People who sign up to Humanist organisations are generally supporting a life philosophy which amounts to:
'We humans are on our own and dependent on the resources and ingenuity of ourselves and other human beings and that of our surroundings. As far as we can tell there is no supernatural being guiding and caring for our welfare. Yet despite this potentially bleak prospect it is possible to lead an ethical, responsible and rewarding life.'
The modern Humanist movement arose in the aftermath of World War II. In view of the monstrously inhumane behaviour of supposedly civilised Christians to each other and non-Christians, many people surmised that religion as a source of ethical values was very suspect.
Today in an era of religious pluralism most of the world religions have a tolerant acceptance of each other. Which raised the very obvious question, 'If they are all just different answers to why we are here and how we should live?', then no one of them is better or more correct than any of the others.
Of course, some (I'm thinking particularly of Catholics and Moslems) would still claim to be more correct, or truer, than other religions, but secular people rightly dismiss those claims. The idea that we humans are on our own goes back thousands of years.
It can be found in the writings of the some of the ancient Greeks in the Buddha, Confucius and Lao Tzu. As has been pointed out, Buddhism is in many respects rather secular and similar to modern Humanism. That Buddhism is called a religion has more to do with the way westerners, steeped in Christianity in previous centuries, chose to refer to it, than how Buddhists saw themselves.
One of the aspects of being a Humanist that is probably the hardest to come to grips with is accepting that nothing is certain and that we must live continually in a state of doubt.
The Humanist Society of Victoria has produced a 'Humanist' business card with the following on the reverse side:
HUMANISTS
Newcomers to Humanism can find our philosophical position rather vague.
That is because we don't subscribe to a neat list of rules or ways of dealing with issues. Outside of what I've outlined above, Humanists make their own decisions on various social, political and environmental issues.
We expect our governments and laws to provide a framework within which we as individuals or groups can chose a course of action. We do not accept that the moral principles of one group should determine what the rest of us do.
For example most Humanists support voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide for the terminally ill, abortion on request, and non interference to consensual sex between adults. These are personal choices which should not be the concern of those who do not believe these are appropriate actions.
Because Humanists have so few agreed guidelines we can be led into arguments with each other, which is a most unfortunate waste of our time and resources. I hope we can all try to focus on the bigger issues where we agree, so we can present the Humanist point of view more effectively and productively to other secular Australians.
It is deeply disturbing to read of the interference of Senator Harradine in the proposed appointment of Professor John Funder as chairman of the National Health and Medical Research Council.
Positions of specialist expertise need to be filled by experts in that field. Furthermore these appointment of are best made by relying on the advice of other experts in the same field.
In this case Professor Funder has been twice endorsed by his fellow medical researchers: firstly when he was recommended for the position and secondly by a letter signed by 24 top medical researchers.
In objecting to Professor Funder, Senator Harradine is introducing issues that are peripheral to the central criteria for such an appointment. In governing for all in a secular state the Prime Minister should not be persuaded by narrow, minority, sectarian views.
- Rosslyn Ives, President, Humanist Society of Victoria
Hard won individual freedoms, particularly those of women, are under threat. In Western Australia the status of abortion reform is under challenge. Federally WHO trials on the abortion pill RU 486 have been banned. In Queensland Children by Choice has been defunded.
Humanists have a long record of support for measures that increase personal autonomy. They are deeply disturbed that the recently achieved right to safe abortion is under threat. As is well known, women will secure abortions by whatever means available - from knitting needles to hospital procedures.
They make this difficult choice out of concern for the well-being of existing children, their family's security, and their own health and happiness. Moves that restrict access to safe, legal abortions will inevitably increase the numbers of women who die or are made infertile by `backyard' methods.
Those who lobby to restrict abortion base their views on religious precepts that have no place in the decision-making of a modern secular state.
Abortion is best discussed as one of the personal rights we expect within a technologically advanced society such as ours. In Australia both women and men expect the right to economic security, and toxic free working and living environments.
They also expect access to:
These measures have been achieved through active lobbying, particularly by women and by government action concerned for the welfare of future generations. Those who oppose any of these rights intend to limit the personal autonomy of others. Reproductive freedoms, such as the timing and number of children, are personal decisions, that can only be made by those intimately involved - the woman and her partner.
Personal decision making should always rest with those who bear prime responsibility for the consequences. In a secular state, religious views are personal choices that should not distort government decisions affecting the majority.
In addition and for too long individual rights have been legislated by men, from the point of view of a man as the archetype individual. Even though a woman's rights are now considered to be the same as a man's, this advance is still inadequate.
Women tend to have greater experience of individuals within relationships, rather than individuals as isolated human beings. Therefore they are usually more sensitive to family and social consequences of deciding matters such as whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy.
It was the absence of women from positions of authority that made repealing legal restrictions on abortion and the open sale of contraceptives so difficult. Now it will be the presence of women who will most effectively resist any reversals of these liberalising trends.
Firstly, this will be so because women of all political persuasions have personal experiences and empathy with the needs of other women. And, secondly, women more readily understand that the way to discuss abortion is in the context of women's reproductive health choices, rather than as an isolated moral problem.
