Levi Fragell*

This article deals more with strategies than with the ideal objectives of Humanism. In order to avoid any misunderstanding of what is my greatest wish and fundamental purpose, I would therefore like to state briefly what I consider to be the primary focus, indeed the very raison d'àªtre, of the organized Humanist movement: it is a campaign to achieve an open society in which individuals may freely and equally practice their chosen life stance, and in which the human potential is realized to the benefit of the individual and the community at large. It is, however, not my intention to elaborate here on what such a society would comprise or which aspects of human potential would be of the greatest significance within this context. There are others who are better qualified than I to debate the philosophical tenets and priorities of Humanism. As president of the IHEU in this anniversary year of 2002, I would like to share with my readers some of the thoughts that have come to my mind, as a result of both my professional experience as a communication advisor and my growing concern in recent years as regards the development of the IHEU as an organization. Humanism is a life stance greatly in keeping with our times, and is therefore without doubt an alternative that holds great appeal for the enlightened, knowledgeable masses of today. But only a tiny fraction of those who truly share our views have sought the membership of a humanist organization. One obvious reason why so many people with a humanist orientation do not participate in our organization, is that they have not really understood what we stand for-and that they often do not even know that we exist. This is, surely, at least half the explanation. However, since many others clearly feel that it is possible to be a Humanist without needing to be part of a humanist organization, we must also seek additional explanations. Many of our associations do not offer members any specific advantages or 'benefits'. The annual membership fee thus becomes a diffusely grounded moral obligation, while a number of other organizations deal more effectively and discernibly with the individual issues that together form the basis for the Humanist platform-from euthanasia to human rights. This article will take a closer look at the problems that these two obstacles pose to the development of the IHEU, namely:

1 the fact that a majority of the world's secular population has not discovered the existence of the international Humanist movement, and
2 the fact that many of our local organizations do not seem to hold any definable appeal for people who essentially advocate a Humanist life stance.

Before I proceed, I would like to assure my readers that I take an optimistic view of the outlook for the IHEU in years to come. I am convinced that the future of Humanism is bright, that it will emerge as a natural choice of life stance as religions gradually lose ground.

Visibility

The IHEU was founded by a group of prominent thinkers and cultural figures. They gave the organization a substance and merit that still stand us in good stead. With names such as Sir Julian Huxley, Lord Boyd Orr, Jaap van Praag and Harold Blackham among the founders we have been viewed with respect. What the founding forum may perhaps have lacked, in my view, were individuals with experience from political life, marketing and media. At least this kind of expertise was not fully incorporated into the start-up phases. The organization's name, International Humanist and Ethical Union, is so heavy that even our own members have trouble remembering it, and the acronym IHEU is virtually unpronounceable in most languages. It is much simpler for organizations such as Amnesty International, the Red Cross, Save the Children, etc., whose names are easy to grasp and remember. It is true that many national Humanist groups have straightforward names, such as Humanistisch Verbond or Humanist Association, and it is a fact this does not automatically lead to greater numbers of members than organizations with less clear, more elaborate names, such as Human-Etisk Forbund in Norway, my own country. Increased growth in the local organizations will be due to many factors, but there can be no doubt that the application of a common naming principle would make us more visible as an international movement. Nor can there be any doubt that the individual national groups would benefit from belonging to an easily identifiable, well-known world organization, which would define us all-large and small alike-as part of a recognized global community. I have argued for this view within the IHEU for over 25 years. I have been pleased to note that organizations in Germany and Sweden have understood the importance of this line of thinking, and have taken the difficult step of changing their names. Such adaptation is not possible in many groups for local reasons that I fully respect, but whether one is known as a rationalist, freethinker, secularist or atheist, it is still possible to include words like Humanist or Humanism in a logo, in information material, on letterhead stationery, journal covers, etc. There are those who believe that this strategy is designed to make our organizations more uniform. They fear that it is part of an effort to remove or moderate the radical, critical or sceptical profile that characterizes those of our member groups whose roots lie in the rationalist and freethinking traditions. Let me emphasize that this is in no way the case. On the contrary, I consider the IHEU's diversity to be a great virtue. It goes without saying that humanists in the open and tolerant Netherlands face other challenges than the need to criticize the Christian Church, while many Polish humanists consider religious anti-Humanism to pose their greatest problem. While superstition and 'spiritual' fraud are only marginal problems in Western Europe, they are widespread in Indian society. There are many who speak of dogmatic Humanism in reference to groups who delineate the critical frontlines of Humanism, but in my opinion it is often the accepting, 'nice' form of Humanism that is dogmatic-in the view of its propounders it is the others who have lost sight of what 'genuine' Humanism is about. So let me state once again: the IHEU's diversity is not a weakness but a strength. But this does not mean that we should distance ourselves from one another by means of unrecognizable identities. We are all Humanists. In many countries, however, the term 'humanism' has more than one meaning, and IHEU local groups are concerned about being misconstrued as advocates of movements that utilize this term in a manner different from ours. But where in the science of semantics does one find a word that cannot have more than a single meaning? If socialists, conservatives, democrats and Christians had put off giving themselves names until their designations were absolutely unambiguous, there would have been few political parties and very small congregations. Naturally, I understand the problem that arises from multiple meanings of the term humanism that are just as legitimate as 'our' humanism. They describe different traditions within education, culture, politics and charity. But why should we bow out when humanism as a specific secular life stance is defined as one of the primary meanings of the word in most of the world's best known dictionaries. Here are a few examples. - Little Oxford Dictionary (1995) contains only one definition: 'Humanism: non-religious philosophy, based on liberal human values'. - Collins Concise Dictionary (1995): 'Humanism: the rejection of religion in favour of the advancement of humanity by its own efforts.' (One of several definitions listed.) - Chambers (1994): 'Humanism: any system which puts human interest and the mind of man paramount, rejection of the supernatural, belief in God etc.' (One of several definitions listed.) - Chambers, mini edition (1995): 'Humanism: seeking without religion, the best in and for human beings.' (The one and only definition.) The founding pioneers could have selected a different name during their discussions in Amsterdam in 1952. But since the word humanism was chosen, it seems foolish not to apply greater effort to profile it-otherwise we risk finding ourselves deleted from future editions of dictionaries.

