CAT 2021 Slot 1 · VARC · RC passage 4: Personhood among the Classic Maya

The full passage and all 4 questions (Q13–Q16) from CAT 2021 Slot 1, with answers and solutions.

The passage below is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

For the Maya of the Classic period, who lived in Southern Mexico and Central America between 250 and 900 CE, the category of ‘persons’ was not coincident with human beings, as it is for us. That is, human beings were persons – but other, nonhuman entities could be persons, too. . . . In order to explore the slippage of categories between ‘humans’ and ‘persons’, I examined a very specific category of ancient Maya images, found painted in scenes on ceramic vessels. I sought out instances in which faces (some combination of eyes, nose, and mouth) are shown on inanimate objects. . . . Consider my iPhone, which needs to be fed with electricity every night, swaddled in a protective bumper, and enjoys communicating with other fellow-phone-beings. Does it have personhood (if at all) because it is connected to me, drawing this resource from me as an owner or source? For the Maya (who did have plenty of other communicating objects, if not smartphones), the answer was no. Nonhuman persons were not tethered to specific humans, and they did not derive their personhood from a connection with a human. . . . It’s a profoundly democratising way of understanding the world. Humans are not more important persons – we are just one of many kinds of persons who inhabit this world. . . .

The Maya saw personhood as ‘activated’ by experiencing certain bodily needs and through participation in certain social activities. For example, among the faced objects that I examined, persons are marked by personal requirements (such as hunger, tiredness, physical closeness), and by community obligations (communication, interaction, ritual observance). In the images I examined, we see, for instance, faced objects being cradled in humans’ arms; we also see them speaking to humans. These core elements of personhood are both turned inward, what the body or self of a person requires, and outward, what a community expects of the persons who are a part of it, underlining the reciprocal nature of community membership. . . .

Personhood was a nonbinary proposition for the Maya. Entities were able to be persons while also being something else. The faced objects I looked at indicate that they continue to be functional, doing what objects do (a stone implement continues to chop, an incense burner continues to do its smoky work). Furthermore, the Maya visually depicted many objects in ways that indicated the material category to which they belonged – drawings of the stone implement show that a person-tool is still made of stone. One additional complexity: the incense burner (which would have been made of clay, and decorated with spiky appliques representing the sacred ceiba tree found in this region) is categorised as a person – but also as a tree. With these Maya examples, we are challenged to discard the person/nonperson binary that constitutes our basic ontological outlook. . . . The porousness of boundaries that we have seen in the Maya world points towards the possibility of living with a certain uncategorisability of the world.

Question 13 · Strengthen and Weaken Arguments

Which one of the following, if true, would not undermine the democratising potential of the Classic Maya worldview?

  1. A

    They believed that animals like cats and dogs that live in proximity to humans have a more clearly articulated personhood.

  2. B

    They understood the stone implement and the incense burner in a purely human form.

  3. C

    They depicted their human healers with physical attributes of local medicinal plants.

  4. D

    While they believed in the personhood of objects and plants, they did not believe in the personhood of rivers and animals.

Pick an option, then check.
Answer & solution

Answer: Option C

The 'democratising' view is that humans are 'not more important persons' – just one kind of person among many. Nonhuman persons are not tied to humans and do not get personhood from them.

Option 1 undermines it: animals living close to humans would get a fuller personhood from that closeness – the very human link the passage rejects.

Option 2 undermines it: seeing objects 'in a purely human form' puts humans at the centre and removes the nonbinary idea that an object stays an object while being a person.

Option 4 undermines it: personhood would be denied to whole groups (rivers, animals), creating a ranking among beings.

Option 3 does not undermine it. Depicting human healers with features of medicinal plants mixes the human and the plant categories. This is the kind of porous boundary the passage describes, and it puts humans and plants on an equal footing.

Shortcut: the democratising view means no ranking and no human centre. Rule out every option that brings in either.

Hence, the answer is option 3.

