A Glance into the Whirlpool:

Attempting to Get a Grasp on Human

Although it is not especially common in everyday conversation, the word 'human' usually has some sort of relevant meaning in many conversations. For some, 'human' might refer to topics of scientific matter, while its role in a separate discussion might entail something of the human condition, or human rights. I primarily chose 'human' in active anticipation of the challenge of wading through the unavoidably large amount of variations of definitions, as well as its own personal relevance. I am a lover of both deep pondering and science, particularly evolutionary science, and as it seemed to tie in rather nicely with both of those, I also knew going in that I would encounter many other uses for 'human' than expected. Oftentimes, 'human' is something we strive to understand and, in science fiction, something that artificial intelligence strives to achieve. Others might see 'human' as a representation of an entity, or as simply an adjective to described our condition. As a word that defines so many things in our lives, as well as a nature we do not yet fully understand, the connotations of 'human' hold relevance in nearly everything of interest today. On the level of everyday use, it serves as our identification, but once one engages into deeper conversations and inquiries into the origin of our species, 'human' becomes an elusively understood category of how we define ourselves, instead of a helpful tool with which to grapple knowledge.

While the origin of our species is not a question the science field will put to rest in any short amount of time ahead, the origin of 'human' is far more traceable and understandable. Its source lies in the Indo-European word root of 'manu', which initially appears to resemble a laminated list of dinner dishes, but upon further inspections reveals the origin of both the words 'man' and 'human' in many languages. (freedicitonary.com) Coincidentally and in a completely unrelated event, 'dghdem' is also believed to be the Indo-European word for earth, ground, or land, which, ironically, sounds a little like 'human' if you clear your throat a few times before attempting to voice it.(Yahoo Education) The Oxford English Dictionary, as well as the Middle English Online Dictionary, cites the word 'human' as appearing as early as the 13^th century, mentioned in the example of the definition of forshuppild as “Maga quedam est, transformans naturam humanam. Wreaððe is a forschuppilt..for ha reaueð mon his wit..& forschuppeð him from mon into beastes cunde,” as a distinguishing factor between mankind and the barbaric beast-kind. (Midd. Eng. Dict.) In addition to many closely related foreign variations of it, 'human' has carries many English spellings throughout the years, including those of 'humain', 'humayne', 'humaine', and 'humane', the last of which split from today's spelling to become its own distinct pronunciation and definition around 1730, in an appearance in an early dictionary. While still retaining some connotation of actions and behavioral standards, 'human' then took on a distinctive sway towards a definition for biological distinction. Earlier from this split, however, the primary appearances of 'humayne' found themselves in religious texts—usually accompanied by words like 'thenne' and 'creatour'. Use of this word in this context was often in a discussion of the 'nature humayne commune', 'humaine calamities', and the 'humane nature' in relation to biblical lore. The Latin root of 'human' is surprisingly 'human-us', meaning “of or pertaining to man.” The OED also notes the source of this root—'homo'. In addition, Early English entered into a phase of strange pronunciation, having the first syllable of 'humayne' bear the stress, but later switched to something resembling today's.

As comes naturally with any sort of religious definition, one of 'human's many meanings denotes a sort of inferiority in relation superior beings. 'Human' could be seen in this light as human flaws, or a natural human weakness. A reference to 'Christ' holds a testament to this meaning in John Pory's 'A Geographical Historie of Africa', with a reference to two separate natures: “one divine... the other humane.” (Oxford English Dictionary) Another reference in the English Standard edition of the bible, a direct snippet pretty much sums this up:

“I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.” (Romans 6:19)

It was around the time of the split from 'humane' in the middle 18^th century, that human started to connote a standard by which to measure other entities. 'With all speed humanly possible' is a representation to this, as well as the use of 'human affairs' and other such terms. The 18^th century also welcomed a change in attitude toward 'human' with a beginning element of human improvement tied with society and new investigations, although it still kept its air of limitation. Closer to the current time and the age of glorious technology, the 20^th century featured many uses of the word in a psychological or scientific setting, in many cases relating to the 'human sciences', as well as 'human relations', 'human resources', and 'human rights'. (OED) These have been noted, as can be seen in the OED, as an effort to replace such terms as 'the resources of man', 'man power', and 'the rights of man' with “more sexless speak.” Interestingly, the English International Dictionary's primary definition is a biological one, making direct connections with humankind as a species, as well as its history and *le gasp* evolution. It isn't until the third definition that 'human nature' is mentioned, and a sub-point of the same that mentions the earlier and quondam primary meaning referring to the supposed inferiority of humankind in comparison with the divine. As an international-type dictionary would suggest, the most contemporary and important definition would be first, which correlates with the social progress and the associated definition of being human in a modern reality.

Despite its split from 'humane', 'human' has by no means lost its ethical and moral nature. In fact, many of the intended meanings of 'human' before the official split hardly changed at all. The play-write and author and creator of current literary confusion, William Shakespeare, has more than a few occurrences of 'human' variations. Macbeth, a slightly well-known play about some Scotsman somewhere, features 'human's use as an implication of human emotion and judgment. With one of the Lady Macbeth's delightful monologues, 'human' is clearly taking the place of a descriptive of just actions: “What thou art promised: yet do I fear thy nature; It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way: thou wouldst be great[.]” (Shakespeare, 345) In essence, Lady Macbeth is telling her husband to stop with his fussiness and morality blubber and get on with taking advantage of his opportunities. Also, notably, in a separate play, which may or may not be 'Othello', written by the same, during the execution of his plot, Iago stabs Rodrigo promptly after which Rodrigo exclaims this delightful little remark: “O damn'd Iago! O inhuman dog!” (Shakespeare, 3215) It's not that difficult to look into the implications of the use of (in)human in this statement, which is clearly making use of its implications of reasonability.

