Communications

Time for Humanism to Adjust its Focus

In modern times, Humanism in the public space has tended to focus on ideas that the many of us as Humanists would certainly consider to be crucial issues, such as freedom from and opposition to faith-based religion and its unjustified influence on our laws and government, freedom of thought, as well as promoting the valuing and use of rationality and reason, in particular in the guise of science and technology. In this article, I argue that we as Humanists, and our Humanist organisations need to adjust our focus to some extent and place greater emphasis on issues which I argue are of greater importance and relevance to the everyday lives of the many, in particular focusing on matters such as human well-being, poverty and suffering, and our everyday personal conduct in terms of, for example, elements such as love, kindness, justice, integrity and cooperation. I argue that failing to engage with these areas serves to marginalise Humanism from mainstream society and is likely to undermine our ability to sustain Humanism into the future.

As 14-year old Rani picks through the waste dump bordering her Delhi slum, looking for something of value to sell so that she can have food for the day, she has little time to contemplate the wider questions of life, political, social or philosophical. Her hope is to eat; her wish is to find some shelter for the night; her concern is to avoid harassment in the street – to get through the day in one piece without molestation or other harm. Rani is socially, economically at the bottom of the pile, one of the hard cases in a country where more than 800 million people live in poverty, struggling to find the means to get through the day.

Far away in Barrow-in-Furness in the UK, Andy is making his weekly visit to the food bank, armed with carrier bags, hopeful of finding enough food and other provisions to keep him going. Since he became ill and was no longer able to work, unable to sustain a required search for work, he has just about managed to keep his head above water. With few friends and family, he spends most of the day sitting on park benches or walking around the town before returning to his cold home for a meager meal.

Harshani is 34 years old. She lives in a large crate on the beach south of Colombo. She does not know her parents. She never went to school. She uses washed up timber gathered from the beach to produce the fire she needs to cook the rice that she buys from the nearby shops. Sometimes she finds coconuts on the beach, which she uses to supplement her inadequate diet. She makes money by selling her body to occasional men who pass by on the beach.

Humanism presents itself as a life stance, and not just any run-of-the mill life stance, but an ethical life stance which, according to the Amsterdam Humanist International Declaration (2002), comprises a care for all humanity. Yet when it comes to people like Rani, Andy and Harshani, people the like of whom exist in their millions in our modern world, Humanism as an entity and Humanist organisations, in practice say very little. There is little if any expression from Humanism that these people are important to Humanism, either as potential Humanists themselves or as centres and focuses of Humanist attention and action. While individual Humanists may often feel and show concern and take action to support such people living in pain and suffering in their guise as recipients of Human kindness and generosity, our Humanist leaders, Humanism organisations and Humanism as an entity, Humanism as a life stance or belief system, does very little to speak to them, to talk to such people, to know such people, and indeed to support and help them.

Thus, while stating such a ‘care for all humanity’ in this Amsterdam declaration, such care does not clearly and visibly realise itself to any significant extent in practice, through either significantly identifiable and detectable statements, and certainly not through vociferous Humanist calls to, for example and in particular, end poverty and suffering, or through concerted, organised and effective action to support such goals. While a small number of Humanists might argue that these people are not the necessary concern of Humanism, and some Humanists may argue that they should not be high-up in the range of Humanist concerns, given the need to counter the destructive influences of religions and the range of superstitious beliefs, the claim to be supporting an ethical life-stance contradicts this. Some Humanists might also argue that Humanism as an entity is lacking in influence and power, resources and more, meaning these goals cannot be prioritised and are difficult to achieve.

Nevertheless, given the range of actions and statements that Humanists do manage to make, the absence of such calls to action and the lack of action in regard to such poverty and suffering by Humanist entities itself suggests that modern Humanism is, in practice, in its actions and statements significantly deficient in relation to addressing substantive and essential areas of everyday human living.

