Humanism and Politics

By Armineh Noravian

Within the Humanist movement, there is a belief that political and economic ideologies should not and cannot be addressed via the Humanist philosophy because Humanists can differ widely from one another in their political views. What exactly does this mean and how does it affect what we do (or don’t do)?

Many Humanists support and sometimes even actively participate in organizations that have political clout and resources, and can influence changes that they deem important. But the one thing we don’t do is to organize as Humanists to make changes under the Humanist banner, unless it is in response to the Religious Right or about our favorite subject, separation of religion and government.

What I would like to do in this essay is to discuss (as provocatively as possible) the subject of Humanist involvement in politics.
As Humanists we have the Affirmations of Humanism, the Humanist Manifestos I, II, III, and 2000, the Amsterdam Declaration, and the Neo-Humanist Statement of Secular Principles and Values: Personal, Progressive, and Planetary. What can we do to make Humanism more than just a set of impressive manifestos, affirmations, and declarations?

The claim that political and economic ideologies should not and/or cannot be addressed via the Humanist philosophy leads one to think that these various affirmations, manifestos, and declarations don’t play a meaningful role in the lives of Humanists; it’s as if there is no alignment between these Humanist documents and the lives of those who claim to be Humanists and that these documents are irrelevant to the worldview of Humanists and unable to inform their actions. Worse than that, the downside of this is that Humanists cannot agree on any issue that is politically significant; this means that they are not able to take on an issue that will lead to significant social change and perhaps make Humanism relevant in the real world.

Even a cursory look at a couple of these documents shows why these arguments are false.

The manifestos, affirmations, and declarations can and do inform our actions - actions that could guide us socially, politically, and economically. For example, the Amsterdam Declaration says, “Humanism supports democracy and Human rights.”  The Humanist Manifesto III says, “We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature's resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.” Clearly, these are supportive of political and economic rights, as well as civil and human rights. Furthermore, Humanism can provide a common framework for people all over the world. But for Humanism to be more than just a set of manifestos, affirmations, and declarations we need to do more than just talk; we need a pragmatic Humanist activism based on the ideas and ideals in these numerous manifestos and affirmations to give life to what are now merely words on paper.

This means that we need to articulate a coherent social, political, and economic vision of a more reasonable world and have our voices represented in the political arena. Otherwise, we’ll be doing what we are very good at doing, and that is, complaining that the Religious Right has too much voice and power.

What do we need to overcome? What are some of our challenges?

It appears that we Humanists prefer to keep to generalities because we can agree on those. It is often said that we should have an open-ended approach to issues; we also have a tendency to steer clear of social or political action, unless it is one of our favorite targets. This is one of the challenges that we need to overcome.

Our current approach allows many controversies to go without resolution within most Humanist groups, which provides a false appearance of ideological unity. We fear that getting into details will trigger conflict and cause the group to fall apart. This is why we are not able to have a unified public voice that articulates a Humanistic position on important and relevant issues of the day to counter the irrational voices that have taken over; this is why we are not able to apply Humanistic thinking to real world problems; and this is why, unlike most other groups, we have not been able to produce political leaders representing our Humanist philosophy.

One of the implications here is that we value our individualism and personal freedom to the point that to be inclusive we can only focus on generalities. One of the problems with this is that the inclusion and equal treatment of the range of views creates an environment where Humanists work against each other. This leads us to more debate and conflict, as opposed to compromise and action. But to take public positions on issues, we need to articulate a clear and unified position that is informed by our affirmations, manifestos, and declarations. If we are not able to do this, it would follow that our Humanist philosophy is more suited to private than to public life.

I think the notion that we need to stay with generalities to be inclusive is totally false, destructive, and irrational. First, it squelches reasoned and rational discourse on significant issues. Second, there are many specifics that we can all agree on under the broad generalized statement in our various Humanist documents because ultimately we agree on things that are basic human decencies and are reasonable. And third, those who believe we can only agree on the generalities, but not the means, show a lack of imagination, for there is a spectrum of means that are reasonable and possible only if we seek them.

