Here Ubuntu functions as an alternative narrative to replace colonial logic, a desperate discourse of identity — a. The argument is that, since we cannot positively identify Ubuntu as an authentic historical culture, it remains an invented discourse, in an alien format.

Evidence is sought from different African cultural traditions to homogenize a range of values that are then represented as Ubuntu. Ubuntu is thus generalized as a universal African value, irrespective of the actual historical context of the societies that practice it. However, Ubuntu does not need to generate a homogenous historicity3 to become an authentic African value.

And neither does a lack of historical authenticity deprive Ubuntu of such normative legitimacy. The second conjecture is that Ubuntu has the character of an ideology, appropriated for political ends, as was evident in its application during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission TRC , and the initial draft constitution of South Africa.

The idea that African historiography is a single historical narrative irrespective of many cultures, people s and traditions that inhabit the geographical place called Africa.

Creative historicity argues that history is neither a fixation on the past nor a mere chronology of events. Good history is open to multiple influences and contexts. The lack of authentic historical origins in written records, or as a nuanced cultural dogma does not neutralize its credibility. Understood as a narrative of a new national consciousness, Ubuntu not only offers an emotional legitimacy to displace the old political order; it also gives the new political order a sense of identity and political purpose.

While the old order thrived on a notion of citizenship based on discrimination and difference, the new regime attempted to gain legitimacy by trying to forge a notion of democratic citizenship that thrives through inclusion and civic virtues. But the new dispensation has to be based on a system that excludes the oppressive structures of the past, and adopts instead a system of values that is built on a notion of rights and the unconditional dignity of the human person.

Critics of the use of Ubuntu as a unifying ideology argue that it is merely an incoherent, invented ethics with no history. But ideologies do not predate history; they emerge as a response to specific issues within a historical epoch, challenging, correcting or displacing a mindset or old ideology. The challenge, then, is to see whether Ubuntu can be rehabilitated as an ideology, focusing primarily on its normative essence, or whether the lack of historicity will always deny it any real substance.

At the same time, the practice of the human virtues through which a Bantu becomes a Munhu, Umuntu, or a Muntu etc is not external, but internal to the context where it is practiced. Yet, Ubuntu has been able to transcend this moral relativism by generating an ethical practice, which all South Africans, irrespective of their socio-cultural background, have judged to be good. This evaluative norm was to become the inspiration for building the new South Africa, guarded by the need for reconciliation and not division; forgiveness, not resentment; understanding, not vengeance; and ubuntu, not victimization see the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Documents of South Africa.

These were time-honoured values to which most South Africans already aspired, paving the way for a new national imaginary. And this gives Ubuntu its moral authority. An ongoing series of crises and a growing number of refugees have transformed the sociocultural landscape of the contemporary world. To address the challenges these changes have wrought, a new kind of humanism is required— one capable of responding to the needs of communities made up of different cultures that are forever multiplying.

The victims of anticolonial and civil wars must also be factored in. This sombre tableau is evidence of the destructive potential that was lurking beneath the cloaks of Enlightenment philosophers once their humanistic discourses were transformed into an ideological privilege of only a certain kind of. The discrepancy between the promise of humanism and its instrumental role in colonialism, imperialism, and the slave trade, generated a severe critique of humanism and its ethically and politically contradicting principles that reached a climax in the s.

This systematic deconstruction of humanism as an incontestable universal1 see pp. These ideas prompted heated debate after they appeared in his posthumously published Humanism and Democratic Criticism.

Anthropos means: having a human face. Today, the political and economic crises raging in the world are not only rapidly increasing the numbers of refugees but also stripping those recognized as citizens of a longestablished right to work and a right to education.

The citizen now becomes an a-polis citizen, one who is being deprived of rights. In the squares of Madrid, Cairo and Athens, to mention only a few recent cases of mass revolt, the stateless refugee meets the a-polis citizen. Even if their demands are different, they are bound by their shared claims to a democratic ideal that recognizes the anthropos as its first and most fundamental principle.

Despite the differences in their political and economic positions, both the stateless refugee and the a-polis citizen require that a new polis be configured. In this new polis, where diversity of languages, traditions and myths constitute a daily reality, the practice of translation and transculturation are practices of survival.

