For centuries, human beings have tried to decipher their place in the universe. Are we the center of all that exists? Are we alone? Such questions, for better or worse, have remained largely unanswered. Amidst all these uncertainties though, there is one thing that we are seemingly sure about: that we are the center of our world. In other words, we, Homo sapiens, are the dominant species on our beloved planet. “The Superior Human?,” a 2012 documentary film written and directed by Samuel McAnallen, refutes this belief impeccably, taking full advantage of rhetorical appeals.

First and foremost, the film centers around 18 oft-cited arguments for human superiority. To bring the scope of my analysis down to manageable levels, I will only be looking at the three most, in my opinion, persuasive cases. Now, if it’s not blindingly obvious by now, the film does not agree with these arguments. Rather, through a steady stream of satire and sarcasm, it tries to convince its audience of their nonsensicalness. Speaking of audience, I think it will be helpful to clearly define the film’s intended demographic. Taking into account the film’s inflammatory nature, I can conclude with reasonable certainty that it is targeted towards anyone and everyone who self-identifies as a human supremacist, and those thinking about it.

The first argument that I will explore, is also arguably the most fundamental one. This argument makes the controversial claim that humans, and only humans, are self-aware and autonomous. In layman’s terms, only the human species possesses a mind, or its more spiritual counterpart, a soul. Now, the inevitable consequence of this claim is that every other being that shares the planet with us, such as your pet puppy or kitten, are purely mechanical in nature, and lack any real essence. In more relevant words, animals, excluding us, are incapable of feeling pain. As you would expect, the film takes issue with this, and spends a large chunk of its runtime denouncing it. The film goes about this primarily through a series of interviews with Dr. Bernard Rollin and Dr. Richard Ryder, both well-respected figures in the field of animal ethics. These interviews were expertly crafted, and presents many insightful counter-arguments. For instance, the film cites Charles Darwin, perhaps the most influential purveyor of modern thinking, drawing parallels between the evolution of humans and that of animals. Furthermore, recognizing the importance of humor, the film balances hard-hitting facts with light-hearted analogies, culminating in the frankly hilarious depiction of a bear supremacist. The film also attempts to shock, showcasing the ugly side of animal research, and relate, comparing the mistreatment of animals to slavery. As a result of all these components, the film successfully employed the three main rhetorical appeals – ethos, logos and pathos. Let’s break it down. The use of qualified academics, with a substantial background on the topic at hand, and their blatant name-dropping of even more influential scholars, such as Darwin and Hume, to reinforce their views, ensures the audience of the film’s credibility. Next, the film relies heavily on objective, as opposed to subjective, facts and reasoning, which convinces the audience of its legitimacy. Lastly, the film’s adept use of humor, shock, and relatability, draws the audience in on a personal level.

Another commonly used argument for the superiority of humans is our capability to build. The movie recognizes this, but argues that many animals can build too. Such animals include beavers, with their large and complex dams, and honey bees, with their highly intricate hives. To further drive this point home, the movie makes a lavish comparison. Pitting the tallest skyscraper ever built by humans, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, against an unassuming termite nest, the movie boldly claims that we are inferior to termites. How so? The movie specifies two reasons. Firstly, a large termite nest is about 914 times taller than the average termite. Burj Khalifa, on the other hand, is only about 531 times the average human height. Secondly, human civilizations have only been around for several thousand years, which pales in comparison to termite civilizations, which have been around for approximately 50 million years. Again, let’s break down the rhetorical appeals in play here. By acknowledging the merits of the argument it is refuting, the movie exudes impartiality. This in turn builds credibility with the audience. The movie then applies sound reasoning, using an objective definition of superiority. This definition led to the conclusion that termites possess superiority over humans, which is an extreme claim in every sense of the word. This is intentional of course, as the most radical claims are often the most effective too.

Finally, the use of language is also a commonly cited reason in support of human supremacy. The movie rejects this notion outright, stating that animals are as capable, if not more, as humans in using language. To support this claim, the movie brings up examples of Koko and Washoe, a gorilla and chimpanzee respectively, who have learned American Sign Language, and are capable of using it to communicate with humans. In addition, the movie also highlights a bonobo, named Kanzi, who is able to understand about 3000 human words, as well as simple sentences. More remarkably, bonobos have also been shown to use reason, a trait supposedly unique to humans, to invent new phrases from the words they have learnt. The movie proceeds to ridicule certain linguists, who claim that since animals do not have words to describe time, they have no language at all. According to the movie, by that definition, tribes like the Amondawa, which also lack words to describe time, are no longer people. To sum it all up, the movie poses a question: If some dogs can learn over 1000 different human words for their toys, can a human learn 1000 forms of dog communication? Breaking it down again, the movie, as is a constant theme, makes effectual logos appeals. This is achieved through the use of clear and accurate examples. Taking it up a notch, the movie’s unabashed nature, as witnessed through its mocking of certain linguists, is an obvious pathos move. Lastly, by ending its argument with a question, a very biased one at that, the movie nudges its audience to agree with its point of view.

Based on my analysis, I can only come to one conclusion. The documentary film fulfills its purpose admirably – to challenge the notion of human supremacy, and on a related note, animal cruelty. The best compliment that I can pay it, is that it has persuaded me, a human supremacist, to reconsider my views. That said, the film is not without its flaws. One such flaw is the film’s partisanship towards arguments more easily able to be refuted. As such, certain arguments, such as human tool usage and human reasoning, were casually swept to the side. A more balanced approach would have prevented this, which can only help its cause. All in all though, I strongly recommend everyone to check this movie out, if only to gain a different perspective on our already confusing existence.