Jim Herrick

Humanism in Russia

A humanist conference in Moscow last Autumn has strengthened the humanist position in Russia. There are hopeful signs for a voice of reason in a troubled society.

THIS was my third visit to Moscow. The first came in 1964, during the era of Kruschev, when I travelled with a student drama group. The second was in 1987, the era of Gorbachov, when I was on holiday. The third has been recently in the period of Yeltsin when I attended an international Russian humanist congress. Needless to say the contrast between these periods was enormous. On the first occasion, being shunted officially around all the time, I felt I saw little of Russia though I was persuaded against my wishes, to queue for the quasi-religious sight of the embalmed body of Lenin. On the second occasion there was much greater freedom, but still a sense of a repressed society, although in hindsight I could say it was one on the verge of chaotic change.

Russia now has freedom, economic transformation, and social upheaval. There is visibly greater inequality of wealth, the Western luxury goods are there for the few who can buy them, while there is more poverty and a western characteristic that I had not seen before - begging. Freedom is a luxury you could do without if you are hungry. National health has somewhat declined with the age of death for men being reduced. This is put down to diet, availability of health treatment and alcohol. University teachers earn barely enough to live on and often take part time jobs to make ends meet.

The attempt to create a humanist organisation in Russia faces considerable problems. First, atheism was associated with the Marxist regime while religion was part of the dissident culture. The Institute for the Scientific Study of Atheism closed down in 1991. Dogmatic, ideological atheism is obviously no help to humanism (though humanists may often be atheists). There has been an enormous revival of religion and belief in a whole range of so-called paranormal phenomena. Some churches have been physically reconstructed right to the identical tower and brick.

It was suggested at the conference that 60 per cent of Russians were religious believers, while 15-20 per cent were unbelievers and 20-25 per cent were undecided. Perhaps about 7 per cent would identify as atheists. So much for seventy years of atheist indoctrination! Humanists must emphasise that humanism should be presented in the context of individual freedom and open dialogue.

Moscow Conference

The First International Humanist Conference took place in Moscow on 2-4 October 1997. The theme was 'Science and Common Sense in Russia: Crisis or New Possibilities'. It was organised by the Russian Humanist Society, the International Academy of Humanism (based in the USA) and the Department of Philosophy of Moscow State University. There were participants from the USA, UK, Germany, Slovakia, Poland and Norway.

In an introductory speech Dr. A. Panin suggested that there was a need to establish a proper balance between outlooks of atheism, which had been oppressive, and religious tendencies, which are growing. Rationalist humanism would be forced to find a place between these two. Humanism should not be aggressive; mysticism and religion should be permitted to exist. He proposed two tasks for the conference: first, to support the secular world outlook; second, to demarcate clearly between scientific rationalism and belief in the paranormal.

He stated that one of the reasons why scientists were silent on the paranormal was because of their preoccupation with their own economic problems. Another task is to develop the humanist face of science. Science is not automatically humanist. Scientific and technical progress have some anti-human features.

Acad N. Moiseev entitled his contribution 'Humanism as a barrier against the coming of the new Middle Ages'. The language of science, he pointed out, is in need of interpreters to help understand what is human, what is the value of the personality, the human being. Nowadays people are trying to rebuild their world and the development of humanism can play its part.

In 1992, the overthrow of the totalitarian system was a key point. There had been other such revolutions in the history of human beings for instance, the neolithic revolution, where weapons were needed for a new system to survive. Such changes are unpredictable. Now we could look to the system of humanism as a basis for civilisation since ancient times and for the future. Recognition of people's inner life was very important.

Everyone must now face the ecological imperative. Time is not working for us, when catastrophe happens it may be too late for us to do anything about it. The division of the world between developed and underdeveloped could exacerbate these problems. The division is growing. Talented people from the developed countries are leaving so that their skills and genetic input are lost. In the opposite direction, developed countries needed black metals (energy) and an injection of intellectual resources from the underdeveloped world.

There was a fear of further totalitarianism. The situation could lead to the degradation of the inner world of people in the developed countries.

Another scenario is that humanism could lead to the evolution of a new sensitivity so that nature could be in harmony with people. The harmonisation of human relations was a future principle for humanists. It was essential for people to be truthful in the future. Ecological humanitarian education is essential.

Professor Frolov, Director of the Institute of the Human Being and President of the Russian Philosophical Society, spoke about the need to createi a new synthesis of humanism. The areas of morality and science which had been developed by humanist philosophers were essential. People needed to follow laws and their own conscience. It was not enough to talk about humanism. We must try to put it into action. We must try to develop people in all spheres of life. There must be hope that we can build on ethics and humanism - a humanism which, like the humanism of Erasmus, unites people for humanity.

Professor Abelev spoke about individuality and competition in science. Humans as individuals or in groups were at the centre of scientific research. Each individual creates new ideas and new skills, but needs a situation in which to do it. It is necessary to get the scientific system and the finances together. Scientists have to justify their projects to the financial providers The world system of rating scientific research in order to get government! finance is coming into Russia.

Effective results require that the researcher should be committed. Competition is now used in science and this should not be so. Ethics are also necessary for deciding scientific projects. It is important to safeguard the independence of the researcher. In Russia, it is essential to gain government money for research and also to ensure a tradition of original ideas.

Humanism: past and present

Among concurrent sessions the one I attended was on 'Humanism: a history and contemporary times'. Other groups covered 'Humanisation of Higher Education', 'Science and Common Sense', and 'Rationality and Irrationalism in today's Russia'.

Issues of absolutes versus universals, the nature of values, self-actuatio~ the evolutionary and historic development of humankind, the legacy of the 18th century Enlightenment, the place of atheism were all discussed.

Professor Razin discussed 'Universalism, particularism and humanism'. He surveyed the position of ethics as moral absolutes and the virtues of good and suggested that moral absolutes were disappearing. Coming in is the value of individual being and the importance of self-development. Living in close contact with society brings in moral values. Professor Gretsky referred to the ideas of Nietzsche - in particular the need for the change of all values. He wanted individualism not collectivism. Humanism has criticised so-called socialism. Static humanism adhered to certain absolute ideas while society changes and human beings change. Competition and consumerism were becoming part of society. But they are not yet entirely successful. A dynamic humanism should be based on comparative not eternal values. There were imperative global problems to be solved, we must not wait, but must attempt to solve them now.

In my paper I examined the ideas of the 18th century Enlightenment and concluded that, with some modification, they were relevant today, especially in face of the 'intellectual postures' of post-modernism. Professor Mezhuev said that humanism existed in dialogue not with final answers. There was little of humanism in the Russian tradition; for instance, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy were not humanists. Russian culture is permeated with religion. The emphasis on self-actualisation meant that individuals were doomed to be alone. But Marxism and socialism were not the same. We should develop the idea of a secular society.