For if is there is so much pain and suffering in the world, whatever the cause, and if Humanism, our Humanist organisations and leaders, fail to comment on this or if we fail to take the reasonable and possible actions within our powers to prevent this suffering and pain; if Humanism as an entity paints itself in terms of its statements and actions as in effect indifferent to pain and suffering, or stands by without substantive comment and action when such suffering and pain is being endured, with no significant comment on actions and solutions to such problems, then for many of us as Humanists this will raise questions about the purpose and point in Humanism. With such frequent inaction and near silence on key issues as, for example the social, political and economic issues tied to poverty, pain and suffering, how can Humanism be considered ethical?

Additionally, and on a related point, as such a ‘life stance’, (life stance quite correctly argued by David Pollock, former President of the European Humanist Association as combining “beliefs about what is [combined with] values about how things should be – how we should behave”), our Humanist “life-stance” claim serves to suggest a close relevance of Humanism to the way we all live and hence to the things we do and how we conduct ourselves in our daily lives. Yet as with the lack of statements on poverty and suffering, Humanism and Humanist manifestos and declarations from the range of sources tend to include very little either in terms of broad principles or in terms of detail about how we as individuals, as Humanists, should address such pain and suffering in the world or how we should, in line with the Humanist ethical, caring stance, live our lives on a daily basis, and what we should do to promote well-being and reduce pain and suffering in our local and daily interactions, which of course can have, in concert with others, significant more global effects.

For example, looking at Humanist statements in regard to the notion of our personal conduct, while the website of the American Humanist Association (AHA) [site consulted March, 2017] provides broad descriptions or definitions of Humanism, these descriptions and definitions all emphasise the broadest Humanist principles, such as being ethical, being progressive, being democratic, and taking responsibility amongst other things, all these being entirely laudable and certainly characteristic of modern Humanism. Yet there is a vast gap in terms of key areas of our personal day-to-day living (think of kindness, integrity, relationships, love, attitudes to sex, personal growth and development) and also and in particular in terms of what those broadest of principles mean in practice. Thus, apart from the absence of sufficient focus on central areas of our living, those broad principles stated lead to no exemplification of, or further specification of what these principles mean in practice in our daily lives.

Many historic freethinkers often considered to be aligned with or underpinning Humanism, for example the philosopher Jeremy Bentham, associated with “The greatest happiness for the greatest number” or Aristotle with regard to the idea of eudaimonia, quite rightly talk about pursuing happiness[1] (a term clearly susceptible to interpretation in varying ways) but again they do so in the broadest terms, with both of these thinkers and indeed others usually seen as linked to Humanist thought, being interested in particular in the legal and governmental implications of their ideas and with the latter’s ideas particularly tied to notions of virtue, a concept seen in this article, as being somewhat abstract and divorced from the everyday, and practical daily living, and moreover, and notably Aristotle’s version of eudaimonia repulsively allowing slavery, seeing women as equivalent to slaves, promoting monarchy as the best form of government (then aristocracy), with eudaimonia being solely for the elite.In any case, however, there are again very few specifics from these writers, and indeed, as with the AHA and Amsterdam documentation there is little detail and no supplementary detail about how we as Humanists should live our lives and pursue our Humanist goals.

[1] Many writers interpret eudaimonia as referring to happiness and fulfillment, but more literally this has been interpreted as meaning “Good in the eyes of the Gods” representing in essence a supernatural view of that which is good, with Aristotle often referring to the soul and Gods in his writings about ethics.

Other important Humanist thinkers, in line with Bentham, such as Bertrand Russell, focus heavily on the intellectual. For example, arguably eight (but probably all ten) of the elements of Russell’s Liberal Decalogue presented in the British Humanist Association Short introduction to Humanism (2006) focus on thinking, opinions, freedom of thought, argument and opinion, all of great importance to our well-being and to Humanism. Yet there is no mention in this decalogue of poverty, love, health, kindness, helping others or other central elements relevant to the good life and all of our lives.

