Terje Emberland

Public Perception of Humanism

When the humanist movement is covered in the media, it is usually as a result of our critique of organised religion, and the misuse of power by religious institutions.

The reason for this is two-fold. Firstly, the simple fact that it is a lot easier to get the attention of journalists by provocative statements and harsh attacks than by conveying a positive message. Conflict sells and provocations make interesting headlines.

Secondly, it is due to us Humanists ourselves. Because most Humanists have reached their life stance through a
– often painful – process of liberating them selves from personal religious convictions or at least from a dominating religious environment, the critique of religion has become a defining aspect of their life stance and the single most important motivating factor behind their commitment. And this is then, in turn, conveyed though the media.

And these two factors are mutually reinforcing each other. The journalists are looking for conflicts, and – since we time and time again experience that it is easy to attract media attention by attacking religion – we are more than willing to provide them with what they want.

However, this has an impact on the popular perception of Humanism. To most people outside our movement, and also to some inside, Humanism is equated with atheism. We are first and foremost anti- religious.

Opposing Humanism to Religion

And in many respects I think it cannot be otherwise. As long as organised religion has such a dominating position in ours societies, it is virtually impossible not to describe the humanist life stance by contrasting it to prevailing religious ideas.

And I’m not saying that this is all bad, on the contrary. Speaking from the Norwegian experience, it is a fact that the rapid growth of the Norwegian humanist movement in the 70s and the 80s was a direct result of our critique of the state church monopoly and Christianity’s dominant position in the public sphere. Now it seems that our Swedish friends in Humanisterna are experiencing much of the same thing: a clear and out-spoken stance on the hegemony of Christianity and the church creates media attention and a rapid growth in members.

It is, however, also our experience that if the humanist movement is going to consolidate itself and ensure enduring commitment among its members, it has to be perceived as more that just an organisation for anti-religious activists. Consequently, we have to try to present other aspects of Humanism to the public.

Now, this is obviously a great challenge. Due to the factors I’ve mentioned, the fact remains that it is easier to present Humanism negatively by what we are against than to present it positively by what we are for.

However, by taking this into account, I would like to mention one thing by which we can broaden the perception of the humanist life stance to include more of our positive values.

Broadening our Attack

And this is not by flooding the news desks with flowery press releases on the value of individual freedom, free inquiry and such. But simply by being even more critical and negative, by broadening our attacks to include other phenomenon in our society than that of organised religion.

I have one particular thing in mind, which in a fundamental way violates and challenges humanist values. This is only an example. Others could be mentioned. They have to be applied to the specific situation in each country.

When the International Humanist and Ethical Union was established in 1952 it was just after the Second World War and the disaster and suffering brought about by Nazism and Stalinism. It is quite clear that for the founders of the IHEU, Humanism was perceived to be an alternative, not only to organised religion, but also – and in particular – to this kind of totalitarian political religion.

I think it is time to bring this more to the foreground again. By taking a clear stand against the growing fascist, right-wing populist, racist and xenophobic tendencies in many parts of the world, we will be able to highlight aspects of Humanism that is not so much in focus though our critique of organised religion.

What makes us unique

For the fight against this is not a solely ethical matter. The rejection of these tendencies on ethical grounds is something we share with most religious people. What we, however, can demonstrate is that totalitarian political ideologies not only are ethically wrong but also by nature anti-rationalist, and hence violates basic epistemological concepts in Humanism. Consequently, our fight against fascism will not only highlight the ethical values of Humanism, but also out commitment to free inquiry, scientific methods and rationality and demonstrate how these ideals are intrinsically linked up with democracy.

What I’m saying is that we have to demonstrate that to Humanists the fight against totalitarian ideologies both on the left and right side of the political spectrum is not a matter of politics, but is part of our world view and fundamentally linked to our perception of truth and ethical outlook.

Another point is that many people have positive perceptions of religion, and this is why a humanist critique of religion is seen as more negative than it actually is. But most people have a very different attitude towards racism and fascism. Therefore it’s much easier to see the positive values in the humanist position, when its critique is directed against these ideologies, even though this critique is based on exactly the same values as the critique of religion, namely universalism, rationalism, free inquiry and human rights.

Hence, we should write more on these subjects in our magazines, we should cooperate with serious anti-fascist organisations and take part in anti-racist activities, and we should, when given the opportunity, take the initiative in anti-fascist demonstrations.

Occasionally this will entail going in alliance with religious organisations that the humanist movement often regard as their prime opponents, something that will demonstrate that we are able to apply tolerance and respect for freedom of religion in practice.

By opening up this second front, so to speak, we will still be defining Humanism negatively. But it will give us the possibility to more clearly circumscribe our position. And hence, hopefully broaden the public perception of Humanism. This front will highlight other parts of our life stance than those which are focused in our critique of organised religion. And it will demonstrate why humanist rationalism is the best safeguard against this totalitarian danger.

Terje Emberland is a former Editor of Humanist, published by the Humanist Association of Norway. He is an active skeptic and one of Norway’s leading experts on Racism and Fascism.