[Rosslyn Ives is an experienced science teacher, now working as an independent science consultant, researching issues on social values in the fields of science and technology.]
The acclaimed Canadian writer, John Ralston Saul, is highly critical of rational, market driven decisions which deliver wealth to a few and insecurity to many.
In Voltaire's Bastards he examines a two hundred year progression from Voltaire's endorsement of the supremacy of reason to the ruthless decision making of modern corporate culture. Saul's comprehensive attack on the cold logic of rationality convincingly demonstrates the consequences of an excessive reliance on rationality over more humane based considerations.
When invited by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - CBC - to give the 1995 Massey Lectures, Saul distilled his views into a series, The Unconscious Civilization. This title encapsulates the effect of a corporate ideology which Saul argues has narrowed `individualism' to mean little more than `self-centred' and therefore unconscious of wider realities.
Saul claims that, by hijacking the meaning of `individualism', advocates of the corporatism have in effect hijacked Western civilization. He wants to reclaim a broader definition of individualism, and by implication a more humane vision for Western civilization, so that both encompass the values of the Humanist tradition. For these views Saul was made 1995 Canadian Humanist of the Year.
In book form, The Unconscious Civilization has sold extremely well, mainly because it offers an coherent view of a civil society based on human values rather than economics. While it is possible to disagree with Saul on some minor points he advocates a credible interpretation of Humanism which has broad appeal. As such he forms a valuable link between individuals seeking answers on `How to Live?' and Humanist organisations.
In true Humanist spirit Saul trawls the past two and a half thousand years for civil humane ideals, selecting those that have stood the test of time, while being justifiably critical of others, most centrally the enlightenment trust in reason as the pivotal key to the `good life'. As a consequence of his criticism of such deeply entrenched ideas and openness to alternatives he expresses support for new critical perspectives, such as feminism thinking.
This article considers Saul's ideas under four headings. The first and major section, Humanism versus ideology, covers a series of oppositions: consciousness versus unconsciousness, responsibility versus passivity, doubt versus certainty, sympathy versus cynicism towards others, acceptance of time versus fear of it, and obligation of the individual versus the individual's rights. Secondly, the importance of critical thinking. Thirdly, the need for a common public language. Lastly, Saul's filters for public action, listed alphabetically as common sense, creativity, ethics, intuition, memory and reason.
Humanism versus ideology
At its base the Humanist tradition avows that the examined life directed to self-knowledge is the path to consciousness. Being conscious, in the sense of being openly aware, enables a person to comprehend reality, and thereby make decisions based on what is judged to be the best available information for the time and context. Saul cites many thinkers through the ages who have identified critical, self-reflective thinking about oneself and others as the foundation for a humane and civil society. Without critical thinking we are beholden to various ideologies offering ready-made answers.
Whether these answers are a religious dogma, an economic ideology, or other ready-made given world views, they have a fixity that is highly resistant to self-reflection. They thus induce a blinkered, distorted view of reality, equivalent to being in a state of unconsciousness.
Individuals acculturated by an ideology may be `doing all right' in their segment of society, yet be unable to consciously acknowledge those outside their own framework, such as the unemployed, the exploited, those in poverty and more particularly those with a different perspective on what it means to be human. Within their ideological cocoon they remain ignorant of the failure to deliver a decent life for all.
Self-knowledge also leads to a greater sense of responsibility both for oneself and for others. In our current social malaise most citizens feel impotent in the face of corporate power, whether exercised by the State or large corporations. While many are highly critical of government failure to deliver, they are rarely conscious that it is their government and their public services. The nexus between citizen responsibility and government responsibility has been seriously disrupted, and we've been encouraged to be passive rather than active, as though the government were other than our responsibility.
We have also been discouraged from utilising the Socratic tradition of questioning and critiquing all that we encounter. Experts confuse us with their superior knowledge and grasp of detail. They further dissuade us from exercising our citizen rights of involvement in public affairs, through their use of specialised language which excludes as surely as if they were speaking in tongues. Therefore, these technical experts make most decisions for governments and corporations with a confident certainty we as citizens can rarely challenge. Their policies proceed unfettered by doubt and uncertainty. Yet humans, in reality, live in a state of perpetual doubt and uncertainty, a basic tenet of Humanism, often overlooked as we attend to the minutiae of daily life.
Self-knowledge, as gained from an `examined life', offers a glimpse of what it is to be `other' than oneself. By this pathway we acquire the ability to empathise and sympathise with others. In trying to `know ourselves' we gain some understanding of the complex yet fragile fabric of which we are all made. These empathetic and sympathetic understandings give us our tolerance of the diversity of others, as expressed in the words of the Roman poet Terence often quoted by Humanists, `I am human and nothing human is foreign to me.'
Fear of time is expressed in such aphorisms as, `there's no time to lose', and `procrastination if the thief of time'. Yet as Saul points out, as individuals we now have more time than any previous generation. We live on average 25 years longer, our work day is shorter and we have more time-saving devices serving our daily needs. Yet we are encouraged to cram our formal education and our paid working lives into the years before 60 plus, leaving many of us with 20-30 years of leisure at the other end.
