Post by Admin on Feb 5, 2021 17:29:46 GMT 10
This is from a discussion elsewhere, perhaps to be continued here.
I think my journey starts in earnest with my daughter being thrown into Religious Instruction without parental consent in a Queensland State School. I ended up being involved in a whole parent coalition to get RI out and then ended up fighting a losing battle against a chaplain. From there I got involved with Ron Williams and the High Court challenge against chaplaincy in state schools. I became a member of several atheist groups, Richard Dawkins forum (which blew up spectacularly) and began a slow realisation that Humanism was what I was after. I have found lots of In Real Life social groups over the years, including Kenmore Atheist Community which I am now morphing into the Kenmore Humanist Community.
Its interesting they don't want to try and present at least a core "Humanism is this" message. It is understandable but it also makes selling the concept harder.
You've hit the nail on the head and this is a matter I have devoted myself too. Unfortunately devotion isn't sufficient - there's a lot of work involved and I've only got a little way so far. I really want to focus on the 'What is Humanism' question.
The way I now see it - after trying to promote the NSW Humanist Society over the last almost 9 years - is about the differences between last century and this century, and the differences in the uses of the words 'Humanist' and 'Humanism'. Previously there was an abundance of people willing to join Humanist societies for an abundance of reasons (sometimes it seems like it was one reason each!) Then, 'Humanist' meant someone who belonged to a Humanist Society and 'Humanism' was laid on top - consisting of a few common slogans, but mostly an open definition in which each member could fit their own ideas. Humanism was reduced to what Humanists happen to think. There was common sense in this approach, holding a potentially disparate group together. But now that generation of 'joiners' is passing (or has already passed).
21st century generations don't join unless there is a very, very good reason. They come along to my Meetups once or so, but don't stick around. They seem curious about what Humanism is, but it's beyond challenging to give them this in soundbites. I've tried using a slew of relevant topics to create a multidimensional understanding, but people just come once for a topic that interests them - or to pick it up in one test visit - so it hasn't worked. I believe our only hook, and our greatest asset - if we could get our act together - is an appealing presentation of Humanism. My experience is that quite a lot of people like the sound of the word, but how do we take that further. There are lots of efforts to explain Humanism and always have been but they always consist of a list of values that reflect the interests of 'Humanists' - that is those already in the movement, plus, increasingly, a list of values which might appeal to contemporary generations. This become like a party political platform. It is an understandable approach but it is hard to find somewhere where it is working. And it is a tightly stretched skin over 'not a lot' really. Humanism needs to be a hard core rather than a thin membrane.
The task has changed from keeping people in to getting people in, and that's a huge change. Yet trying to pin Humanism down to a 'hard core' immediately starts alienating those few left within the movement. They're favourite identities and concerns may not fit. They won't let concepts like say 'spirituality' into the mix, even though this is a word that, in contemporary usage, is deliberately distinguished from 'religion' and interprested by many as encompassing some kind of inner core of aspiation to 'be a good person' - and being a good person is surely part of the hard core of Humanism. This is just one example. Some of those wanting to renew Humanism need to focus on how to present a sincere, life-changing - even redemptive, sustainable, deeply coherent, kind of Humanism - without regard to the outdated list approach. Ironically I feel now that 'Humanism' needs to be rescued from the 'Humanists' - (so-called but often just secularists, atheists, skeptices etc).
The word Humanist needs to be reclaimed as an adjective for things coming out of the deep core of Humanism. Humanist - as a noun - needs to mean an adherent of Humanism - rather than the inverse in which Humanism is derived from the mixed bag of ideas held by members of Humanist organanisations. And that's just the beginning. As I've implied, Humanism has to be reconstructed from the ground up and that's a lot of work with few people working on it.
Enough said for now - I think.
