The Humanist elephant - Extraits disponible en Francais
Babu Gogineni

What is Humanism exactly, what does it mean in the modern world, and in what sense can it be meaningful in this new century-and more importantly, how does it resemble ketchup? These are the questions I wish to address. In the classic story, five blind men gave five different descriptions of the elephant. Here is my version of the Humanist elephant, but with eyes wide open! I believe that our Humanism is a living philosophy of freedom and democracy (Tarkunde); in fact my own entry into organized humanism came via an interest in human rights and democracy. My atheism is an important part of my identity, but that is not what propelled me into Humanist activism. In social life I believe that our commitment to human dignity should lead to opposing all that makes the human an instrument to serve a 'higher' purpose: God, nation, religion, community, class, caste or creed. Our attachment to reason and to reasonableness should become the means to tackle human problems. Our scepticism-for we are sceptics, I believe, not cynics-should help us look critically at our world and help us improve it for ourselves and for others. I believe that our social commitment should be to ever expand the frontiers of responsible human freedom. Of course, Humanism is both a social as well as a personal philosophy. As the personal philosophy of the human being, Humanism tries to help answer the great questions of life. We try to find out what this world is about, what we are doing here, and how best to lead a life which is both personally satisfying and socially useful. It is also true that we try to give meaning to our own lives because we see no set purpose other than that which we give to it. Here we are trying to answer some of the questions that traditionally religion has attempted to answer. But philosophy is not theology and Humanism is not religion. The essential difference is that while we might be engaged by those same questions as religion, our interest is not in religion's eternal answers-for us what is permanent are these questions. It is the pursuit of truth that is most important to us, not its possession (Venkatadri). Humanism is nothing if it is not a continuous interrogation about our universe and our place in it.

Humanism and natural selection

Our naturalistic understanding of the universe, our valuing of the scientific spirit, our concept of the morally autonomous being, our loyalty to the democratic culture, our desire to re-build the world, our sense of responsibility to fellow human beings and to the rest of nature, our understanding of the true nature of beauty, and our appreciation of the fine arts and refined culture: all this ties up into a life stance-a life stance deserving to be adopted by the world. This hope was eloquently articulated in the 1970s when the Humanist Manifesto II started off with the grand declaration that the next century-this one-can be and should be a Humanist century. Sadly, we are not yet in that Humanist century. There is today a confederacy of irrationalism-of religion allied with the tribal values of nation-and a widespread disregard for human values which is regressing us into our social memory of intolerance and of inconsiderateness to fellow human beings. Three hundred years ago the beacon lights of the world were our spiritual ancestors. Name a social reformer a few centuries ago, and it is very likely that this was a Humanist-our spiritual ancestors were articulators of inspiring visions for the world and leaders of people-not merely heads of organizations, as is the case today. Today the world is not being remade in the Humanist image anymore. I suggest we lost this battle because by a steady process of self-elimination we have pushed ourselves out of the mainstream of human activities, through our endless discussions about religion and God: famously diagnosed by a fellow humanist as 'paralysis by analysis'. It appears to me that at times we Humanists do not even preach what the other side practises! To be back on track, we need to reconnect to the grand Humanist tradition. For inspiration, let us remember one of our spiritual ancestors, Thomas Paine. When Benjamin Franklin said: 'Where there is freedom, there is my country', Thomas Paine so nobly retorted: 'Where there is none, there is mine'. That is where we should be: where there is a deficit of freedom, so that we can fight for it and achieve it. Are modern-day Humanists at the barricades then? No. The warning to organized Humanism is very clear: there is no reason why Humanism should triumph in the present-day world if we continue to be how we are-after all, we believe in Darwin's natural selection! If Humanism will not mean a better life for people, if it will not make a difference in their lives, why should it appeal to anyone?

The world in our image

We need a renewal and a rejuvenation. For that, we need to identify the most pressing problems of the world-and as groups of concerned individuals, we need to apply Humanism's liberating principles to the solution of these problems or to set the direction for new changes. Today, immense changes are taking place in the world, and there is a great need for Humanists to play an active role in the global processes and influence these developments. Even though today's world is a happier place than it has ever been in the past, there are several disturbing trends which need to be addressed. We are told that a new World Order is being established-what a misleading term, there is no discernible order in this new world! The so-called world order is related to the military might and the economic strengths of the rich countries.

And today's globalization is in fact an economic globalization. One can notice that in the West parts of the world are referred to as 'emerging markets'. Not people-just markets; people are perceived as targets for economic activity, clients for debt industry, customers for the death-peddling arms industry! This predatory attitude of the Western economic expansionists needs to be combated. We are for globalization: but the globalization that Humanists should fight for is not that of the market, not that of the free market or of the regulated kind, but the globalization of the free mind. It is the globalization of the mind, of the universalization of our achievements that we must strive for. Humanism is a cultural achievement of humankind, and it matters not whether it came from Greece, which it did not, or if it came from India-even that it did not. I think that it is a failing in the understanding of our common humanity as well as imperfect scholarship to claim that only some parts of the world contributed to its progress. In this world 'divided by maps' too often we are stuck into moulds that are created by etymology, by chronology, and by geography. Humanism originates in human nature, and it is for this reason that it is universal, not because it came from the navel of the world, which for most people living in the West is the ancient slave-owning societies of Greece. Let the West not be unduly proud: slavery of Africans, adoption of one of the most irrational of religions, imperialism and the atom bomb are part of its history.