Saul suggests that with a greater acceptance of time, and a more balanced view of the role of a citizen, time - publicly accounted for - should be allocated to citizen involvement. For young people, time should be given for being educated in the widest sense, such as studying the humanities before narrow, technical specialisation.
Saul cites earlier notions of individualism, centred firmly on the obligations of the individual to the individual's community. It was this idea of individualism on which Athenian democracy was founded, albeit limited to free citizens - all being males. Nevertheless, the importance of democracy is to place the source of a society's legitimacy with individual citizens acting in concert, rather than with an elite group, a king or a god. Saul considers our current understanding of individualism as `narrow self interest', a travesty of the initial concept of personal involvement and obligation.
Individualism in the late twentieth century produces mainly passivity and conformism in areas that matter and non-conformism in areas that don't, - for example, dress, hairstyle. As Saul puts it `real individualism then is the obligation to act as a citizen'. And true citizenship requires civic responsibility.
Importance of Critical thinking
While a Humanist understands the need to live with doubt, and tries to be an open-minded, active and responsible citizen who empathises with others, above all else a Humanist will be questioning and critical. No beliefs, no system of thought, can escape critical scrutiny, most especially ideologies that come packaged for unconscious acceptance. Passive absorption is to be resisted. Life is to be lived, with no anchor but the certainty of life's uncertainties.
This sense of one's own vulnerability encourages sympathetic concern for others, rather than the fear, hatred and cynicism that accompanies dogmatic beliefs. Reflection on self and others is an essential feature of Humanism. It will, however, inevitably generate criticism, yet as the German Enlightenment figure, Friedrich Nicolai, puts it, `Criticism is the only helpmate we have which, while disclosing our inadequacies, can at the same time awake us to the desire for greater improvement.' This then is the essential and positive value of critical thinking to Humanism.
Need for a Common Public Language
Mocking the use of words such as `postmodern' and `deconstruct' (Terry Lane, The Age Extra, page 9, 31 May 1997) is one mode of complaint against those who fail to make their meaning plain. Or, as Saul puts it, `one of the signs of a healthy civilization is the existence of a relatively clear language in which all can participate in their own way'. In fact, effective democracy relies on free speech in a common public language.
Unfortunately this is far from our current situation, as we are increasingly assailed by specialised jargons. These include the highly specialised vocabulary of science and technology, which, it can be argued, are necessary, as well as the euphemisms fabricated in economic think tanks, such as `downsizing' for sackings and `body counts' for deaths. These `muddied babbles' from experts are fundamental to the propaganda rhetoric of vested interests.
Disturbingly, these specialists are a product of institutions rapidly losing their capacity to act as independent critics of society, as they become increasingly beholden to corporate funding. Universities, once a crucial wellspring of Humanist, philosophical decency are showing a diminished ability to be watchdogs on society's failings.
Filters for common action
A prime target of Saul's criticism and the central theme in his book Voltaire's Bastards is the excessive reliance on reason as the foremost human quality capable of shaping a civil society.
In this book, described as a study of `the dictatorship of reason in the West', he argues that the cold logic of reason has resulted in some of the worst forms of inhumanity. He cites the current world trade in arms as one particularly disturbing example, and the more than 50 million people killed in undeclared wars since the `peace' of 1945 as another.
While not opposed to reason, Saul believes it is only one of six human qualities guiding human actions. Saul's six are: `common sense, creativity or imagination, ethics (not morality), intuition or instinct, memory and finally reason'. He has arranged these in alphabetical order, intending no `order of importance' and refers to them as, `the basic tools of humanity'. He argues for his choice by explaining that all of these six are defined by their use or misuse, and further each in combination gives other qualities such as compassion. He believes a balanced reliance on all six, rather than an exaggerated dependence on just one or two qualities, is the hallmark of the Humanist tradition.
Summary
According to Saul `our civilization is locked in the grip of an ideology - corporatism'. The unbalance of this ideology leads to a worship of self-interested individualism and a denial of public good. It has its own type of rationality that produces mainly passivity and conformism in areas that matter and non-conformism in areas that don't. To counter the widespread enthrallment with corporatism, individuals need to reclaim their citizen rights of public involvement. They should require experts to provide detailed, understandable information to all interested citizens.
Rationality should be tempered with other human attributes such as memory, intuition, and common sense. Criticism should be seriously acknowledged as `perhaps the citizen's primary weapon in the exercise of legitimacy'. Finally, the most fundamental attribute of the Humanist tradition needs to be foremost in the consciousness of all concerned citizens. This can be stated as, `the voyage towards equilibrium without the expectation of actually arriving,' or `seeking truth without expecting to find more than a fragment of it.'
Because of the wide circulation of Saul's ideas Humanist organisations can expect an increase in inquiries. I believe it is important that we convert these into active new membership growth. To do this effectively we must know how Saul's ideas connect with our history and current activities.
This page was last updated on 06 June 2005
