Putting the human back into humanism by Frank Furedi

[applegrove]

Frank Furedi
Putting the human back into humanism
Spiked


The real threat to humanism today does not come from religious cranks and creationists, but from an army of secular misanthropes.
SKIP

"Indeed, there is a widespread conviction that the development of human civilisation – particularly the advance of science and technology, and the resulting subordination of the natural order to the demands of human society – is the source of today’s problems of environmental destruction and social disintegration. This perception of civilisation itself giving rise to today’s perils shows what a degraded view some people have of the human species. At times, this sentiment expresses plain old loathing for humans, such as when Earth First campaigners chant: ‘Four legs good! Two legs bad!’ People are regularly portrayed as loathsome parasites who threaten the Earth’s existence.

As I have written elsewhere, the real challenge facing humanism is the low esteem accorded to the status of humanity (6). Today, the world seems dominated by a widespread disenchantment with humanity’s achievements, and a manifest lack of confidence in the capacity of people to reason and influence the course of events. The past is frequently looked upon as a sordid tale of people destroying the planet. This focus on a past of human selfishness and destruction boosts the current project of dispossessing humanity of any unique or positive qualities.

The depiction of human activity as itself a threat to the world paints a negative picture of the human species. Civilisation, instead of being viewed as a source of positive transformation and progress, is portrayed as a history of environmental vandalism. Such a misanthropic view was clearly expressed in 2003 by Michael Meacher, the former New Labour minister for the environment, when he spoke about how ‘we are the virus’ infecting the Earth’s body. His colleague, the now late Labour MP Tony Banks, echoed this view in a proposed motion to the House of Commons. It stated: ‘This House…believes that humans represent the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet and looks forward to the day when the inevitable asteroid slams into the Earth and wipes them out, thus giving Nature the opportunity to start again’ (7). Such intense loathing for people is only really an extreme variant of contemporary anti-humanism.



SKIP

It is ironic that expressions of moral revulsion against the evils of modern society are often accompanied by a repudiation of the framework of rationality and purposeful intervention in nature and society that could make it possible to develop a more truly human society. What we need is a more balanced assessment of the state of society, one that rejects the gross exaggeration of problems and recognises what we have achieved. Most important of all, we need to understand that, whatever mistakes we have made, we can extract from them lessons that can guide us to move forward. The reconstitution of agency does not require the invention of grand philosophies, but the humanising of humanism through empowering personhood."

........SNIP"

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2044

[ixion]

1. I think humans have a great deal of unrealized potential, however

by and large the 'progress' of which the author speaks is driven by individuals who are otherwise outcasts in society, and are generally reviled as lunatics in their lifetime. If there is one consistent thing about the entire span of human existence, it is this.

I am all for celebrating the human condition. I wish we spent more time doing that rather than trying to kill one another, or trying to jail one another, or trying to sue one another, or trying to maim one another, or steal from one another and so on.

However, that has never been the case. In the overall history of the species, we have exhibited a cruel and callous disregard for the suffering of others, and a complete lack of empathy for people with perspectives other than our own. We've dressed things up a bit with technology, but the essence remains the same: Status quo rules the roost, and deviance will not be tolerated. I think this goes back to a survival strategy from the days when humans still ran in packs, like wolves. Deviance cannot be tolerated in the pack, and those that do deviate are expelled.

While this works for wolves, it does not work well for more complex social constructs, like modern human society. However, the tendency remains. It is this tendency that feeds the fascist uprising that we now face. "You're either with us, or against us."

The end result is that humans are not allowed to be human. We're taught -- we're forced -- to give priority to work (trading our lives for a pittance) over aesthetic pursuits, like music, art, dance, etc.

Having lived as a 'starving artist' for more than a decade, and having finally given in to 'work', albeit only briefly in an effort to better fun artistic pursuits, I believe I've lived through this first-hand, first-person. When I chose not to enter the workforce -- when I dropped out of college for the first time -- I was given grave warning that I was making a dire mistake from which I would never recover. Accepting that, I moved forward with living my life as an artist. I 'worked' as little as possible, and focused on writing and music and graphic art. I spent many hours at these pursuits. I published some short stories, made a few thousand dollars over the years, but nothing to speak of, really. It wasn't about the money, though, it was about the art. And for that, I was looked down upon from the various aspects of the community: friends, family, employers, the occasional passer-by, and so on.