In other words, how to create societies. Closer to our time the German-born American philosopher Hannah Arendt has depicted the modern day refugee as a bios politicos par excellence, but one bereft of a polis. Mina Karavanta and Nina Morgan. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press, Honig, Bonnie. When viewed as a common field shared by multiple alliances and potential affiliations, this intercultural society presupposes a radical reconfiguration of the institutions and social, educational and political discourses that should be addressing the needs of expanding intercultural communities in the nationstates and their supranational formations.

Interculturality is a condition, both ontological and political, that has already transformed the nation-state from within. Asimina Karavanta holds a doctorate in comparative literature and teaches at the University of Athens. Derrida, Jacques. Of Hospitality. Rachel Bowlby. Stanford: Stanford University Press, Butler Judith.

Precarious Life. The Powers of Mourning and Violence. Hundreds of millions of people suffer from hardship and poverty throughout the world, a situation that sanctions a philosophical approach promoting distributive justice. This theory underpins a truly humanist intervention when it is dispensed with respect for the dignity of the individual, his or her autonomy and personal responsibility.

Despite the numerous treaties, agreements and international summit meetings of the twentieth century, and the ongoing goal of combating poverty and reducing inequality in the world, one fact is clear: far from declining, poverty continues to grow.

According to the World Bank, 1. This concept examines ways to alter the principles governing the distribution of goods and resources, when these principles do not respect the rights, worth and needs of each person.

The various facets of this theory arise from the particular vision of the human being that underpins one policy of distribution rather than another. Those receiving the distributed benefits cannot voice their opinions nor have any power over their essential rights, as others are deciding in their stead. This occurs frequently in many countries. In Mexico, for example, as part of a social housing programme, the government decided to put a laundry room into every house.

But women were used to taking their washing down to the river. They turned the laundry rooms into family shrines, where their offerings ended up blocking the pipes. This idea is based on the concept of the human being as an autonomous and worthy individual, able to choose from among the various options at hand.

In this case, priorities are set according to their value for money. For example, in the USA a decision was taken regarding medical care that favoured State funding for operations to remove tonsils, rather than for renal dialysis, even though dialysis patients are far more seriously ill. The decision meant reaching a larger number of people at lesser cost. If, however, we conceive of individuals not only as means but also as ends, the ensuing distribution policies must foster better economic and social conditions so that the beneficiaries can work toward achieving their life goals.

This is certainly the most ethical and humanist position offered by distributive justice. Rather than offering food handouts, it runs education and information campaigns on health and nutrition and allocates subsidies to families, leaving them free to decide how to use the money.

Global justice That being so, should distributive justice opt for the individual or the social group as the unit of distribution? This question pitches liberal thinkers, who have adopted an egalitarian position, against those who promote more communitarian theories. The latter maintain that individual-based social policies are deficient in that they fail to take into account the fact that human beings do not live in isolation, but are an inseparable part of a culture or social group that defines their identity.

Hence the importance, for communitarian theorists, of factoring in the history and peculiarities of each community — as each social group. Proponents of individual-based distributive justice maintain that communities are not uniform in nature and that it is therefore impossible to meet the criteria of distribution without giving priority to the individuals who form these communities. Theorists of global justice support a system of international institutions responsible for redressing injustices committed against individuals as residents of the planet, rather than as members of a community, or citizens in a particular country.

From a humanist viewpoint, these three theories — individual, communitarian and global — share the same goal: to implement policies of distributive justice, by viewing people as worthy individuals capable of exercising their own autonomy. The Mexican government is currently using incentives as part of its policies to combat poverty — people are able to express their needs and choose what seems to them most essential.

If the person, in and of him- or herself, forms the cornerstone of this philosophy, and if policies to improve quality of life with decent conditions of equality and respect for rights are proposed, distributive justice can be said to comply with the values of humanism.

Towards a Humanist turn Instead of looking for the universal in biological nature, a recent humanist turn in the social sciences and humanities is focusing on what all human beings around the globe share, without neglecting their differences.

And instead of thinking that a universal humanist culture has to be invented or imposed on other cultures, the new approach believes that universal ideas and values are already present in all cultures. It also acknowledges that people everywhere on the planet are sharing dehumanizing experiences — which should encourage us to consider what it means to live a humane and dignified life.

In the s social movements all around the globe started to modify their agendas. Instead of looking for universal solutions — which were increasingly identified with totalitarian ambitions — they began to pay more attention to the recognition of cultural, ethnic and sexual differences and identities.

