SPEECH BY HARRY KUNNEMAN
Noordwijkerhout, 6 July 2002

Ladies and gentlemen,
I feel privileged for being allowed the opportunity to say a few words today with regard to the Amsterdam Declaration from the perspective of the Dutch Humanist Alliance, or at least from my personal rendering of this perspective. I would like to do so by looking back and by looking forward.

Looking back I feel gratitude for a beautiful and inspiring conference which makes me proud to be part of the Humanist Movement and really gives me confidence and inspiration for the future. Looking forward, however, I also think something completely different. How come, I ask myself, that all these important ideas and far reaching visions which have been presented to us during the last three days, have only a comparatively small influence on a world wide scale?

I firmly believe that there is a real humanizing potential embedded within contemporary humanism and an even greater need for this potential in the light of the staggering problems confronting us as citizens of present day world society. But this potential seems to find only a limited recognition and does not seem to have come to full fruition. So I would like to present you an agenda for the International Humanist Movement for the next ten years, as a sort of supplement to the Amsterdam Declaration. I hope and expect that some of the elements of the alternative declaration presented to us will resonate in this agenda. It consists of four points.

1. The first point concerns the further internationalization, feminization and political radicalization of international humanism, based on intensified co-operation between humanist organizations all over the world. One of the great merits of this conference has been the strong input by thinkers, artists and activists from India, Pakistan, Africa, South America and many other places, and especially by strong women like Urvashi Butalia and Sylvie Duran, to mention but a few. It is of course well-known to us all that humanism has been very much a matter of Western, white, Euro-American middle-class, middle-aged men. So I would like to ask: does not the future of humanism lie in the Southern hemisphere? Doesn't the International Humanist Movement need a massive influx of inspiring women in positions of influence and power? And doesn't the issue of sustainability and sustainable development merit the highest priority on the agenda of the Humanist Movement during the next ten years?

2. My second point concerns a very sensitive subject namely the relation between humanism and religion. Here I would strongly plead for a double-edged instead of a one-track strategy and attitude with regard to religion and spirituality. I am aware that this is a very touchy subject among humanists, surrounded by strong and deep emotions, which deserve respect and understanding. But this subject also crucially involves the future course and the identity of the International Humanist Movement. In my opinion it is of the utmost importance that we do not define our identity negatively, in terms of what we are against, but articulate it positively in terms of what we cherish and long for. In this respect I was struck by a statement yesterday in the discussion regarding the video on humanist speeches during funerals, where at one point we were told that their motto changed from 'a funeral without god' to 'celebrating a life'. This phrase nicely captures the point I am trying to make, the idea that we need a double-edged, both critical ànd co-operative, instead of a one-track strategy and attitude with regard to religion and spirituality.

On the one hand I wholeheartedly agree with the struggle advocated by Mr. Babu Cogineni and many others against all forms of dogmatic, fundamentalist and violent religiousness and with their fierce denouncement of all atrocities perpetrated against innocent women and men in the name of god and of dogmatically upheld religious revelations. This struggle directly flows from the humanist endorsement of human rights, of the separation between state and church and of democratic institutions, and merits our full and unwavering support.

On the other hand, however, we should acknowledge the fact that for many people within present-day world society, religion and spirituality serve as sources of inspiration and orientation on the level of daily life with regard to values which are also very dear to us as humanists, such as care, compassion and solidarity. In view of the intolerance, violence and indifference at large in present-day world society, these religious inspired forms of moral engagement and human commitment should be considered as scarce and precious resources. In my view it is in the end primarily an intellectual issue from what source one gets one's moral inspiration and guidance. Seen in a humanistic perspective this source might even be deemed of secondary importance, as long as one acts morally on the basis of this source, that is to say with respect for others, with compassion for their suffering and with tolerance for their peculiarities. Every cultural source contributing to such forms of practical morality, whether religious, spiritual or secular, can and should in my eyes be welcomed and even cherished by humanists.

3. This brings me to the third point on my agenda for the humanist movement for the next ten years. This point simply reads: from theory to practice. As Marius Ernsting rightly stressed this morning, humanism is and should be not only a set of ideas and principles, but also and even primarily a set of practices. But as we all know humanism has been and still very much is a matter of theory, philosophy, books, declarations and intellectual debates.

The great advance to be made during the next ten years is in my eyes the strengthening and further development of the practical activities of humanist organizations in areas such as secular rituals surrounding life events, education, welfare, care for the elderly and related areas involving forms of social responsibility and the weaving and re-weaving of the social fabric, but also on the level of moral and ethical deliberation within professional and commercial organizations. It is here I think, within the context of managerial strategies and decisions and professional forms of production and control, that the day-to-day realities of globalization and the technology-driven expansion of neo-liberal market society, referred to by Jan Pronk on the first day of our conference, are getting shape on a day-to-day basis. So it is here also that questions of humanization, social responsibility, exclusion and justice are being heeded or dismissed on the level of concrete strategies, technological innovations and practical decisions. So it is here in my view that the greatest challenge for the humanist movement is to be found and new forms of practical humanism have to developed, on the basis of critical reflexivity, normative professionalism and open moral deliberation.

4. This brings me to my fourth and last point. It concerns the conceptual shifts and intellectual transformations on the level of humanistic theory and humanist philosophy which should be put on our agenda if we want to take the first three points seriously. I do not have the space here to delve seriously into these fascinating questions, which are central to our research efforts at the University for Humanistics, so in conclusion I only briefly mention three key-issues:

a) Re-thinking autonomy and freedom. These two concepts which are so central to modern humanism, should in my view urgently be reworked to include our gendered embodiment, the fragility of our identities and our existence and our dependence on care and, last but not least, the crucial contribution of shared cultural resources to the quality of our lives.

b) Broadening rationality. The idea of free enquiry and the related notions of scientific research and rational debate, should be broadened to include other forms of learning and deepening of critical insight and understanding, that is to say not only cognitive but also moral and existential forms of insight. This extension of the idea of critical enquiry to moral and existential forms of learning, implies the relevance of other resources for critical humanism besides theories and data, in particular narrative sources, ranging from life-histories and autobiographies to literature and films, and existential experiences and the inspiration provided by the lives of exemplary individuals.

c) Doing solidarity. This is the most difficult and important issue. It relates to the mismatch between what we hope for as humanists and what we actually do most of the times. It concerns the recognition that we live in a world full of strife, violence and misunderstanding of which we are very much a part. As humanists we long for more peace, solidarity and care between people, but we do not avail of ready-made solutions to bring these closer. Our commitment to human rights, to tolerance and to solidarity is clear and of the utmost importance. But we should also acknowledge in my view that also and maybe even especially for us as humanists - taking ourselves to be fully accountable for our deeds - there exists a gap, a divide between what we believe in and what we do most of the times. Thus, our commitment to human rights sends us on a quest which very much involves our whole person and which cuts trough and connects our private lives, our professional activities and our world citizenship. Against this background I would be very glad if during the next ten years humanism could develop into a name for an open quest of people who are very different with regard to their personal histories, their cultural backgrounds and their social positions and aspirations, but at the same time are all equal not only in their longing for more humane relations for themselves and for others and in their struggle to bring this into practice, but also in their hope and their trust that the way in which they give shape to their own lives will contribute, be it only a little bit, to the realization of this hope.
So I conclude by saying that I hope and expect that when we will meet again in ten years and look back upon this conference, we will be able to say to each other that at least some of this hope has indeed been realized during our lifetimes.

I thank you for your attention.