Thus, and certainly in this author’s view, mainstream Humanism, as currently expressed, is deficient in essential areas, specifically those most closely tied to well-being and pain and suffering, as well as our everyday conduct in these regards. In so far as they go, and I acknowledge they go far, the broad spirit of Humanism and broad messages of Humanism are laudable and, to my mind are more than worthy of support. But supplementing the points already inferred from the already mentioned contentions, I have argued in this article so far that Humanism and Humanist organisations, as well as we, as individual Humanists, need to engage in some adjustment of our focus, speaking out more widely on issues outside of those ‘safe areas’ about which we currently speak, I particular in regard to the promotion of well-being (our own and that of others) and issues of pain and suffering (our own and that of others), as well as the social, political and economic origins of poverty and suffering, and in particular being more specific about what Humanism means for our lives and the lives of others, for our personal conduct, when looked at from these perspectives.

To counter any reader thoughts of such an approach being oppressive, in particular with regard to the area of our personal conduct, this call for an adjustment in focus is not done to establish any new dogma or Humanistic creed, to dictate our conduct and behaviour, something that would rightly be a source of concern to any Humanist and perhaps other readers too, such creed and dogma being quite rightly rejected in the Amsterdam declaration. It is instead put forward for a range of purposes, these being namely to:

support well-being and happiness for all, seen as a worthy Humanist goal
broaden the relevance and appeal of Humanism
help us realise the rational values and caring nature of Humanism
support Humanists and Humanism in delivering the kinds of communities, societies and world that Humanists would wish for
support individuals to live with well-being in whatever context they live
support and sustain Humanism in the modern global, social and political context in which it is currently operating.

In order to further the contentions put forward and argue further for a modification of our Humanist focus, I will now aim to extend further and interrogate the arguments put forward with a focus in particular on the UK context, as it is this context with which I, personally, am most familiar. However other contexts will be mentioned and hopefully the ideas and arguments presented will resonate more widely and globally. I will proceed firstly here by mentioning those areas of focus where there is, to my mind, no significant need for modifying our approach. That being said, it is recognized that given the modified and new areas of focus proposed further on this article, there might necessarily be some de-emphasising of these current focuses or their resultant reduced visibility given the different and proposed new areas of concern or emphasis.

Additionally, after focusing on those elements where modern humanism and humanist organisations are considered to be playing an important and significant role in the UK as well as the roles they are playing more broadly, and through contributing to individual lives and supporting our communities and societies, I will reiterate and further identify and discuss those areas where, in my view, our Humanist entities are not contributing as they might, as well as examining the reasons for this lack of focus, and will then set out where I feel that Humanism needs to broaden its focus if it is to be more relevant in the modern world. I will not only argue that such a modified focus is desirable, but that indeed it is a necessity.

To start: a key and highly successful element of our Humanist activity is our action in opposition to religion, faith-based beliefs, opposition to irrationality and the range of forms of supernaturalism. Indeed it is through this channel that most people in the UK, and indeed in the wider world, will have encountered our Humanism, with prominent Humanists, known undoubtedly to us all, including Cambridge University’s Professor Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris from the USA and the late Christopher Hitchens, all prominently and in a highly articulate and persuasive manner arguing the case against religious privilege, against religious superstition, against the entire notion of faith, the existence of gods and angels, heaven and hell and the very bases of religion, as well as arguing for kindness and good conduct from a Humanist non-religious perspective.

For the many of us, it has been a major relief to see such baseless superstition, the notions of Gods and all the relevant associated paraphernalia, being challenged robustly and effectively, and to see alternative frameworks put forward, though unfortunately it is the case that alternative Humanist frameworks tend to be given little space and, certainly within the UK, religious and institutional power operates against the promulgation of a Humanist life stance (for example the BBC banning Humanists from Radio 4’s Thought for the Day and its giving next to no coverage of Humanism) and operating against the portrayal of Humanism as a legitimate life stance.

Nevertheless, it is through this window of opposition to religious faith-based, supernatural beliefs that most people encounter Humanism, though clearly the emphasis here is on opposition to religions, without which it would seem unlikely that our Humanist influencers would have gained such attention and prominence in the media. It is, I would judge, the controversy, conflict, angst and argument over religion and belief that attracts the media’s attention, while notably our simply expressing the positive beliefs of Humanism generally fails to gain similar publicity and coverage. In this oppositional context, the clarity, integrity, rationality and indeed bluntness as well as the articulate nature of leading Humanists will also undoubtedly have contributed to their personal prominence and popularity.

