"Is being human synonymous with being a person?

"

As we delve into the question of whether being human is synonymous

with being a person, it is essential to initially explore what a person means
in society.
We, as people in the global north, believe that being a person is an
"individual human being” (Collins dictionary).
However, anthropologically speaking, there are many variations in the
definitions of personhood.

The main three variations are:

1."Personhood is a complex and culturally constructed concept. It is not
solely determined by biology or evolutionary history; it is actively
negotiated, contested, and ascribed through social and cultural
processes" (Han, 2018).
2.The second definition states that "anthropology brings to light how the
question of personhood cross-culturally relates to language,
performativity,religion,law,gender, race, class, care, life, and death (de
Abreu 2018).And lastly, "personhood is to indicate who, within any given
culture, is considered to be on the way to becoming a fully functioning
and accepted member of society."
3.The main idea you can get from these definitions is that to be a person,
you need to be part of a given culture. Culture, in anthropology, refers to
“the shared set of (implicit and explicit) values, ideas, concepts, and rules
of behaviour" (Hudelson 2004). Perhaps we in the UK believe that
everyone is a person or has the potential to become one.

This potential is called delayed personhood. This is the withholding of the

ascription "person," or even human, from an individual; this is usually a
child or an infant. This might not be the case in many cultures or
collectives.
In this essay, the motion can be interpreted in two ways: "Does being
human make you a person? Or can a person be a non-human? I am going
to negate the question, does being a human make you a person? and
support the argument, can a person also be a non-human". I am going to
support the cause that being human is not synonymous with being a
person. Overall, I negate that being human makes you a person.

UK and Tswana:
The UK and Tswana cultures hold differing views on personhood. In
Tswana culture, personhood is seen as shaped and maintained through
ongoing social interactions and relationships, with everyone expected to
respect others.
Conversely, in the UK, personhood is immediately granted to a foetus
when they are conceived. This contrast highlights the differences of the
country's cultures which defines the essence of personhood "it is actively
negotiated, contested, and ascribed through social and cultural
processes" (Han, 2018).
This is because these two countries have different cultures which is
essential in this definition of personhood.
The UK and Tswana also have different traditions regarding marriage,
specifically the roles of the couple. In Tswana culture, it's expected for a
husband to build a house, especially a kitchen, for his wife. Furthermore, a
man with many wives is seen more of a person. This is due to them being
more experienced in social interaction
This shows his responsibility to take care of his family. But in the UK,
there's more equality between men and women in marriages. There's no
specific rule saying a man must build a house or kitchen for his wife.
Instead, couples decide together what they want to do without strict
traditional roles. So, while Tswana culture emphasises traditional roles,
the UK values equality and flexibility in marriages where both the husband
and the wife have equal roles .This shows us that in Tswana, personhood
is not solely determined by someone's biological identity but instead
influenced by social factors and traditional gender roles which shows us
that personhood can be more than being a human like how we think in the
UK showing us that different cultures have different beliefs in personhood.
In Tswana culture, there is a belief in gerontocracy, where older
individuals are highly respected and considered to be more of a person
due to their increased experience and wisdom. Making them more valued
and respected in the community.
In Tswana, older members of society often hold positions of authority and
are consulted for any advice the younger generation might have. On the
other hand, in the UK, we have a stronger belief in neontocracy , which
places emphasis on the importance of babies and children. In our society
we believe that young individuals are considered special and deserving of
significant attention, care, and resources. Children are valued for their
potential and innocence (delayed personhood), and there is a more of a
focus on taking care of infants. These contrasting cultural attitudes reflect
different values and priorities within each society. While Tswana culture
honours the wisdom and experience of older generations, the UK places
importance on the care of the younger generation, recognising their
potential and significance in shaping the future.
The differences between the UK and Tswana cultures show that being
human doesn't always mean being seen as a person in the same way.
Each culture has its own ideas about when someone becomes a "person"
and what qualities make them one. These differences remind us that
personhood differs in different cultures and that being a human is not
synonymous with being a person as there different ‘things' a person has
to achieve in some societies.