The student protests were perhaps the most emblematic sign of a profound reassessment of the role that culture plays in human life that was also being played out in theoretical debates and in politics throughout the s and 70s. But, however important the cultural turn may have been, I also believe that culturalism has given rise to a climate of cultural relativism that is not only dangerous but also incorrect.

The errors in these positions, though evident, have been ignored for a long time. One of the. However, I do not believe that this shared humanity is sufficient; it is too abstract. Instead, we must engage in a dialogue between cultures to discuss what it means to live a dignified life as a human being. It is within and through culture that we learn how to perceive ourselves as human beings. By studying and comparing different cultures we can see just how much they share.

This means that humanism must be intercultural and involve dialogue. Antweiler suggests that we often do not see these similarities because we do not want to. However, he also suggests that if only we looked for similarities we would find them. We can already see signs that culturalism is losing its energy. Many authors feel the need to look for normative tendencies across cultures, not so much to deny the reality of cultural differences, as to oppose cultural relativism.

The question then is: with what can we identify, as human beings, beyond the cultural and national differences that separate us? Many are looking for a new orientation in some form of humanism.

They seem to think that the simple fact of being human grants us a new form of global. Lessons from traditional humanism All cultures and civilizations have humanist traditions. One of the problems with traditional forms of humanism is that they are inspired by historical experiences that are no longer ours. The humanism that accompanied the European Renaissance, for instance, cannot be detached from ambitions to challenge the authority of the Church. Another problem is that many traditional forms of humanism are overly linked to naturalism.

Again, the humanism of the European Renaissance could be quoted as an example. This tradition of naturalism is still very much alive today in various scientific ideas that tend to reduce the human condition to biology. In contrast to naturalism, a new humanism needs to understand that we become human in and through culture. But it would be equally mistaken simply to forget about the traditional forms of humanism that can be found in the legacies of many different cultures.

It is in these traditions that we can find clear evidence for the fact that human beings share, and have always shared, very important ideas about what it means to be human. But learning from other traditions of humanism does not only mean to reaffirm what we already know. In his book on Humanism in East Asian. Doris Bachmann-Medick, Cultural Turns. Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaften, Rowohlt Verlag: Confucianism3 Professor Chun-chieh Huang explains brilliantly that East Asian Confucianism was very much concerned with the harmonious relationship between human beings and the social and natural world that they are a part of.

Questions like this have to be discussed within an intercultural perspective. And I am convinced that the social sciences and humanities provide excellent spaces in which this kind of intercultural dialogue among different traditions of humanism can be cultivated. Shared experiences of dehumanization An idea expressed by Erich Fromm,4 among others, supports the possibility of a common humanist understanding, despite differences.

Humanism is always a consequence of experiences of alienation. It is an outcry from people who feel that the conditions for living a humanely dignified life are withering away. In a world like ours, individual experiences may vary greatly. In our global, modern world, chances are unevenly distributed, and economic, political and military powers are unevenly concentrated. However, it is also a world in which certain.

We are all suffering from the destruction of our natural environment; we are all living in societies where social relations suffer from a growing sense of mistrust.

Those who are better off may try to compensate for the lack of satisfying social relations through consumption, while those who do not have the means experience a desperate longing for consumption. In most parts of the world people are exposed to old and new forms of violence and injustice. Political and economic institutions behave in ways that people can hardly identify with. Again, despite considerable local and social differences, the experiences of human beings under these dehumanizing conditions tend to be very similar all over the planet.

And this must surely be something we can learn from, if we compare contemporary cultures on a global scale. Comparative research in the social sciences and humanities could extend our understanding of the dehumanization that people all over the planet are suffering.

It is only if humanism comes to constitute a central influence on the ways we think and act in everyday life that it can hope to begin to foster a humanist culture that is not only theoretical and abstract.

But again, the social sciences and humanities can play an important role. At least a part of their endeavour should be dedicated to the cultivation and promulgation of a humanist culture beyond the ivory tower. To sum up, the current humanist turn that is starting to appear in many academic and non-academic arenas, seems to be motivated by the need to move beyond the awareness of cultural differences and to look for that which all human beings share, without neglecting the differences.

Instead of looking for the universal in biological nature, or thinking that a universal humanist culture has to be invented or imposed on other cultures, the current humanist turn presupposes that universal ideas and values are already present in all different cultures. At the same time, the new humanism seems to recognize that global modernity needs normative orientations that all human beings can agree upon.