Our Humanist opposition to supernaturalism and faith-based belief systems is also of impact and value by means of its feeding through into our Humanist campaigns against faith schools, religious indoctrination, and religious privilege (in the UK for example demonstrated through the presence of 24 bishops in the House of Lords). Such points of focus and campaigns also raise awareness of Humanism in our communities and societies and enable some media coverage of Humanist beliefs and identity.

Inextricably tied to this element of opposition to supernaturalism is the Humanist attachment to reason, rationality, evidence and logic, often expressed through our attachment to and our promotion of science and scientific method. Such an emphasis on these areas is certainly taken as being a highly positive and desirable thing, indeed integral to Humanism by Humanists, and the area of scientific research thus provides a safe area around which Humanists can coalesce. That being said, it is surely important that we, as Humanists, acknowledge that without broader values, that with the wrong goals, and indeed without the application of rationality and reason to our more daily lives, the use of rationality, reason, evidence, logic and indeed science, can certainly have negative and destructive consequences.

Moreover, as will be discussed further below, there is to my mind, an aversion amongst our Humanist groups and entities to the discussion of the application of these processes to social sciences, economics and the range of social and economic questions. That being said, emphasising rationality, reason, logic and evidence and the processes behind scientific thinking are certainly passionate commitments of ourselves as Humanists, comprise worthy if not invaluable points of focus for those of us who are Humanists, and they serve to enhance the attraction of Humanism, as well as hopefully serving to support well-being in a broader manner.

A further area where we should maintain our focus as Humanists, certainly in the UK, an area through which Humanism achieves greater prominence in our communities and societies, and supports strong community roots, is through delivery of, participation in and promotion of our Humanist funerals, baby namings and weddings. Through such channels we, as Humanists, Humanists UK and other Humanist organisations are not only raising the profile of Humanism, but of course, are also again contributing substantially to the well-being of our fellows.

Further in relation to these ceremonies, in terms of the far-reaching impact of our Humanism, at the personal and more local levels, certainly in the context of the UK, many ordinary members of our communities will often have had experience of or will know someone who has attended one of our Humanist ceremonial occasions. And the responses of so many to these ceremonies are almost always positive, since our Humanist ceremonies meet deep fundamental human needs, desires and wants of the many of those of us who wish for truth and reality.

Such ceremonies meet the profound needs of those of us who are, in particular, not religious and who wish to experience the passage of key events in our lives without the intrusion of what we as Humanists see as false and unjustified faith beliefs, based in supernaturalism, without the intrusion of false promises and unsupported claims (indeed to our minds perhaps complete nonsense) about reward and punishment in heaven and hell, with these Humanist occasions wherever possible accompanied by a focus on celebration, joy, fulfillment and happiness arising for us in the one life that we have.

Our Humanist ceremonies, supported by Humanists UK and other organisations in the UK and indeed worldwide, represent a very positive, deeply affecting, popular and meaningful face of Humanism. It is only right and proper that such areas of life and Humanism should retain our attention and should be expanded and developed.

Building on these community connections, in a range of Humanist contexts, many more Humanists, beyond our own daily living as ordinary people, are making further contact with the world of everyday lives and everyday living in our communities through the presence of increasing numbers of Humanist chaplains being trained and delivering personal support in prisons, hospitals and universities, amongst other places. Such chaplains and support workers represent a further point of focus where ordinary people can experience and make contact with Humanists and Humanism, involving and promising further and deeper engagement of Humanism with our communities.

Thus having identified areas where our focus and achievements as Humanists have been growing and are strong, I will now look at the areas where I judge that we should consider modifying our overall focus and indeed to our areas of focus. This in particular will involve looking in more detail at key areas already mentioned in this text as areas of deficit in our modern Humanist dialogue and action, but will also stray into some new areas.

So this article started by highlighting experiences of and notions of poverty and suffering. As already pointed out, we hear very few Humanist statements in this area. Illustratively, currently in the UK, with record levels of severe child poverty, expanding use of food banks, and growing evidence of exploitation in the workplace, there are no or minimal statements on these areas from Humanists UK. For an organisation such as Humanists UK, claiming to be ethical, such silence could be portrayed as giving the lie to such an ethical claim.

