by Michael Werner
Humanism, I believe, is best seen as an evolving tradition, not fixed by either ideas or practices. In the early 19th century people, were atheists and agnostics, but there was no alternative "story" or narrative. Emerson tried to come up with a naturalistic story using the concept of the "oversoul" that was at best undefined and vague. All of this was until Darwin’s story. In the late 20th century we see elements of modern humanism evolving in the Free Religious Association where Emerson who had been a Unitarian minister, Felix Adler, founder of the Ethical Cultural Movement and a number of religious liberals and philosophers joined together. Also, we had the Free Thought Movement that was intensively antireligious. In the beginning of the 20TH century, quite independently, many sought to redefine and reinterpret religion in light of the best in reason and science. One thing that was becoming clear is that the functional aspects of religion seemed more important in peoples actual lives than the ideological ones. Functional aspects included such things as building of community, celebrating life passages such as birth, death and marriage, and certainly providing youth with ethical education. Getting religion to evolve became more important than rejecting it.
Two Unitarian ministers, John Dietrich and Curtis Reese met each other and found out that they were both preaching the same thing. Dietrich called his philosophy "Humanism" and that the word caught on as they were both widely known and influential. The Midwest in particular became a hotbed of humanism while at the same time in academia, the University of Chicago and Columbia University had several who aligned themselves with this new holistic, integrated naturalistic view. Remember things were a lot smaller then and all these people all knew each other or their writings.
In 1933 the country was in bad economic shape and humanists were both concerned for the future of humanism and the country as a whole. Thus was born the Humanist Manifesto. Its a product of its time being quite sexist in its language (but not its intent) and leaning towards socialism. (Remember that capitalism had failed miserably at that point). Still, it is a brilliant, clear, succinct document of where humanism had evolved to at that time. It was written primary by Sellers a University of Michigan philosopher . Half the signers were religious (Unitarian ministers and one Universalist minister) and the other half were educators and social activists. See the Humanists Manifesto I as its now known at: http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html
During the forties and fifties humanism grew tremendously in particular in the Unitarian church and Ethical Culture. Edwin Wilson, a Unitarian minister, started a magazine called the Humanist that later evolved into a full-blown organization called the American Humanist Association. One thing they learned from the Free Religious Association experience was that if you don’t have a strong organizational element, humanism will not advance or be able to effectively represent its views in a theistically dominated society. The AHA became a very effective voice for humanism representing all nontheistic people whether they chose to belong to one of the many new humanist societies/churches/fellowships or whether they chose to live a non religious community life. It sought to not be just a bunch of atheists, but to promote a positive ethical life stance where the dignity of each human being was affirmed using the best tools of reason, science and compassion.
For me, one of the geniuses of 20th century humanism has been the blending of the Enlightenment and Romantic traditions realizing that we are not fully human unless we see ourselves as both thinking and feeling, neglecting neither heart nor head. As the great humanist Bertrand Russell said, "The good life is one informed by reason and motivated by compassion."
There always has been an uneasy truce between those guardians of rationality and those asking for a humanism of heart and action. I have been proud to have been associated with many with both heart and head. Still, we all bring different skills and focus to our lives. All types of humanism’s with adjectives evolved; ethical, scientific, religious, secular, rationalistic. I personally have a problem with hyphenated humanism because I don’t think it is not in the spirit of humanism to be narrow. Narrowing humanism generally represents not different ideologies as much as a reflection of different personality "styles." The more rationalistic gravitate toward rationalism as humanism, the more social activists contend that it is action that counts, seculars tend to be more inclined to be loners and noncommunitarian etc. Many cannot see these merely reflect their own biases rather that the way the world is or should be.
Paul Kurtz was the editor of the Humanist magazine and reflecting his style moved the magazine more toward the pole of rationalistic philosophy. (this was after a period before that emphasized the human potential movement including Maslow, Fromm, and social action such as the civil rights movement etc.) Paul Kurtz is a very effective promoter, intellectual, hard worker and was very successful. During this time the Friends of Religious Humanism was formed as they thought they were being neglected in humanism. Around 1978 in a bid for more power he quit/got fired depending on who you listen to Remember that the AHA is a member operated organization with an elected board from its members.
Paul then started his own organization/magazine with a self perpetuating board. This has allowed him to move quickly without the burden and messiness of democracy. He defined religious humanists along side the pope which they are not. (The AHA once did a poll and not one of those members defining themselves as a religious humanists believed in a deity). This positioning of secular humanists as the "true" humanists was a effective marketing maneuver to, as he has said in public, "Bury the AHA". But, it neglects the history, traditions, and the fact that there are more organizational humanists in the Unitarian denomination than in any other group. Free Inquiry focuses on a rationalistic and almost libertarian, humanism that especially meets the needs of the "comeouter" and has done a good job on that focus. But, I would offer, is a narrow and incomplete and sometimes outdated form of humanism. Still, by focusing on the philosophical aspects he has done a clear and thorough job on that focus.
At this point, despite appearances, all humanist organizations live hand to mouth. There are others including Humanistic Judaism, the Humanist Institute, Ethical Culture, North American Committee on Humanism, Friends of Religious Humanism, Freedom From Religion Foundation. Each has its own strengths, positioning and focus. I think each does a good job on its focus, but all give only one image of a larger picture.
Humanism today is in fact more fragmented than ever. Many Unitarians have rejected humanism for they see it as "head only" and just a bunch of "angry, antisocial, old white men". This is in part due to the influence of Free Inquiry. The new generation of humanists there are emphasizing toleration, and effecting real change in peoples lives. Humanism is decline at the present in Unitarian Universalist circles, but there is hope with some of the newer humanists there. Ethical culture has done a good job with their credo of "Deed before Creed" and have long been a potent source of social action. The Religious Humanism magazine represents some of the most advanced thinking in humanism. The Humanist Institute trains a next generation of humanist leaders in a cross disciplinary way. The book they produce yearly takes on a difficult topic with the faculty writing contrasting essays. The AHA continues to try to be an umbrella organization for all types of humanists. Humanistic Judaism is important for those naturalistic Jews who want to keep and learn more of their cultural heritage.
Humanism in the 21st century will have to evolve or die. We are caught in cultural paradox in a neoromantic postmodern age where we have to at the same time stand up for reason and science and at the same time evolve out of the old rationalism. It is in a humbler and more encompassing humanism that we have hope that humanism will survive and indeed flourish.
©2000 Michael Werner