From Taboo to Compliance: The Structural Origins of Experiences of Dehumanisation in Capitalist Modernisation
Drawing on Lévi-Strauss's theory of the incest taboo, this article argues that capitalist modernization transforms ethical boundaries into quantifiable compliance mechanisms, thereby institutionalizing dehumanization through pervasive commensuration, and proposes that restoring human dignity requires protecting irreplaceable relationships and empowering subjects to participate in institutional decision-making.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the modern world, we live surrounded by systems designed to make life orderly and fair. We have laws that promise equal treatment, markets that connect strangers, and digital tools that sort information with incredible speed. We often assume that these rules protect us, turning chaos into a predictable landscape where everyone is judged by the same standard. But there is a quiet danger in this order. When we rely too heavily on lists, scores, and checklists to understand people, we risk forgetting that human beings are not just data points to be sorted. This question sits at the intersection of anthropology, the study of human societies, and modern ethics. It asks how the very tools we use to organize our world can sometimes strip away our humanity, turning us into objects that can be bought, sold, or discarded without a second thought. To understand this, we must look at how human societies first learned to say "no" to certain actions, and how that ancient refusal has been replaced by a modern obsession with following procedures.
The paper explores a deep shift in how human relationships are managed, tracing a path from ancient social rules to the algorithms that govern our daily lives. The author begins by looking at a concept from the anthropologist Lévi-Strauss: the incest taboo. This is not just a rule about who can marry whom; it is a fundamental discovery that some things in life cannot be traded. In early societies, this rule taught people that certain relationships were too important to be treated as simple transactions. You could not just swap a family member for a gift or a payment. This created a boundary, a line in the sand that said some parts of human life are off-limits to the marketplace. It was a way of saying that while we can exchange goods and form alliances, there are core human connections that must remain protected from being turned into commodities.
However, the paper argues that as societies grew more complex, this protective boundary began to erode. The old rules that said "this cannot be done" were slowly replaced by new systems that asked "how much does this cost?" or "does this meet the requirements?" This shift is what the author calls the move from taboo to compliance. In the past, a taboo was a moral wall that stopped an action before it even started. Today, we have compliance procedures, which are like checklists that allow an action to happen as long as you fill out the right forms. The problem is that these forms often ignore the human story behind the data. A person might be treated as a "risk category" or a "performance score," and as long as the paperwork is correct, the system feels it has done its job. The actual person, with their unique history, their fears, and their reasons, disappears behind the numbers.
The author shows that this happens not because people are cruel, but because the systems are designed to be efficient. In a modern workplace or a digital platform, a worker might be judged by how fast they complete a task or how many customers rate them highly. If they are late because they are caring for a sick child, the system might not have a box to check for that. The algorithm sees only the delay, not the reason. The person becomes a substitutable unit, easily replaced by someone who can meet the metric. This is a form of dehumanization that does not require hatred or violence. It happens quietly, through the smooth operation of rules that value what can be measured over what cannot. The paper suggests that this is different from simply being treated as a tool; it is about losing the standing to be a person who can speak, explain, and be heard in the decisions that affect their life.
To fix this, the paper proposes that we need to rebuild the boundaries that protect human dignity. This does not mean throwing away all rules or returning to the past. Instead, it means recognizing that some things cannot be measured and should not be. We need to understand that a person is more than their credit score, their job title, or their online rating. The author suggests that institutions must create space for people to explain their situations, to refuse unfair treatment, and to challenge the rules that govern them. It is about making sure that when a decision is made, there is a real human being responsible for it, someone who can listen to a story that doesn't fit into a standard category.
The core finding is that dehumanization in our modern world is not an accident or a side effect of bad people; it is built into the way we organize our society. When we turn every aspect of life into a number, we lose the ability to see the full human being. The paper argues that we must remember the lesson of the ancient taboo: there are limits to what can be exchanged and calculated. We need to protect the parts of our lives that are messy, personal, and impossible to quantify. Only by doing this can we ensure that our systems serve us, rather than reducing us to mere data points in a machine that never stops calculating. The solution lies in keeping the door open for human judgment, for the right to say "this is not just a number," and for the power to change the rules when they fail to see the person behind the screen.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.