Nor are there, to reiterate the point made earlier, statements from the leaders of Humanists UK or others internationally, certainly of which I am aware, which speak out against the blight and suffering of poverty and destitution. Yet with regard to Humanism entities and our Humanist leaders, not only do we not appear to voice any particular position with regard to preventing poverty and suffering, but we clearly offer no particular view on the social, political and economic systems (beyond promoting democracy and freedoms, these being, it is acknowledged, of the greatest importance), which are fundamental to the way we live and our human well-being.

Some would argue, with what in their view would be some political and strategic justification, that these matters are too contentious and divisive within Humanism and elsewhere for our Humanist entities and leading Humanists to speak out on, and such a focus might detract from our efforts in the other directions already described. Issues of social and economic systems are the subject of significant passions, certainly in Humanist groups in the UK, with Humanists supporting different economic models, some Humanists being left leaning, socialist or social liberal in outlook and others arguing for economic liberalism and “free market” economics liberals. Apart from the fear internally that adopting a position would lead to some Humanists leaving or resigning from official Humanist organisations, the fear is undoubtedly also that speaking out about and discussing such social and economic matters might alienate potential recruits to Humanism and alienate Humanist entities and beliefs from those we would wish to influence, who might favour and wish to adopt different social and economic views.

Further, some may present or view a concern for well-being, for the prevention and avoidance of pain and suffering, for the ending of poverty, as representing the idea of ‘socialism’, so negatively perceived by many. Of course it does not; it represents care and concern for humanity, surely a necessary outlook and indeed goal for Humanism, a care and concern which in itself does not state a direct or particular route for its achievement, though necessitating not only discussion amongst Humanists but necessitating effective action from Humanists on a central Human issue.

Of course our Humanism seems to pride itself on toleration, in listening to those of different beliefs, in hearing different opinions, yet it would seem that when it comes to certain what are surely legitimate debates which relate to key issues of Humanism, such as personal conduct, poverty, suffering and in particular social and economic policy, there is little debate and perhaps in fact, certainly in my personal experience and observation of Humanist contexts, a level of intolerance and an unwillingness to truly listen, learn, discuss and grow. Yet with our Humanist attachment to rationality, reason and evidence, as well as our stated attachment tolerance of others and their beliefs, we should certainly be able to tackle such matters, engage in discussion, and speak out as well as take action as Humanists about these kinds of issues.

Yet I would also argue that there are other reasons why matters of poverty, pain and suffering are not prevalent in the thinking and actions of Humanists and Humanism in the UK and indeed elsewhere. Primarily, and perhaps heavily influencing Humanism today, reflected in key actions and focuses of Humanism today, Humanism and those thinkers described as central to influencing modern Humanism have tended to have been interested in moral questions from their own perspective as members of social elites and from a significantly intellectual perspective rather than being concerned with morality in relation to poverty, suffering, or in relation to the poor and powerless.

Thus Socrates (466-439 BCE), usually portrayed as a key antecedent of Humanist and non-religious thinking, denied the Gods of Ancient Greece and promoted the use of Socratic dialogue, evidence and logic. Yet where did he stand in relation to issues of moral good, of personal conduct? Socrates was a member of the Athens elite who had no noted objection to slavery. As already pointed to, his successor Aristotle, believed that slavery was fine with some born to be slaves and others not [“a slave is a living piece of poverty” “ A proper wife should be as obedient as a slave”] and was clearly misogynistic [“The female is a female through a certain lack of qualities, we should therefore regard the female nature as afflicted with a certain defectiveness” ] – hardly an ethical example in terms of our modern conceptions of ethics. Aristotle felt people were born to different roles, and did not show particular concern in his writings for the suffering of others. He focused on virtue, but not in a manner that challenged the existence of slavery or other social practices and conditions causing pain and suffering, for example poverty.