And last but not least, it is a result of common experiences of alienation that global modernity has provoked in different parts of the world. The most important task, however, is to translate the ideas and values into everyday practices.

Rubem Fonseca, Brazilian born writer 7. Theodor W. Adorno — , German-born sociologist, philosopher and musicologist 9.

Experiences and Expectations, Transcript Verlag, He is currently co-editor of a major book series on Intercultural Humanism. Instead of looking for the universal in biological nature, or thinking that a universal humanist culture has to be invented or imposed on other cultures, the current humanist turn presupposes that universal ideas and values are already present in all.

The project initiated a dialogue between scholars from Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America in order to show that different humanist traditions have existed in different parts of the world, but also that these humanist traditions could become an important inspiration in our contemporary modern world.

Although the project concluded officially in , after having received generous financial support from the German Mercator Foundation, publication of the results continues.

From to date a book series by the German publisher Transcript Verlag has published 14 volumes in German and English. The work of the project is being continued in other projects. Contrary to popular belief, humanism developed within the framework of religious thought — first Greek, then Muslim and finally Christian.

Humanism did not arise in Europe in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. This period, known as the Renaissance, was one period in the long history of humanism, which began two thousand years earlier in Athens and continued during the Golden Age of Islam, from the ninth to the twelfth century. Renaissance thinkers referred specifically to the legacy of ancient Greece, which they revived and used as a model.

But they preferred to overlook the Muslim period of humanism. Those who make the same mistake today do so because they believe that the humanist approach is, by definition, anti-religious. Yet for most of its history, humanism developed within the framework of religious thought, not outside of it. Humanism objected to a certain image of God: the image of an inaccessible God, indifferent to human suffering, who had determined the personal fate of each and every person for eternity.

This was the image fostered by the dogma of predestination, according to which men and women have no free will over their lives. Not only does earthly existence have no importance in and of itself—it is only a J The Abu Dulaf mosque in Samarra Iraq is one of the most important works of architecture in the Islamic world.

It dates from the 9th century. In the democratic city, debate was widespread and speech ruled supreme. To convince others, one had to reason. The principles of abstract logic, valid everywhere and for all, encouraged the exploration of philosophy and mathematics. And with it, man developed powerful leverage over aspects of his life. Humanism in ancient Greece therefore formed a perimeter of intellectual freedom and efficiency, through which human life—without challenging the overall global order or the power of the gods—became a valued enterprise in and of itself.

There is no free will. On the one hand was the absolute power of God; on the other, the absolute powerlessness of mankind. It was against this concept of the allpowerful divine that humanism fought.

But how was ancient Greece used as a model for those who, first in the Muslim world and later in the Christian world, would wage the fight against the dogma of predestination?

Leonardo da Vinci, [], Italian painter, polymath and humanist philosopher. Michelangelo [], Italian Renaissance painter, sculptor and architect. William Shakespeare [], one of the greatest English playwrights and poets. Jean Racine [], classical French playwright. Isaac Newton [ ], English physicist, philosopher and theologian. Epistle to the Ephesians 8. Martin Luther [], German priest and father of protestantism. K Miniature by Al-Mubashshir Syria from the early 13th century.

It shows Socrates left with two of his students. A perimeter of intellectual freedom In a context entirely different from that of monotheism, Greece had already confronted this concept of predestination. Mankind was not at the top of the cosmic structure; gods stood above them.

But cosmic laws applied to everyone, gods and men alike. The latter therefore endured a dual burden: first, the abstract, impersonal, immutable one of the cosmos; and the more personal, familial and capricious constraints of the gods.

Man was powerless against the order of the cosmos; he could only try to navigate his own way. Yet with the gods, who had superhuman powers but were riddled with human frailties, mankind learned how to negotiate, trick and cheat. Ultimately, man discovered that nature operated according to specific laws of the cosmos, which lay beyond the power of the gods, and that men could therefore work to learn and master these laws.

This was the context in which humanism developed. The Greeks invented a new, specifically human environment: the polis. Within it, the individual was no longer subject to the traditional power of tribes and clans; citizens were equal before the law and personal merit could prevail over the privilege of birth.

Qudra or the power of man The monotheistic God changed the situation. He not only took over the partial power wielded by the Greek gods, but also the universal cosmic force that applied to these gods as well as to mankind. The abstract, impersonal power of the cosmos was replaced by the omnipotent, personal, creative and active power of God.