I was an 'unperson' while traveling, with no 'permanent' address, and I was 'white-trash' when I was living in an attic somewhere. It is a difficult path, at best, and takes more perseverance than most people can muster.

Then one day I had a vision: Freedom of movement while traveling. I would stop focusing on my art, and stop traveling and focus on 'the work' for awhile and save up some money so I could travel where I wanted when I wanted.

It seemed like a good idea at the time.

That was ten years ago, thereabouts. I'm coming up to the deadline I set for myself to take what I've earned and return to dedicating my life to my art. The Work, however, has taken its toll. It's taken more than I ever could have imagined, and I some days wonder if I'll even make it to that that date.

So herein lies the point I'm trying to make: I dedicated a vast amount of time and energy and spirit to the corporate grist mill because it was means to an end. It would accomplish the goal.

What if the goal were to better ourselves, though? What if the goal of society was TRULY progress and enlightenment and the pursuit of Quality in the aesthetic? It seems to me that is really what life is all about, and yet it is both scorned and adored by society.

As long as this love/hate relationship exists with what is 'new' or 'different' or 'deviant' in our society, we'll continue evolving nowhere fast.

Thanks for listening.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. My limited experience with local humanists 20+ years ago.

I found the chapter to be comprised of retired, scholarly men whose goals were more likely getting their essays and opinions publicized and recognized rather than putting their individual goals aside to unite for realization of humanist social goals. Instead of recognizing, analyzing, and proposing solutions, I witnessed some of the leaders fighting the opinions of fellow members and among themselves. I also witnessed anti-democratic principles wherein an election of officers for the local chapter was held. A "committee" proposed a slate of candidates and the vote by the chapter at large was either "yes-or-no" for these candidates (one for president, one for VP, etc.) and no challengers to the slate were allowed to be debated. It was sad.

I left (or was "excommunicated" depending upon whom you ask), but remained a humanist-at-large. I read a variety of theories of political science, various religious works and analysis, liberal arts generally, and try to make up my own mind. My opinion still remains that it is extremely difficult to unite such a diverse group of individuals as humanists into a cohesive group and that will decidedly slow down whatever contributions that they potentially can offer.

[applegrove]

4. The point is that humanism should remain open ended. Debate should

be taking place all the time. I like the part about how people should know history and the history of thought for hundreds of years. That way you have perspective on the meaning of one movement in one time. That idea is golden. If you see the trends of humanity..then you can more easily look at people like neocons and say..ah..you have a shelf life of about 5 years in power. Which doesn't mean you fight them less..it just means you fight them coming from a position of strength..the strength of all the humanity that came before you and made things better.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. I agree. My experience was supposed to be with humanists, not

intellectual misanthropes.

[applegrove]

7. Should humanism not have groups? Seems an oxymoron and maybe

that is what it ended up in practice.

[applegrove]

8. Like the old adage "I would never join a club that would have me as a member".

Perhaps groups with mission statements and agendas and all manner of characters..should not be clubs. Though as many bad events happen in the halls of academia or charitable organizations. Nobody is perfect. Specially not groups. Unless they are blessed with brilliant leadership. Better that humanism be discussed in an open ended way. From campus to campus, from country to country.

[Odin2005]

3. Great article

I think the idea that technology and progress on one hand and a healthy biosphere on ther other are mutually exclusive is moronic. The problem is not technology and progress, it's an economic system that encourages wastefulness and greed above everything else. We have all the things necessary for sustainibility RIGHT NOW, the only reason they are not used in practice is because the capitalist system discourages thier implementation.

[applegrove]

5. A very hope-filled article. For sure you have to see the danger before

you can come up with solutions. The problem these days is when big business gets power and tries to blow smoke to slow down realizations and "posternaturally" slows down the changes that need to take place.