Just as tellingly, various poems of Emily Dickinson, an American pioneer of unexpected and peculiar poetry, host the use of 'human' in reference to the human condition, rather than a moral or rank-related meaning. In her poem XXIV 'Reticence', the significance of the human nature is one in the face of precarious oblivion: “If nature will not tell the tale Jehovah told to her, Can human nature not survive Without a listener?” The use of 'human' neatly carries one of Dickinson's focuses—the odd imbalance and questions associated with immortality and humanity. In a slightly related poem, XXXV
'The Goal', 'human' is used in a very similar manner, pertaining to a universal and uniting factor among humankind, something that a fellow introvert would probably seek: “Each life converges to some centre Expressed or still; Exists in every human nature A goal[.]” 'Human' clearly does not have a common use inside the literary universe, let alone its outside.

This issue of humanity is also important among modern topics of pop-culture, focusing on the details of being human, as well as the consequences. 'Do the Evolution,' a notoriously grim music video released by Pearl Jam, focuses on the dark progression of humankind, and the resulting devastation. While the word 'human' itself is not directly mentioned, this music video is a clear reference to the bad elements of the state in which we live, and has so many allusions to humankind in general that it might as well bare that name. Whoops, guess that's actually the next song. Many examples of expressly 'human'-including media do exist, especially in the popular realm of music. (Pearl Jam) The Killers, a band quite well-liked among many groups, produced 'Human', a song about what I believe to be strong emotion connections with other people, although one can never tell with these strange indie songs. As is with most other strange indie songs, the meaning is disputed, as well as the spelling of 'dancers'. The chorus of the song, hopefully a commentary on our shared condition—I still can't be sure—makes some sort of statement, of which I haven't been able to figure out completely, despite hearing on the radio many times over the last couple of years: “Are we human or are we dancers? My sign is vital, my hands are cold And I'm on my knees looking for the answer Are we human or are we dancers?” The quest for any answers at all, especially if being human means being normal or extraordinary, as the song could possibly mean, stands out against past use of the word, when considering that it was really originally meant to remind people that they are better than animals, but not as good as gods, so don't get cocky.

Even before my journey into the research d'human, the word itself was still filled with possible meanings even without great pondering. Off the bat, 'human' is a reference to our species, while our fundamental nature is an extremely close second. Sadly, as is probably telling of our community, human-rights and human-aid were not the first things to leap out. Some of the modern meanings of 'human' cannot be found in the dictionary, however, but only in the shades of meaning behind the situation in which it is used. Lack of humanity, not acting like a human, human stupidity, form the unavoidable dark side of all definitions. Once the concept of acting like a member of the Genus Homo, species Homo Sapiens, has been established, the immediate existence of 'not acting normally' has been as well. For an average individual living in contemporary times, especially one growing up in a science-founded house-hold, the primary meanings of 'human' found in early usage and the Bible as proof of weakness and an inability to lead ourselves without any sort of babysitter overlord just isn't one that would dominate the field of definition vision.

However, the question of what exactly does it mean to be human is one of the most important that currently confronts us. With new finds in the scientific field, the limitations of 'human' need to extend to the reaches of biological differences, as well as applied to the conscious and the mind. The one unifying factor of all of the definitions mentioned in the OED and English International Dictionary, is the distinction of human beings from everything else. Either from the other lowly creatures on this planet to which we are obdurately denying any conscious similarities, or any sort of superior beings meant to guide humanity in its course, 'human' is a boundary between us and the world, just to feed our insecurity relating to exactly how and if we are different or even important in the universe. By fabrication this isolation, the very definition of 'human' has created a severely exclusive category to which can be added virtually nothing than our own kind. Although this may seem harsh, it should be considered that this is building from the most (literally) fundamental definition of human. (OED)

So, after all of this discussion, which words are comparable with the loaded rifle that is the word 'human'? Thesaurus.com, the most reachable tool for replacement speech without actively standing up from my desk, lists a colorful selection of words, some of which are entirely strange; among them are anthropoid, biped, civilized, creatural, fallible, fleshy, forgivable, hominal, individual, mortal, personal, and vulnerable. While 'civilized' and 'anthropoid' make sense, 'forgivable' and 'mortal' are a little shaky, especially without context. (Thesaurus.com) Without context, is 'forgivable' a reference to emotion, and the ultimately forgiving nature of whatever great being who obviously and blatantly guides our every action, or is it a reference to how humans are squishy in a fleshy sort of way? Needless to say, none of these words truly have as much significance to both history and literature as 'human' certainly does. An undoubtedly strange word, 'human' has changed in my eyes from nebulous meaning of any number of things, to an even-more nebulous possible reference to a huge variety of everything, from scientific human nature to an assumption of morality and the possession of skills needed for judgment.

PS: Hi Amy! I know you'll be getting up right about now!