He became both the One and the All-Powerful. From this point on, the believer had to explore his own freedom within the orbit of this Almighty. There was no question of pitting the derisory power of man against the infinite power of God. More humbly, it involved cultivating the intellectual, moral and aesthetic realms where human initiative.

This realm was conceptualized for the first time in the ninth century in Baghdad, under the Abbasid Caliphate. Islam was by then an immense, powerful and prosperous empire that encompassed a multitude of different people, religions and cultures. Its capital, Baghdad, had a population of one million, while Rome had 30, people, and Lutetia, barely 10, In trade, trust was the rule, so that a bill of exchange signed in India was honored as far away as Morocco. The great caliphs decided to embrace this power and diversity, opting to encourage intelligent thought.

They supported efforts to. This vision, which fully expressed the dogma of predestination, may seem unjust and immoral. What is required of the believer is not understanding, but rather acceptance and submission to God through an unconditional embrace of total faith.

They not only eliminated the concept of free will, but worked to flush out and combat all the rationalist movements that appeared in Muslim thought. They specifically targeted the Falasifa philosophers , who were pursuing an encyclopedic approach that embraced every sphere of knowledge.

They redeemed the secular disciplines developed by the Greeks—medicine, mathematics, astronomy and pharmacology—and studied nature as it was, and not as a reflection of the allpowerful divine. Al-Kindi,10 al-Farabi,11 Ibn Sina Avicenna 12 and Ibn Rushd Averroes 13 developed a new philosophy, through which Aristotelian reason was reconciled with monotheism; it would inspire Maimonides14 and later, Thomas Aquinas.

The prophets perceived through instant illumination that which philosophers discovered, step by step, via rational thought. The Falasifa therefore explored the limits of humanist thought within a monotheistic framework. Adopting the argument of reason over that of authority, even when the latter is based. Al-Kindi Alkindus [ ], one of the greatest Arab philosophers, translator of many Greek manuscripts.

Al-Farabi Alpharabius [ ], Arab polymath and commentator on the works of Plato. Ibn Sina Avicenna [], Persian philosopher, writer, doctor, astronomer and alchemist.

Ibn Rushd Averroes [], Andalusian philosopher, lawyer, mathematician, doctor and Islamic theologian. Thomas Aquinus [], one of the principal masters of scholastic philosophy and Catholic theology. According to this interpretation, men are distinct creatures, separate from the rest of Creation, due to the fact that God gave them an effective power qudra , once and for all time, by which they can choose to act freely.

Quite the opposite, they are encouraged to be assertive, to display a sense of initiative and to develop their talents, all with the purpose of constructing a fair and united Muslim community. Within this community, worldly existence is celebrated for its own value. It is recommended, insofar as is possible, to improve the living conditions of others. Beauty is prized, the body is honoured and pleasures are encouraged, within the limits of decency and moderation.

On Judgment Day, each person will have to personally answer for the good and the evil they have done during their lifetimes. As God has full knowledge of their actions, He will reward or punish according to a rational and moral justice.

But it was so bold and so disturbing that, in the end, most of the traditionalists, jurists and ultimately the theologians themselves would unite against it. All of them rejected the very idea of a rational interpretation of the acts of God, insofar as this placed limits on His allmighty power. Divine will is a mystery; it is not subject to any limitation. Hence, while having preordained the destiny of each person, God reserves the privilege of reward and punishment, according to His unfathomable will.

They were in the forefront for a time in Baghdad, Cordoba and Cairo, but were also eclipsed for long periods. Their doctrinal authority ended with the death of Averroes in the late twelfth century. In the meantime, the Islamic empire split into two, then three rival empires. Islam suffered major military defeats against the Crusaders around Jerusalem and the Catholic kings in al-Andalus. Soon after, it was devastated by the Mongol invasions. In various capitals, Islam was undermined by doubt, and power shifted from the hands of cultivated princes to those of military leaders.

The confident quest for knowledge was replaced by a cautious defense of well-established beliefs. The concept of free will was lost in the Islamic world. And with it, the significance of a humanist approach. Yet the works of the Muslim Falasifa, translated from Arabic into Latin, would be taught in every European university. For several centuries, they nourished the great debates that would lead to Renaissance thought. Mahmoud Hussein Egypt is a political scientist and Islamic scholar.

