Verified by 
President Trump has warned that immigrants will “pour in and infest our country.” He said that they are coming from “sh*thole countries.” And he has said of immigrants “these aren’t people. They are animals.”
On top of this dehumanizing language, the Trump administration has implemented dehumanizing immigration policies, separating more than 2500 children from their parents on the border. Many of these children still have not been returned to their parents, even though the court-ordered deadline to return them has passed.
While Trump’s language is blatantly disrespectful, it may have more subtle consequences in shaping how we think about immigration. A body of psychological research suggests that the metaphors we use to frame issues can change how we think in ways we don’t consciously realize.
In a 2011 Stanford study, participants read a passage that either described crime as a “beast preying on” a city or a “virus infecting” a city. Those exposed to the “beast” metaphor were more likely to believe that crime should be addressed with punitive solutions, such as increased jail time, whereas those exposed to the “virus” metaphor thought crime should be dealt with by using more reformative solutions that tackled the root causes of crime. The influence of the metaphor was significant, having an even greater effect than pre-existing differences in opinion between Republicans and Democrats. The effect of the metaphor was also covert – when asked why participants came to the conclusions that they did, almost no participants mentioned the metaphor.
Trump’s use of metaphorical language like “infest” and “sh*thole” may be tapping into our instinctual fear of contamination to spur fear toward immigrants. Research suggests that instilling a fear of contamination can indeed increase anti-immigrant sentiment. In one study, participants read a passage about how airborne bacteria can be hazardous for health. Then, participants read a passage that metaphorically described the United States as a physical body (i.e., the United States went through a “growth spurt”). This lead participants to express more anti-immigrant sentiment than when airborne bacteria were described as harmless and when the United States was described without these metaphors. Furthermore, A Yale study conducted during the height of the Swine Flu epidemic found that simply reading about the dangers of Swine Flu caused people to express more anti-immigrant sentiment.
One of Trump’s favorite words is “disgusting” (here is a video montage of Trump saying the word repeatedly). Labeling certain people and things as disgusting might have a similarly dehumanizing effect. Disgust is a basic emotion that alerts us to potentially contaminating substances, and when other people are labeled as disgusting, it can make us fear that others may contaminate us. Research suggests that evoking a sense of physical disgust or reading disgust-evoking media portrayals can cause us to dehumanize others – denying them of complex internal states and emotions. The more we feel “disgusted” by others, the more we might support policies separating ourselves from them, such as building a wall.
Dehumanizing metaphors that evoke a sense of contamination and disgust have a terrible history. During the holocaust, Jews were referred to as “vermin,” and during the Rwandan genocide, Tutsis were referred to as “cockroaches.” The organization Genocide Watch has even called dehumanizing language one of the precursors of genocide.
Additionally, thinking of people as “animals” leads to more support for violent and dehumanizing policies. One study found that when black people were subtly portrayed as ape-like, participants were more likely to support violent and aggressive policing policies. Another study found that dehumanization of Arabs predicts greater support for violent counterterrorism policies involving drone strikes and torture.
Words have powerful – and potentially violent – consequences. To counter destructive and dehumanizing language, avoid repeating this language, because that can give the language more power. Instead, try to re-write narratives of marginalized and stigmatized groups. Combat myths that perpetuate dehumanization (for instance, contrary to Trump’s claims, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes), and encourage empathy for these groups.
While language can be used for tremendous harm, it can also be used for good. While Trump may be using language to dehumanize, we can use language in ways that promote empathy and restore humanity to those who are being dehumanized.