The way I now see it - after trying to promote the NSW Humanist Society over the last almost 9 years - is about the differences between last century and this century, and the differences in the uses of the words 'Humanist' and 'Humanism'. Previously there was an abundance of people willing to join Humanist societies for an abundance of reasons (sometimes it seems like it was one reason each!) Then, 'Humanist' meant someone who belonged to a Humanist Society and 'Humanism' was laid on top - consisting of a few common slogans, but mostly an open definition in which each member could fit their own ideas. Humanism was reduced to what Humanists happen to think. There was common sense in this approach, holding a potentially disparate group together. But now that generation of 'joiners' is passing (or has already passed).
21st century generations don't join unless there is a very, very good reason. They come along to my Meetups once or so, but don't stick around. They seem curious about what Humanism is, but it's beyond challenging to give them this in soundbites. I've tried using a slew of relevant topics to create a multidimensional understanding, but people just come once for a topic that interests them - or to pick it up in one test visit - so it hasn't worked. I believe our only hook, and our greatest asset - if we could get our act together - is an appealing presentation of Humanism. My experience is that quite a lot of people like the sound of the word, but how do we take that further. There are lots of efforts to explain Humanism and always have been but they always consist of a list of values that reflect the interests of 'Humanists' - that is those already in the movement, plus, increasingly, a list of values which might appeal to contemporary generations. This become like a party political platform. It is an understandable approach but it is hard to find somewhere where it is working. And it is a tightly stretched skin over 'not a lot' really. Humanism needs to be a hard core rather than a thin membrane.
The task has changed from keeping people in to getting people in, and that's a huge change. Yet trying to pin Humanism down to a 'hard core' immediately starts alienating those few left within the movement. They're favourite identities and concerns may not fit. They won't let concepts like say 'spirituality' into the mix, even though this is a word that, in contemporary usage, is deliberately distinguished from 'religion' and interprested by many as encompassing some kind of inner core of aspiation to 'be a good person' - and being a good person is surely part of the hard core of Humanism. This is just one example. Some of those wanting to renew Humanism need to focus on how to present a sincere, life-changing - even redemptive, sustainable, deeply coherent, kind of Humanism - without regard to the outdated list approach. Ironically I feel now that 'Humanism' needs to be rescued from the 'Humanists' - (so-called but often just secularists, atheists, skeptices etc).
The word Humanist needs to be reclaimed as an adjective for things coming out of the deep core of Humanism. Humanist - as a noun - needs to mean an adherent of Humanism - rather than the inverse in which Humanism is derived from the mixed bag of ideas held by members of Humanist organanisations. And that's just the beginning. As I've implied, Humanism has to be reconstructed from the ground up and that's a lot of work with few people working on it.
Enough said for now - I think.
that is a very insightful take.
The first manifesto is definitely "how do we be human after the atrocities of WWII" and the dogma of religious movements trampling all over enlightenment values. A modern version might look to Trumpism, QAnon and the anti science movement as things to be against, but being against something is cheap and not satisfying.
Regards "spirituality" the word has too much unthinking baggage attached to it. It ends up a trojan horse for religious thinking, despite also being able to have the meaning you give it.
Let me go all 6 hats here:
Red Hat: People aren't going to be attracted to humanism without a strong key message. Strong key messages might be anathema to what humanism is. I might not have a firm grip on what humanism is. Maybe few humanists agree in reality.
Green Hat: We can define a core principle, such as "reasoned thinking" and build an inverse pyramid on top of it. We can create a scatter gun of parts and see what sticks. We can get every member to define humanism and then bang the definitions all together. We can list humanism as the negative space inside all the things we are against. We can just let the term float and bring in people that share ideas regardless of what humanism is.
Yellow Hat: There are a lot of current big targets of things to be against, which shed some light on the current stances of humanists. There is a lot of publicity out there for humanists right now. There are lots of people who are humanist by behaviour but don't call themselves humanist or even know about it. There are humanist celebrities. Not having a defined humanism allows people to argue and work the ideas.
The first manifesto is definitely "how do we be human after the atrocities of WWII" and the dogma of religious movements trampling all over enlightenment values. A modern version might look to Trumpism, QAnon and the anti science movement as things to be against, but being against something is cheap and not satisfying.