Chinese civilization can be considered a blueprint for the development of universal harmony and, thus, new humanism. As society evolves at high speed, the core values of. It is reproduced by kind permission of the artist. For a world of New humanism is by no means novel but rather a product of the evolutionary path forged by humanity. Its prominent emergence can be linked to George Sarton [ — ], a renowned Belgian-born American historian of science, who redefined humanism through a scientific lens.

He turned to. However, American literary critic Irving Babbitt [ — ] is largely. Shocked by a progressively materialistic society in the United States, Babbitt believed Western society had become. An opponent of Romanticism, his key principles conflicted with the intellectual trend of his time and were deemed controversial, yet sparked a great philosophical debate, which shaped conservative intellectual thinking post-World War II. Inspired by Buddhist and Confucian values, Babbitt appealed culturally to his students who later adapted new humanism locally as a counter-reaction to the May 4th movement, which called for a rejection of Chinese traditional values, Marxism and radical beliefs.

Virtue, affection and harmony The practices of Chinese ancient culture can be considered a blueprint for the development of new humanism. It focuses on the balance of opposites and the inevitability of change.

In contrast, Western civilization regulates social behaviour by external powers based on scientific reasoning, hence the rule of law. The dichotomy between Western and Chinese civilizations is much like the two hemispheres of the human brain: the logical left side and the emotional right side. Only when these two hemispheres are mobilized simultaneously can their full potential be realized.

Thus, logic and affection should be combined together to give a full-scale representation of new humanism. They hold family affection sacred, and try to avoid public conflict like suing relatives. However, the challenge is to simultaneously attain loyalty to the nation and filial piety, which is the respect a child should show his or her parents.

Families believe that if they live in harmony, they will prosper. The Confucianists pay tribute to benevolence, the Mohists to universal love, the Taoists to compassion, and the Buddhists to loving-kindness. Love seems to be an omnipresent topic for all schools of thought in China. As a result, those who are less fortunate in society, the aged, orphans and people with disabilities would be supported by the community. Material resources would be used for goodwill, and social wealth owned and shared by all.

According to notable Confucianist, Meng Ke, known as Mencius [ BC , man possesses four initial senses just as he possesses four limbs. The doctrines of Confucius and Mencius have been the cornerstone of traditional Chinese culture for thousands of years and are still dominant today.

According to some thinkers, it is under the influence of Confucianism that the Enlightenment philosophers of the 18th century constructed the monumental Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in Thus, the substance of new humanism can only be enriched with the ingredients of Chinese culture.

Every religion has its sage. Every one of these individuals claimed to know the absolute truth. It is Socrates, alone among famous sages, who claimed to know nothing. Each devised a set of rules or laws, save Socrates.

Instead, Socrates gave us a method—a method of questioning the rules of others, of cross-examination. For these reasons Socrates is the quintessential skeptical humanist. He stands as a symbol, both of Greek rationalism and the humanist tradition that grew out of it. And no equally recognized saint or sage has joined his company since his death. That is, Secular Humanists identify more closely with the rational heritage symbolized by ancient Athens than with the faith heritage epitomized by ancient Jerusalem.

The positive side is liberation, best expressed in these words of American agnostic Robert G. When I became convinced that the universe is natural, that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom.

The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space. I was free! I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.

The fact that humanism can at once be both religious and secular presents a paradox of course, but not the only such paradox. Another is that both Religious and Secular Humanism place reason above faith, usually to the point of eschewing faith altogether. The dichotomy between reason and faith is often given emphasis in humanism, with humanists taking their stand on the side of reason.

Because of this, Religious Humanism should not be seen as an alternative faith, but rather as an alternative way of being religious. These paradoxical features not only require a unique treatment of Religious Humanism in the study of world religions but also help explain the continuing disagreement, both inside and outside the humanist movement, over whether humanism is a religion at all.

Because both Religious and Secular Humanism are identified so closely with Cultural Humanism, they readily embrace modern science, democratic principles, human rights, and free inquiry. The most obvious point to clarify in this context is that some religions hold to doctrines that place their adherents at odds with certain features of the modern world.

Other religions do not. Therefore, they see the teaching of evolution in a science course as an affront to their religious sensibilities. It is indeed true that Religious Humanists, in embracing modern science, embrace evolution in the bargain. But individuals within mainline Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism also embrace modern science—and hence evolution. Evolution happens to be the state of the art in science today and is appropriately taught in science courses.