The British Humanist and philosopher Harry Stopes-Roe is one of my international friends who has also shown a keen interest in the identity problem of IHEU. Together we drafted a statement in 1988, The Humanist Identity, which was signed by Harold Blackham, Corliss Lamont, Rob Tielman, Harry Stopes-Roe and myself. The statement asserts among other things:

'All Humanists, nationally and internationally, should always use the one word Humanism as the name of Humanism: no added adjective ...'

The statement continues with:

'If the International Humanist and Ethical Union does not succeed in getting the groups in our movement to identify themselves as Humanists within very few years, the already weak organization of Humanists will die and become one of the less important episodes of the changing twentieth century.'

Today I not only believe in the survival of the IHEU, I also believe that the twenty-first century will be the century in which Humanism comes into its own. My optimism is based on recent global statistics that show that the non-religious individuals are the fastest-growing category of all. (World Christian Encyclopedia 2001). While the number of Christians is three times larger than it was a hundred years ago, and the number of Muslims has increased six times over the same period, the number of individuals without any form of religious association has leapt from three million to nine hundred million, which is a factor of three hundred. This development is unprecedented in human history. There are many, many millions of people out there who basically advocate the Humanist alternative. We have just embarked upon the twenty-first century. The alarm expressed in the 1988 statement has not become less significant, but let us reinterpret it in the following way. Organized Humanism did not become what it might and should have become in the twentieth century, primarily because we did not settle on a common strategy for identifying our international organization. Let us not make the same mistake over again. Let us invite the millions to join us as Humanists.

What is the appeal?

Why should Humanists join a Humanist organization? Is it not possible for each individual to be a Humanist in private? Humanists do not need to go to churches or temples to receive a blessing or find redemption. Organized Humanists seem to think, in a somewhat moralistic way, that joining us is a matter of idealism and solidarity. Of course there are idealists who feel obliged to support our work, but since the world is full of good causes many Humanists may feel that we have not always chosen the most essential ones. To encourage people to join and pay our annual fees there needs to be some special advantage or benefit associated with the membership, such as the satisfaction of participating in the fight to right some of the wrongs of today's world. But issues of this nature are usually dealt with by groups and organizations that have been set up precisely to attack or defend particular issues. Are there causes that the Humanists support that are not also dealt with by one or more of these specific, usually dynamic entities, offering emotional fellowship and enthusiasm? Yes, some of our national and local groups are able to offer this kind of uniqueness, conveying a message that others do not care about or do not dare to propagate. It may be particular human rights connected to the freedom of conscience, scientific knowledge in superstitious cultures, sexual freedom in traditional societies, exposing fraud in religion, etc. Such groups provide members and followers with a feeling of individual importance. The members not only contribute to the cause, they also receive something in return: emotional satisfaction. To these groups I say: keep up the good work. Do not let philosophical or intellectual claims about another or more correct Humanism distract you. But please be aware of it when the problems you deal with have been resolved or have been reduced to minor faults in your society. Do not chase predators that have already become extinct. The situation faced by many Humanist organizations is that some or all of their specific causes have already won or they have lost importance, and others will in the future be made up for by the continuing development towards a more open and tolerant society. In Europe, for instance, the separation of church and state is on the political agenda even in countries that still have religious constitutions, and within a generation the secular society will be the normal. It is most urgent that Humanist organizations that are influenced by this general development should deal more systematically with growth (survival?) strategies. And since we consider Humanism to be an alternative to religions, we should take a closer look at the strategies of these religious 'life stance competitors' to see if they have anything to teach us. The larger religions of the world are among the most stable cultural phenomena in existence. Despite what their followers prefer to believe, however, neither their doctrines nor the extent of their organization is everlasting, but they are far more resilient than any other movements. No other organizations can trace their traditions back several hundreds and even thousands of years.

