as the object of some objectifying or violent act (I say women, but I should specify that it occurs to both men and women). The woman is being portrayed as an object. She is being de-humanized.
Think about it. “De-humanize.” In the American experiment, a culture in which absolutely everything is commodified to be bought or sold, it is only natural that humanity is treated similarly. In fact, everything about humanity is seen as something to be purchased and possessed, not just sexuality. Education is seen in the same light. As is the right to healthcare. And the list could go on.
Honestly, though, it occurs to me that I’ve referred to organizations or faith communities as “resources” for someone to “use.” That makes me just as guilty, because the organization or community is comprised of people. Doesn’t that make it the same thing?
This is more than just a change in language, but it starts there. Naming has power, so, if we force ourselves out of the habit of talking about people in this manner and instead referring to them in human terms, it will alter our perceptions of them. A little effort in vocabulary just might make a huge difference, both in the way we do business, and in the way we treat each other.
I’m willing to work on it. You?
Photo Attribution: Miguel Pires da Rosa
You’re right…I think a lot of us look at people as to how we can “use” them. Almost without even thinking about it. Thanks for pointing this out…good reminder.