Modernization, not Westernization

The West should theoretically epitomize the grandest achievements of Humanism: democracy, free choice, human rights, the spirit of science, a spirit of openness ... But when one looks at those who are at the receiving end of the countries enjoying these achievements, it is natural to develop doubts. Specially when you are a citizen of the Third World, when you are in, as an American Humanist once put it, 'not the third world, but the two-thirds world', then you are under one of the kleptocracies of the Mobutus or in the Banana Republics of South America propped up by the active collusion of the West, or in a country being sold destructive technologies. Let us continue to look around: one fifth of the world (the West) participates in four fifths of its economic activity. Of the twenty-three trillion dollars of global domestic product, eighteen belong to just one fifth of the world (the West). If we have to be fair, then the resources of the world should be equitably shared-not all of it should be exported to the West!? We do want the rest of the world to benefit from the achievements of science and technology, and we do hope that this will lead to a better way of life for all the inhabitants of the planet, but the Western model of development-of unbridled consumerism-is inappropriate. Let us replace free trade by fair trade; let us replace concepts of military security by those of human security and welfare. Let us put the Human back at the center of our endeavors.

Broadening our embrace

Humanism combats the despotism of religion, but why not the despotism of the market? If the global society that is to be formed has to be formed on universal principles, then can we just let the impoverishment of the planet happen unchallenged? We need to demonstrate that our values are not just an elevated particularism, but that they have a universal significance. Then are Humanists to play politics? I suggest they should. Not the power politics that we are accustomed to; not the 'strife of interests disguised as a conflict of principles'. Not supporting democracies which are founded on the 'collective wisdom of individual ignorance'-but the politics of freedom-a politics of liberating people by fighting for their human rights. What is Humanism, if it is not about human rights? The Humanism of this century has to be an angry Humanism, an all-embracing Humanism; a Humanism not defeated 'by the pessimism of thought, but fired by the optimism of the will'; a Humanism which is willing to assert itself. We need a missionary zeal in Humanism, but yet it will have to be a Humanism beyond religion; a post-religious Humanism.

Deepening our identity

When we throw our arms wide open, how far do we go? I have heard a suggestion that the Humanist group should open its doors of membership to even the religious because Humanism is inclusive. It is society's job to be all-inclusive and to make sure no thought process is excluded, and we must indeed work for such a society. However, a Humanist group should be open only to Humanists because we have shared objectives to pursue and common goals to attain. In our context, we need to think in organizational mode. The organizational mode has its own hazards undoubtedly-frequently we are caught up in organizational identities; and at times the organization we belong to becomes our own identity. Is that not why some Humanist groups are in conflict with each other? Our identity I believe should be as human beings, first and last-an identity that we realize best through Humanism. I have advocated that Humanists have to go beyond religion and embrace other fields of human activity, like economics and politics, but I would also like to emphasize the importance of continuing to critically evaluate religion. My proposals are not about abandoning old duties, but about recognizing new ones. I am also asking for a deepening of our identity at the same time as broadening our embrace: let there be no doubt-we are children of reason, and as Edd Doerr said 'let passion fill your sails, but let reason be your rudder'. Humanists need to continue to safeguard the individual's liberty of conscience by advocating truly secular states, and we should also strive for secular societies. There is a new tendency among Humanists now: when some of us criticize religion we are exhorted to be positive, not negative. Yet, as Levi Fragell asked, what is negative about restoring common sense? Voltaire warned us that people who believe absurdities also commit atrocities and we need to protect ourselves and others from fanaticism. Where necessary, Humanism has to destroy so that the way for the new and the better is created. Why should religion be spared from our critical gaze?

Humanism is thixotropic

As we go out into society and we try to influence people with our rational, secular, liberating, modern ideas, we will help humanize our society. Whether people join our organizations or not is less important than achieving a society built on human values. A society that is built on universal human values will be a Humanist one, and that is what we desire. The crucial challenge for us, and in fact the challenge to the Humanism of this century, will be: 'How shall we extend the values of Humanism to the present and future world condition?' The answer I believe can be found in ketchup. Ketchup is thixotropic-it is both liquid and solid. And so is Humanism, which can destroy the bad as well as rebuild for the better-it has done so in the past and can do so in the future. Also, Humanism can be organized as in the context of the IHEU and its member organizations; but it can also be a movement. Since we look at our tradition as a human tradition that exists within and without our groups, we should be able to build alliances with people, even outside our groups, to achieve our common purposes. So for me the crucial question is: 'How can Humanism retain its dual, thixotropic identity of destroyer and creator; or of organization and of movement so as to pave the way for a new civilization?' The answer to this question shall hold the key to the future of our hopes, and indeed the answer to the problem of the future of Humanism.

---

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.