Death:
Death is normally considered the point at which an individual's
personhood ceases to exist in the UK or their weird societies. This is due
to the human body decomposing and losing its purpose to carry out bodily
functions. However, this is not the case for the Toraja, a tribe in Indonesia.
In the report written by Mitchell (2021), it says that "even after burial,
relatives come face-to-face." Once a year, in a ritual called Ma'nene,
which translates to "care for ancestors," the dead are brought from their
graves and coffins. "In this ritual, they mummify the deceased and care
for them as though they are still living. They believe that after death the
soul remains in the house, the dead receive food, clothing, and more."
Furthermore, it is said that after cleaning the body, he or she enjoys many
activities with loved ones; they are reunited and enjoy a feast to mark the
occasion.
The evidence challenges the idea that being human is not synonymous
with being a person. The Troja's tribe's traditions to interact with and care
for their dead ancestors challenge the notion that being human is not
synonymous with being a person. Through rituals like Ma'nene, they
demonstrate a cultural perspective of a human maintaining their
personhood after their physical life, emphasising the importance of social
and spiritual connections in personhood. Therefore, this shows us that
personhood is not necessarily associated with being a human, as some
places, such as the Troja tribe, believe that personhood still continues
after their physical lives. Conversely, there is also belief in WEIRD
societies that death is not the end of personhood which shows us that
personhood after death is also very prevalent in 1st World countries. An
example of this is, the article "Recovering the Body in Grief: Physical
Absence and Embodied Presence" (Pearce and Komaromy, 2022).
We can see that "after her husband's death, Rose explained that she
regularly spoke with her husband (who has been dead for 26 years) and
would script his part of the conversation, playing both roles... The
presence of her husband appeared to be a helpful companion." We can
understand that Rose perceives her husband as talking to her." This is
because of body memory, and she was clearly comforted by "his"
"presence. This helps us understand that personhood does not end at
death, shows the complex nature of personhood, and supports the
question that personhood is not necessarily linked with being a human.

Happy the Elephant:

Happy the elephant is currently at the centre of debate to decide whether

she should be considered a person. In the report written by Fobar (2021),
it clearly stated that Happy became the "first animal to pass the mirror
test for animal intelligence" (Fobar 2021). The fact that she recognizes
herself suggests she is self-aware and acknowledges herself, which is a
very important aspect of personhood according to the definition created
by famous anthropologists Clifford Geertz and Victor Turner. The definition
states that it involves not only "self-awareness and consciousness but also
the ability to engage in meaningful social interactions, adhere to cultural
norms, and exercise agency in decision-making processes”. (Chat GPT).
Both evidences presented say that she is an individual animal and has her
own personality, preferences, and tendencies due to her being self-
aware . Lastly, Elephant brains are among the largest relative to body size
of any land species (Fobar 2021)."
This shows us that Happy can think for herself and think like a human but
 may not perform it out. All the evidence mentioned says that animals are
special because each one is different. They have their own personalities,
things they like, and the way they behave. This shows that animals are
not all the same and that they have their own unique qualities, just like
people do. It suggests that being considered a "person" isn't just
something that applies to humans but can also be seen in animals
because they have their own individual characteristics, for example, self-
awareness, intelligence, and personality.

In conclusion, after exploring different anthropological definitions and

case studies, we can say that being a human is not synonymous with
being a person.
This is due to societies around the world believe that there are certain
"things"
that a human has to achieve before they are considered to be a person,
example, Tswana.
Furthermore, we also explored the different traditions found about death
for example the Toraja. From this we can understand that personhood
may continue even after death, proving the point that being a human is
not the same as being a person.
Finally, a person can also be an animal, for example happy the elephant
as every animal might have their own personalities, intelligences and
cognitive capabilities. Example is that "happy the elephant is the first
animal to pass the mirror test for intelligence' showing us that animals
can be self-aware which is an important aspect of the definition of
personhood by Clifford Geertz and Victor Turner. Showing us that
boundaries of personhood are not only limited for humans. Therefore, we
can decipher that personhood is a complex idea created by different
societies and are different across the globe. This is why I believe that
being human is not synonymous with being a person.

Bibliography:

Pearce C.& Komaromy C. (2022). Recovering the body in grief: Physical absence

and embodied presence. health,26:4 (pp.393-410)

Mitchell, S. (2021, January 29). The tribe that keeps their dead relatives at

home. Retrieved March 19, 2024, from Escape website:

https://www.escape.com.au/destinations/asia/the-tribe-that-keeps-their-

dead-relatives-at-home/image-gallery/

6b4fc89987417563bd9f9f128131ec28
Fobar, R. (2024, March 19). A person or a thing? Inside the fight for animal

personhood. Retrieved March 19, 2024, from National Geographic

website: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/inside-the-

ongoing-fight-for-happys-freedom?date=1652880923022&loggedin=true

Great essay, Dhruv. I know you are not too happy with the grade. But you
should be!
I think the main thing that could have boosted your grade was related to
your critical thinking. I think you needed to give a little argument of the
other side: that being human is synonymous to being a person. This would
be shown in the fact that humans are automatically considered for the
role of ‘person’ and have to do things or be lacking things for it to be
questioned, but other beings (Happy, as you mentioned, for example)
have to do things – specifically human-like qualities – to even be
considered for it. Also, that embryos and foetuses are not always
considered persons (in israel, for example. And that abortion is legal). It
would have just meant your essay was showing both sides. And then you
would have concluded as you did, because that’s what the strongest
argument shows.
Also, although you delved into your topics in depth – which was great –
you could have covered a few more parts of the tutorials. I feel limiting
yourself to (more or less) three meant you couldn’t include some of the
important arguments.
You were slightly over the word limit as well.

BUT IT IS A GOOD ESSAY. AND A 2:1 – which means working at A Level

standard – IS AMAZING! YOU SHOULD BE PROUD!