I would like to address this fear that taking positions will lead to arguments and conflict, and be an alienating experience for those whose positions are not adopted by either their local Humanist groups or by more nationally organized groups, and that this will cause people to leave these groups and even cause groups to fall apart. Since the beginning of time, even in the simplest hunter and gatherer societies, humans have used political processes to manage dissent and slowly move discussions, debates, and negotiations toward a kind of closure that could serve as the basis of action. This type of closure is arrived at through consensus, compromise, or majority opinion. This simple human ability to use a political process to come to closure on issues that then guide our actions is what allows us to survive as humans. It provides the big tent under which we are all able to coexist. When we become ideological to the point that we are not able to do this, we have moved away from the Humanist position of rational and critical thinking; this should be a more serious concern than the group falling apart.

Another major issue that is commonly brought up when it comes to Humanists taking action: Being a Humanist or a non-religious person is a hurdle that prevents most Humanists from entering the world of politics. In other words, the “god thing” matters.

Although the god thing may matter, we have successful politicians, such as Pete Stark, who are atheists. So the god thing is not the only thing that matters. There are many other things that prevent Humanists from successfully entering the world of politics.

We need to learn to separate the private from the public. During an election debate with Bush, Kerry was told that Catholic archbishops stated that it would be a sin to vote for a candidate who supported unlimited stem-cell research and a woman’s right to choose. Kerry’s response was, “I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith. I believe that choice is a woman's choice.” This is not just a respect for our Constitution, but a separation between the private and public domain of Kerry’s life. We Humanists need to learn to do this.

Also, we need to learn to become part of a team. Our individuality will not disappear if we set aside our individual opinions and work toward a fusion of ideas that might better reflect a humanistic view as opposed to our own private view. Individuality and self-centeredness are two different things.

More importantly, getting involved in politics doesn’t mean that we need to vote for any candidate who publicly declares that he or she is an atheist. Our focus should be on the vision of the candidate. A good Humanist candidate is one who supports humanistic economics over corporate capitalism, who supports religious tolerance, and who is willing to change social structures in a way that would increase self-reliance and safeguard the dignity of human beings. In other words, he or she subscribes to the various Humanist values enshrined in our numerous documents.

Furthermore, what may prevent Humanists from successfully getting involved in politics is, what I call an attitude problem: We believe that we are the world’s best skeptics. In my opinion, we do not hold a monopoly on skepticism, and we sometimes misuse it and are confused by it. Ordinarily, healthy skepticism provides the basis for examining commonly held beliefs, questions the accuracy of certain ideas, and brings the structures that support inaccurate ideas into the limelight for closer scrutiny. This is a good thing. But if skepticism is used to ridicule most of the ideas that give meaning to people’s lives, without providing compelling alternatives, then it is destructive.

Conclusion:

In an issue of The Progressive, in an article entitled “Winning Isn’t Everything,” Steve Cobble, who worked on Kucinich’s campaign, said the following: “Sometimes, … politics is changing the landscape. … [S]ometimes politics is about changing the behavior of a major party. Or... strengthening a constituency that a major party can then adopt or co-opt. Sometimes … politics is about bringing new blood into a stagnant system, training a new cadre of organizers, changing the rules of the game. And sometimes … politics is about poetry as well as prose, offering a new way of thinking about America, challenging the power structure head-on, giving voice to the voiceless.”

I know that not everyone is a politician, nor does everyone want to be one. But I think the majority of us are involved in the democratic process one way or another, because we believe that even the little we contribute today creates an opportunity for someone to build on tomorrow. It allows us to speak truth to power and make others more seriously consider the issues; it keeps significant issues alive. We do this either though various organizations or individually.

Let me ask the question that I asked at the beginning of this essay: What can we do to make Humanism more than just a set of impressive manifestos, affirmations, and declarations?

I think one answer to this question is that we should practice Humanism and not just speak about it. Our Humanist philosophy - as stated in our manifestos, aspirations, declarations -  is our guide to social, political, and economic action. We should get over the barriers that we have created for ourselves and start practicing our ideals, as enshrined in our Humanistic documents, for these will allow cultural changes, which will in time support a much more secular and dignitarian society, where the welfare of human beings comes first.

We should be leading this effort because it’s the Humanist thing to do. As they say, “Let us be good ancestors.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Armineh Noravian was a member of the Board of Directors of the Humanist Community in Silicon Valley between 2007-2010, where she served as Vice President in 2008 and President in 2009 and 2010. She was also President of the Silicon Valley Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and state from 2005-2006, and a member of the Board of Directors of the ACLU, Santa Clara Valley chapter from 2006-2008. She holds a M.S. in Engineering and a M.A. in Applied Anthropology (cultural).