That evolution has come to be identified with Religious Humanism but not with mainline Christianity or Judaism is a curious quirk of politics in North America. But this is a typical feature of the whole controversy over humanism in the schools. Other courses of study have come to be identified with humanism as well, including sex education, values education, global education, and even creative writing.

But situational considerations have been an element of Western jurisprudence for at least 2, years! Again, Secular and Religious Humanists, being in harmony with current trends, are quite comfortable with all of this, as are adherents of most major religions. There is no justification for seeing these ideas as the exclusive legacy of humanism.

Furthermore, there are independent secular reasons why schools offer the curriculum that they do. The charge of humanist infiltration into the public schools seems to be the product of a confusion of Cultural Humanism and Religious Humanism. Though Religious Humanism embraces Cultural Humanism, this is no justification for separating out Cultural Humanism, labeling it as the exclusive legacy of a nontheistic and naturalistic religion called Religious Humanism, and declaring it alien.

A deeper understanding of Western culture would go a long way in clarifying the issues surrounding the controversy over humanism in the public schools. Once we leave the areas of confusion, it is possible to explain, in straightforward terms, exactly what the Modern Humanist philosophy is about. It is easy to summarize the basic ideas held in common by both Religious and Secular Humanists.

These ideas are as follows:. Though there are some who would suggest that this philosophy has always had a limited and eccentric following, the facts of history show otherwise. Philip Randoph, who was the Humanist of the Year; and futurist R. Buckminister Fuller, Humanist of the Year in The United Nations is a specific example of humanism at work. Meanwhile, humanists like Humanist of the Year Andrei Sakharov stood up for human rights wherever such rights were suppressed. Through these people, and many more of less reknown, the humanist philosophy has an impact on our world far out of proportion to the number of its adherents.

That tells us something about the power of ideas that work. Some religious traditions incorporate elements of humanism as part of their belief systems. Examples of religious humanism include Quakers, Lutherans, and Unitarian Universalists. Secular humanism rejects all religious beliefs, including the existence of the supernatural. This approach stresses the importance of logic, the scientific method, and rationality when it comes to understanding the world and solving human problems.

Humanism focuses on each individual's potential and stresses the importance of growth and self-actualization. The fundamental belief of humanistic psychology is that people are innately good and that mental and social problems result from deviations from this natural tendency.

Humanism also suggests that people possess personal agency and that they are motivated to use this free will to pursue things that will help them achieve their full potential as human beings.

The need for fulfillment and personal growth is a key motivator of all behavior. People are continually looking for new ways to grow, to become better, to learn new things, and to experience psychological growth and self-actualization. Some of the ways that humanism is applied within the field of psychology include:. The humanist movement had an enormous influence on the course of psychology and contributed new ways of thinking about mental health.

It offered a new approach to understanding human behaviors and motivations and led to developing new techniques and approaches to psychotherapy. Some of the major ideas and concepts that emerged as a result of the humanist movement include an emphasis on things such as:. Some tips from humanism that can help people pursue their own fulfillment and actualization include:.

One of the major strengths of humanistic psychology is that it emphasizes the role of the individual. This school of psychology gives people more credit in controlling and determining their state of mental health. It also takes environmental influences into account. Rather than focusing solely on our internal thoughts and desires, humanistic psychology also credits the environment's influence on our experiences. Humanistic psychology helped remove some of the stigma attached to therapy and made it more acceptable for normal, healthy individuals to explore their abilities and potential through therapy.

While humanism continues to influence therapy, education, healthcare, and other areas, it has not been without some criticism. For example, the humanist approach is often seen as too subjective. The importance of individual experience makes it difficult to objectively study and measure humanistic phenomena. How can we objectively tell if someone is self-actualized? The answer, of course, is that we cannot. We can only rely upon the individual's own assessment of their experience. Another major criticism is that observations are unverifiable; there is no accurate way to measure or quantify these qualities.

This can make it more difficult to conduct research and design assessments to measure hard-to-measure concepts. The early development of humanistic psychology was heavily influenced by the works of a few key theorists, especially Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. Other prominent humanist thinkers included Rollo May and Erich Fromm.

They agreed that topics such as self-actualization, creativity, individuality, and related topics were the central themes of this new approach. In , Carl Rogers published "Client-Centered Therapy," which described his humanistic, client-directed approach to therapy.

In , the Journal of Humanistic Psychology was established.