In an interesting turn of interpretation, people will split the meaning of being human depending on the context in which they’ll use the word in.

A colleague who wrote a book called “Humanizing Strategy” chose this title to highlight how establishing the strategy should be a process that is more attentive to those involved in it. He and many others create the idea that whatever is “humanized” should be more positive, respectful, or kind than it often is perceived to be. It creates the idea that being human also means being kind. It leads to moralizing and the idea of how one should be as a human being.

When things go badly, people have the habit of saying that what happened is human. In this context, what is highlighted is how everyone makes errors, how mistakes happen, and how this is part of the human experience. However, there also is a sense that what is being said is there to excuse the problems that occurred and explain the discomfort. And here a moralizing aspect is that no one should expect people to be perfect. One could think that the person who made mistakes is being compared to a perfect version of himself.

As language changes, it also is the change in our culture and perception of what should be that becomes visible.

The loss of a sense of community, of the consideration of the needs to belong and feel safe within a group is captured in the idea of how we should “humanize” our relationships.

The tension experienced with expectations of highly functional individuals always performing at their best is being captured in the desire to see errors and mistakes as being part of the human condition.

But, what might actually be happening, is that the loss of one’s ability to situate oneself and experience oneself within a community is expressed by such language. Said differently, people seem to be losing the ability to communicate what words like kindness or respect mean to them and how they themselves choose to respect others and be kind to them.