And detailing what has already been said, for Aristotle, democracy was for the elite, of which he was one. Of course it would be fair to say that the context, values and beliefs of Ancient Greece, three thousand years ago, was vastly different from the present times and far away from our other modern concerns. Yet Aristotle is presented as a key antecedent or originator of Humanism and by extension therefore modern Humanism, a revolutionary philosopher and thinker, yet he did not challenge poverty, suffering, slavery, and surely, given his attitudes to slavery, attitudes to women and in other areas, such views would be condemned today and he offered very little that can be seen as ethical in these areas. His ideas are hardly suitable for him to be presented as an icon of modern Humanism.

But it wasn’t just Aristotle. Additionally in Ancient Greece, and also painted as a contributor in many Humanist texts to Humanist thinking, is Epicurus (342-270BCE), after whom the philosophy of Epicureanism is named, the philosophy associated with promoting the pursuit of pleasure (and the absence of suffering). Indeed, modern Humanist texts and speakers often talk about living a fulfilled life, and this is seen here as consistent with the ideas of Epicurus, with Epicurus certainly not seeing pleasure, as so often mistakenly represented, as solely arising in the form of carnal and short term pleasures, but incorporating many disparate elements, including friendship, aesthetic appreciation, philosophical study and discussion, and love. Yet, as with Socrates, Epicurus was not concerned with the well-being of the many, of those living in poverty, suffering in slavery, and he indeed saw the masses as being of little value referring to them as ‘the rabble’.

Notably different to these approaches which disdain ordinary people, Stoics, also frequently referred to in texts on Humanism, saw people as needing to live with brotherly love, although it remains unclear if such love actually referred to all people. In the Discourses Epictetus comments on man's relationship with the world: "Each human being is primarily a citizen of his own commonwealth; but he is also a member of the great city of gods and men, whereof the city political is only a copy." This sentiment echoes that of Diogenes of Sinope who said, "I am not an Athenian or a Corinthian but a citizen of the world."

Of course, existing within the context that they did, there is no sense such revolutionary thinkers were looking for the emancipation and freedom of women or of those living in slavery and poverty. These were not important concerns for these philosophers. It would be fair to say that, to all intents and purposes, women, the poor, the enslaved, were effectivley considered as non-people not worthy of care and empathy.

More recently, however, Todorov and others have focused more on the equality of Humanity. And indeed modern Humanism in the UK has taken on board many ideas in terms of justice and equality linked to, in particular gender and sex equality and freedoms, and this is welcome, nevertheless, the focus of Humanist entities and organisations in the modern day on thinking, the rational and the intellectual combined with the absence of significant focus by our Humanist entities and organisations on elements such as poverty and broader pain and suffering is seen here as largely consistent with the ancient historic origins of Humanist thinking by elite individuals from elite groups.

Thus, while there have been moves through the history of thinkers and thinking associated with Humanism, from a focus on and concern with the morality and conduct of those who govern and the elite, to recognising the dignity and equal worth of all human beings, there is clearly, in the Humanist literature and its history, an association, if not a strong association, with a form of academic, social and intellectual elitism, which, whatever the value and indeed crucial importance of the ideas formulated by these antecedents of Humanism, has its effect and influence in modern Humanism. Such origins and the consequent frequent reference in modern consideration of Humanism to such philosophers and thinkers, generally members of governing elites or ruling classes, serves to support the embedding of much modern Humanism in such elites and ruling, privileged groups, reducing the relevance, range and significance of Humanism for the many. In effect the voices of slaves, the countless women oppressed through history, the ordinary powerless people of the past, are voices that are simply not heard.

And this elitist phenomenon can be seen through considering the people who represent Humanism today, certainly in the UK. If we look at the UK leaders or prominent figures in modern humanism, we find that many come from privileged, denigrate their individual and personal contributions which are immense and which I and many others, certainly recognise and consider to be of tremendous impact and value. Indeed in many key respects these figures stand significantly for many of my own personal values and beliefs, are to my mind, admirable and effective people, and indeed, perhaps embarrassingly, these people are personal heroes for me often in terms of both their personal characters and achievements.