What makes a life stance viable?

Humanism is concerned with the same kinds of 'deeper' questions as traditional religion, and generates a comparable identity and communal feeling among its followers. But does this mean that our secular life stance can develop the same ability as the religions to survive throughout the ages, so that we can aspire to remain a viable alternative in the future? The answer to this question is yes, but only if we can identify precisely what it is about the nature of religion that allows it to take root under even the most difficult conditions. And then we must ask ourselves if we can or want to integrate similar qualities in the organizing of Humanism.

Various explanations

Theologians often claim that the reason for a religion's success lies in supernatural events. It is an act of God, or the Holy Spirit has given his followers strength and courage. Humanists do not accept this kind of mystical explanation. Of greater interest to us are the claims concerning the power of the believer's fervor and willingness to sacrifice. Many believe that it is this deeply-felt, 'personal' conviction that helps to keep religion alive, and it is certainly true that devoutness and faith have been powerful forces during periods of the history of religion, particularly during times of revival, proselytizing zeal and cultural conflict. But in most countries and societies we can compare ourselves with, this intense form of religion is atypical for the day-to-day lives of the citizens. A variety of studies have shown that a majority of the members of broad-based popular Churches do not sustain such deep, personal convictions. They do not pray, do not attend church services and are unable to explain the fundamental principles of their own religion. Moreover, there is much that indicates that religious communities that place a high premium on personal conviction gradually lose their support, and often fade quietly away. The quality of the ideological message is not a successful measure of the ability of a life stance to survive into the future in an organized fashion, although this optimistic premise is woven into the utopian rhetoric of all religions, where the 'gospel' is endowed with eternal validity and a unique, timeless 'power to redeem'. This is not to imply that the substance of the message is immaterial, especially as concerns moral credibility. But were it truly the case that the relevance and importance of an issue would be enough to ensure the survival of any philosophical undertaking, then the world's organizations for nature conservation would be assured of immortality. In reality, even the genuinely life-saving causes are fighting to survive, and each reaches only a small fraction of a country's population. The justification for the establishment of the IHEU is founded on our ideal objectives, and I am in no way advocating that we should cease fighting for Humanism's ideals, or lessen our commitment to justice, compassion and freedom of thought. The organization is a channel by which to achieve our objectives, but its structure and existence are sustained by human needs, not by the correct opinions.

Fundamental needs

In my view, the key to ensuring a stable organization of a future secular life stance association does not lie in attempting to emulate the emotional devotion and ideological emphasis of religion. If we disregard the importance of political power and economic privilege, I believe that the success of religion in a historical perspective first and foremost is due to its ability to meet specific, fundamental, human needs that are not satisfied elsewhere. Such needs include: 1 the need for life-cycle ceremonies, and 2 the need for care services during life crises. The fact that religious communities fulfil precisely these needs is more than anything else the reason why religion continues to appeal to the modern masses. I believe that the continued existence of organized Humanism in the secular world of tomorrow hinges upon our willingness and ability to establish appropriate mechanisms for dealing with our cultures' fundamental human social needs in a comparable fashion.