Question 14 · RC Inference Questions

Which one of the following best explains the “additional complexity” that the example of the incense burner illustrates regarding personhood for the Classic Maya?
  1. A
    The example provides an exception to the nonbinary understanding of personhood that the passage had hitherto established.
  2. B
    The example adds a new layer to the nonbinary understanding of personhood by bringing in a third category that shares a similar relation with the previous two.
  3. C
    The example adds a new layer to the nonbinary understanding of personhood by bringing in a third category that shares a dissimilar relation with the previous two.
  4. D
    The example complicates the nonbinary understanding of personhood by bringing in the sacred, establishing the porosity of the divine and the profane.
Pick an option, then check.
Answer & solution

Answer: Option B

Until this point, the nonbinary idea has two categories: an object can be a person and still be its material kind (a person-tool still made of stone).

The incense burner adds a third category. It is a clay object, a person, and also a tree (the sacred ceiba). The tree category relates to it in the same way as the other two – it can be a tree while also being a person and an object. That is option 2.

Option 1 is wrong: it is not an exception; it pushes the nonbinary idea further.

Option 3 is wrong: nothing suggests the tree category relates to it in a different way.

Option 4 is wrong: the passage mentions that the ceiba tree is sacred, but its point is the extra category, not a divine/profane divide.

Shortcut: 'additional complexity' means 'one more layer of the same thing' – a further category held at the same time.

Hence, the answer is option 2.

Question 15 · RC - Questions

On the basis of the passage, which one of the following worldviews can be inferred to be closest to that of the Classic Maya?
  1. A
    A tribe that perceives its utensils as person-utensils in light of their functionality and bodily needs.
  2. B
    A tribe that perceives its hunting weapons as sacred person-artefacts because of their significance to its survival.
  3. C
    A futuristic society that perceives robots to be persons as well as robots because of their similarity to humans.
  4. D
    A tribe that perceives plants as person-plants because they form an ecosystem and are marked by needs of nutrition.
Pick an option, then check.
Answer & solution

Answer: Option D

For the Maya, personhood is 'activated' by bodily needs (hunger, tiredness) and by social roles (communication, interaction). It does not depend on usefulness or likeness to humans.

Option 4 fits: plants are seen as person-plants because they have nutritional needs (bodily needs) and form an ecosystem (a community). Both conditions of Maya personhood are present.

Option 1 makes functionality a reason for personhood. For the Maya, objects stay functional, but function is not why they are persons.

Option 2 bases personhood on usefulness for the tribe's survival – a link to humans, which the passage rejects.

Option 3 bases personhood on similarity to humans, which again puts humans at the centre.

Shortcut: look for the option that mentions needs and community; reject anything based on use or likeness to humans.

Hence, the answer is option 4.

Question 16 · Purpose & structure

Which one of the following, if true about the Classic Maya, would invalidate the purpose of the iPhone example in the passage?
  1. A
    The clay incense burner with spiky appliques was categorised only as a person and not as a tree by the Classic Maya.
  2. B
    Classic Maya songs represent both humans and non-living objects as characters, talking and interacting with each other.
  3. C
    Unlike modern societies equipped with mobile phones, the Classic Maya did not have any communicating objects.
  4. D
    The personhood of the incense burner and the stone chopper was a function of their usefulness to humans.
Pick an option, then check.
Answer & solution

Answer: Option D

The author uses the iPhone to raise one question: does a thing have personhood because it is connected to me, its owner? The Maya answer was no – nonhuman persons 'did not derive their personhood from a connection with a human'.

Option 4 says the personhood of the incense burner and stone chopper came from their usefulness to humans. That would make Maya personhood depend on humans, which is the very view the iPhone example is set up to contrast with. The example would lose its purpose.

Option 1 changes the tree detail, which has nothing to do with the iPhone example.

Option 2 fits the passage – objects talking and interacting is in line with Maya personhood.

Option 3 changes a side remark (that the Maya had communicating objects) but does not affect the main point about connection to an owner.

Shortcut: first state the example's purpose (personhood not derived from humans); then pick the option that makes personhood derived from humans.

Hence, the answer is option 4.

Take this paper as a timed test
Real exam timing, instant score, rank and topic-wise analysis.

Practice timed →