Moreover their elite status and prominence may well be argued to support Humanism in gaining influence in the corridors of power, in the media and government where the dominant system of social and other networks means that the institutions of power are populated by similar such people with whom our leading Humanists, due to their connection, association with and membership of elite groups, can better connect. Nevertheless, the issue of privilege and backgrounds is raised in order to point to a general lack of explicit and public expression of the concern of Humanism with the lives of everyday people, with the challenges of our daily lives, issues of poverty and suffering, with our everyday personal conduct and with other areas key to our everyday lives.

So in terms of detail, if that is required, for example, amongst modern influential Humanist figures in the UK, we might think of Professor Richard Dawkins who attended Oundle Independent Boarding School, (a public school) and attended and works at Oxford University, Professor AC Grayling (boarding school, Falcon College, Rhodesia, Oxford, Univ of Sussex, Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck College, at the time of writing Master of the New College of Humanities), the current president of Humanists UK, Professor Alice Roberts educated at a local primary school but also an Independent school for girls, before studying at the University of Wales, Stephen Fry (Uppingham School from which he was expelled and after several other ordinary colleges, Queens College, Cambridge), Christopher Hitchens (two public schools and Balliol College, Oxford), Andrew Copson (King Henry VIII public school and Oxford University, though gaining a place at his public school through an assisted places scheme and being from a working class background), David Pollock (Classics at Oxford). This is not a comprehensive survey. Not only are these elite backgrounds, but, being journalists, and often university professors, they also represent a narrow range of experience in terms of the work and other activities that we perform in our communities and societies.

Thus we can see that there is evidence that Humanist leadership and prominence is of the privileged public school and elite background and of the (elite) university, and indeed Humanists UK membership and participation appears to be largely, though not exclusively ‘of the university’ even though most Humanist beliefs and ideas enjoy very wide public support. It might be argued that in the modern world, certainly in the modern UK, with easy access to university education, managers and senior administrators, our leaders, will be of the university, but some managers and leaders would surely be anticipated from the wider world, including business, trades unions and the public sector, as well as our leadership including some more everyday individuals. Moreover we would certainly anticipate that a reasonable number would not be, and also, if there were equity and justice, that fewer would be, of a fee paying private school background.

It might further be argued that anyone, or almost anyone who becomes a leader or in an influential position, by dint of what they become, is now a member of an elite. That is seen here as far from necessarily the case. Nevertheless, as already stated, the point made here, irrespective of that contention of elite and public school prominence, unsurprising in a society where so many political leaders also hail from the public school, is that Humanism does not concern itself particularly with the ordinary everyday lives of many people, does not concern itself particularly with issues of general well-being, the challenges of ordinary living, of pain and suffering, and I would add, if Humanism does, where it does this, it largely does so in an abstract and theoretical manner, in the context of argument and debate, without the sense of a real and close understanding of such pain and suffering and certainly without the powerful intent and commitment to do something about this pain and suffering.

It is probably worth noting in this regard that the iconic figure of Christianity, Jesus Christ, is described as a carpenter, that is, an ordinary person like any other. Such an image of an ordinary-person-like-me, humble and one of the people, is surely part of what has been used to support the popularity of Christianity however bizarre the stories regarding this figure might be, however unlikely the supernatural portrayal of Gods, heavens, life after death and miracles might be. The figure of Jesus Christ as in some sense an ordinary person, surely has had resonance with adherents and potential adherents of Christianity over the years in a manner that a privileged King, Lord or academic philosopher would not. Such an observation does not entail a recommendation, but it is surely indicative of an approach to humanism that might be useful and relevant in gaining wider and more embedded support for our central Humanist ideas.

Moreover and notably, versions of Christianity have had a substantial focus on the removal of poverty, even if it is clear that mainstream Christianity embeds a love of and indeed to some degree, actually appears to desire pain and suffering, and even though it is clear that in practice the Christian powerful and elite value, irrespective of what they might say, material comfort, possessions and wealth (consider the wealth of the Catholic Church for example).

Considering Buddhism, while Guatama Buddha was a member of the elite, living in a palace and born to be a prince then king, he rejected his elite status, renounced his privileged life and threw that away choosing to live as an ascetic life, thus gaining the ability to associate his ideas with the multitudes, with the poor, with those who feel and felt daily under threat in terms of the basics of their lives. The Islamic prophet Mohammed while reputed to have been born in a family of some influence, is said to have been orphaned at an early age and during his younger years does not appear to have lived a life of privilege. With the notion of Zakat payments to the poor, Islam certainly recognises the plight of those who suffer, even though, similar to the Christian approach to poverty, often doing so ineffectively, and not the challenging the social, political and economic power structures which serve to maintain poverty.