Ceremonies

As regards ceremonies, the greatest, most wide-ranging need among registered and unregistered Humanists is the need for a Humanist funeral ceremony. As I mentioned, a hundred years ago there were three million non-religious people in this world. Today the number is nine hundred million. Those who have left religion during the last couple of generations are aging, and there will soon be a dramatic increase of the death-rate among non-believers. Those who have helped to provide services in connection with Humanist funeral ceremonies know that this involves needs far beyond the technical arrangements. If we do not focus our immediate attention on implementing measures to deal with this challenge, then I fear there will be negative repercussions for Humanist organizations as a whole. Ceremonies associated with birth, coming of age, marriage and death have been monopolized by religions, but are of course expressions of a common culture, connected to family traditions and social patterns. Some Humanist groups have augmented their success by developing alternatives for these events. In my own country, for instance, we gather 9000 young men and women at Humanist coming of age ceremonies each year. More than 100,000 relatives and friends attend these ceremonies, which highlight Humanist views and values. The question of whether ceremonies in themselves are crucial to a life stance is obviously debatable. Viewed in relief against need and injustice in the world it is easy to find polemical arguments against giving priority to ceremonies. But then I must pose the following questions: do we not wish to be perceived as a broad-based, popular life stance organization that provides common ground for the vast number of individuals who do not believe in religious dogmas? Would not such an organization help to promote true freedom of choice and integrity in life stance issues? Is it not also an ethical challenge for Humanists to help to meet the human needs underlying such life-cycle ceremonies? In what other situations would we have a similar opportunity to present our Humanist ideals to a broader public?

Care services

The other fundamental need met under the auspices of religious communities is the need for care services in times of life crises. This applies particularly in cases of serious illness and death, but also in situations involving personal traumas or large-scale disasters. (In some countries, Humanists have developed expertise and services within this sphere, and participate alongside members of the clergy at hospitals, prisons and in private home visits.) Priests and religious leaders are active and visible in media-covered catastrophes and disasters, which helps to sustain the image of religion-and religion alone-as a caregiver for people in the throes of the most difficult times of their lives. In my view, these efforts sometimes seem intrusive, and even leave the impression that the life stance representatives may be exploiting the situation to promote their own interests. It seems to me, however, that Humanists should be represented in all private or public crisis situations where traditional religion is represented, although our services should be offered discreetly and made primarily available to those who seek them out. In discussions about the participation of Humanists in such care functions it is often pointed out that these services are usually better provided by medical personnel or social workers, but surely this is not a question of one versus the other. Healthcare personnel and Humanist advisors would fill complementary roles. Clearly, Humanists who wish to provide assistance in times of serious crisis will need special training, perhaps even academic qualifications. (Humanist advisors in the Netherlands, Belgium and the USA have usually completed a special training.) However, a care service strategy must encompass several different levels, and indeed it is the lowest level-the ground level so to speak-that may prove most crucial to the organization, the level where we take care of one another as friends and fellow human beings. No special training is required to visit a member who is confined to a convalescent home. Naturally, a broad-based Humanist organization-like any open religious society-will have a substantial number of members who are not interested in such personal involvement in their lives, except under extraordinary circumstances such as large-scale tragedies or in times of extreme personal difficulties. But how do we relate to those Humanists who have joined us because they need to belong to a group that cares? This kind of question was not in focus when IHEU was established in 1952. After two world wars and international crises our founding leaders had visions about a better and more peaceful world, and a dream that Humanism would be the force that could move the world ahead. There are no reasons to abandon their great expectations. Looking at the present world situation visions of global peace and justice are needed more than ever and may be what today's Humanists need to find new hope and courage. But organizations consist of structures, practical choices, strategies and ... people! In the future we must give much more attention to organization building. But Humanist organization should never be a goal in itself, though. It is the tool with which we endeavor to achieve our goals.

Can the goals be the method?

When I have discussed organizational matters with humanist friends, especially the younger ones, they often ask: cannot the campaigning for the Humanist goals in itself be the method that fulfils the two strategies of: 1 giving Humanism a visible identity and 2 being attractive for potential members. I would answer that pointing at our goals is important for both of these strategies. First and foremost because without the goals we would have had no Humanism, but also because activity causes both visibility and emotions. But the problem will often be that Humanism consists of a hundred causes-and stabilizing structures must have a more permanent character, and must not be divisive on the basis of politics. Partly the question also concerns the organization model we have in mind. Do we want to build a large organization, with members at all levels of society, or are we satisfied with being smaller? As you will have understood from this article my leading star is not the slogan 'small is beautiful'. The most important effects of the Humanist ideas and ideals are not their marketing potentials, they are much more important. The fight for human rights, against suppression and injustice, for self-determination and self-respect-is not a question of pragmatic public relation. It is a question about the organization's heartbeat.

---

* Levi Fragell (1939, Norway) is President of IHEU since 1998.

---

International Humanist and Ethical Union 1952-2002
Past, present and future
Bert Gasenbeek and Babu Gogineni (eds.)
Copyright © 2002 by De Tijdstroom uitgeverij.
Republished 2006 at http://www.iheu.org with permission
ISBN 90 5898 041 3 nur 730, 740
This book has been semi-automatically reformatted to fit this web site. Please tell us of any formatting errors that you encounter.
The entire book is also available, with illustrations, as a PDF ebook on this web site.