Regards "spirituality" the word has too much unthinking baggage attached to it. It ends up a trojan horse for religious thinking, despite also being able to have the meaning you give it.
Let me go all 6 hats here:
Red Hat: People aren't going to be attracted to humanism without a strong key message. Strong key messages might be anathema to what humanism is. I might not have a firm grip on what humanism is. Maybe few humanists agree in reality.
Green Hat: We can define a core principle, such as "reasoned thinking" and build an inverse pyramid on top of it. We can create a scatter gun of parts and see what sticks. We can get every member to define humanism and then bang the definitions all together. We can list humanism as the negative space inside all the things we are against. We can just let the term float and bring in people that share ideas regardless of what humanism is.
Yellow Hat: There are a lot of current big targets of things to be against, which shed some light on the current stances of humanists. There is a lot of publicity out there for humanists right now. There are lots of people who are humanist by behaviour but don't call themselves humanist or even know about it. There are humanist celebrities. Not having a defined humanism allows people to argue and work the ideas.
Humanists are by definition independent thinkers, so getting them to agree on a succinct definition is going to be hard. Hats off to the people who pulled together the Amsterdam Declaration, it must have been difficult. And maybe that's why it's a list of points - a compilation rather than a simple strong definition.
I don't think we should be trying too hard to nail it down - that starts to feel like creeping dogma.
I agree with Murray that we need a compelling story - but maybe it's plural - stories. I'd expect each of us has a different story of how and why we call ourselves Humanists. If we can learn, and help each other, to articulate them well with openness and vulnerability, and we are given a platform, hopefully some of our stories will appeal to the individuals who hear them. Different stories will resonate with different hearers.
Does it really matter if we don't agree on a hypothetical perfect definition? I'm sure there's more than one way to be a Humanist.
I've tried to deal with 'spirituality' briefly in the first FAQ on the HA website.
I don't think we should be trying too hard to nail it down - that starts to feel like creeping dogma.
I agree with Murray that we need a compelling story - but maybe it's plural - stories. I'd expect each of us has a different story of how and why we call ourselves Humanists. If we can learn, and help each other, to articulate them well with openness and vulnerability, and we are given a platform, hopefully some of our stories will appeal to the individuals who hear them. Different stories will resonate with different hearers.
Does it really matter if we don't agree on a hypothetical perfect definition? I'm sure there's more than one way to be a Humanist.
I've tried to deal with 'spirituality' briefly in the first FAQ on the HA website.
I appreciate the way you're giving thought to what humanism is and how to present it in a way that grows a community. You might be surprised about how few people bother with these questions.
I pick you up from time to time throwing out some important questions - and not getting much of an answer. So I'm moved to encourage your thinking, and interested in further conversational interchange.
Briefly I'm retired, President of NSW Humanists, and Organizer of NSW Humanists Meetup. Working the Meetup is what got me started on how to rebuild a humanist community. I also edited the NSW and national humanist journals. I haven't found the solutions but boy have I found the problems.
I have no idea where you sprang from, so would be interested to know what got you engaged.
I pick you up from time to time throwing out some important questions - and not getting much of an answer. So I'm moved to encourage your thinking, and interested in further conversational interchange.
Briefly I'm retired, President of NSW Humanists, and Organizer of NSW Humanists Meetup. Working the Meetup is what got me started on how to rebuild a humanist community. I also edited the NSW and national humanist journals. I haven't found the solutions but boy have I found the problems.
I have no idea where you sprang from, so would be interested to know what got you engaged.
I think my journey starts in earnest with my daughter being thrown into Religious Instruction without parental consent in a Queensland State School. I ended up being involved in a whole parent coalition to get RI out and then ended up fighting a losing battle against a chaplain. From there I got involved with Ron Williams and the High Court challenge against chaplaincy in state schools. I became a member of several atheist groups, Richard Dawkins forum (which blew up spectacularly) and began a slow realisation that Humanism was what I was after. I have found lots of In Real Life social groups over the years, including Kenmore Atheist Community which I am now morphing into the Kenmore Humanist Community.