Yet, Humanism as an entity and Humanist leaders, as shown above, do not represent such ordinariness. Nor do they speak out loudly about the pain of poverty and suffering, of many kinds, that some many endure, or concern themselves in this ‘life stance’ and ‘ethical living’ with broader social, political and economic issues which impinge on well-being. I would argue that not having a publically expressed, prominent and clear view on poverty, pain and suffering and indeed on social and economic matters, makes Humanism of much lesser, if not often, in many respects, of apparent tangential relevance to the lives of the many.

Issues such as our promotion of free thought, liberty in both the intellectual and other senses, the importance of science, opposition to religion and faith-based beliefs are clearly of great importance, core to all of us, core to Humanism, and indeed are linked to well-being and in fact the reduction and removal of poverty and suffering, yet they have the tendency to appear to lack centrality in daily living for the many, even though once our freedoms are lost, their value and centrality becomes apparent to all.

Moreover, as already pointed out, to my mind, Humanism can hardly be seen a life stance or philosophy for living if it ignores such matters, if it ignores key social issues, and if it is prepared not only to ignore poverty and suffering, and the many forms of oppression not tied to the conduct of the religious, but further chooses not even to comment in any significant manner on these or other important social issues. With our rationalism, our commitment to evidence and reason, as Humanists, we really ought to be able to set out at least broad goals in regard to our support for people’s individual and wider well-being and in respect of reducing individual and wider pain and suffering, and further we should be able to rationally discuss in more detail, in terms of specifics, how to achieve them.

Notably and further emphasising an important element of the nature of modern humanism, the Amsterdam Declaration (2002), while speaking out, accurately and importantly on our Humanist concern for ‘the Arts’, does not explicitly mention opposing poverty, pain and suffering. Again this seems rather illustrative of the somewhat distant nature of much Humanism, out of touch with the crucial, substantive ordinary, everyday concerns of many people in the UK and around the world, to an important degree out of touch with Rani in India, Andy in Barrow-in-Furness, Harshani in Colombo and many millions of others.

Of course, by contrast with our Humanist entities, church and other religious leaders, as well as speaking out within their communities, do sometimes speak out more broadly on key social matters and, where they do, certainly in the UK, even though they may be sometimes panned for their views, when such is done carefully and not overdone, they are signalling interest in the lives and concerns of ordinary people.

Thus, for example, the churches or church leaders in the UK may occasionally speak out on issues of poverty. Recently, the Church of England quite rightly spoke out about the Brexit debate in the UK and the language exacerbating conflict and inciting violence which was being used by some in the context of that debate. Humanists UK, as far as I can tell, said nothing, but to my mind certainly should have done so. These types of area as well as others certainly comprise areas where, in my view, we as Humanists should be speaking out. The Brexit debate was certainly one of these areas.

Of course, some people will always be alienated by any particular statement, but after weighing up whether statements need to be made and the value in themselves of such statements, there was certainly reason in this case of conflict-inciting language, to speak out, and there will be many other occasions when Humanists need to be speaking out on issues which are central to community and society and therefore to Humanism and Humanists.

Beyond those areas in relation to well-being and suffering already mentioned where modern humanism does not seem to take a role, there is the second previously mentioned issue of identifying personal conduct and behaviour which is consistent with or not consistent with Humanism. It might be argued that Humanism has no particular stance in terms of the broad principles of our personal conduct in our daily lives, yet the range of Humanist literature and principles already set out argues against this (see above for example the notions of Jeremy Bentham, the values in the Amsterdam declaration or the American Humanist Association which clearly have implications for our personal conduct).

It has already been argued above that it is the case that there is little comment in Humanist documentation on our personal conduct and that this is as surprising as one would have thought that this would be a central element of something referred to as a life stance. We can see that broad principles tied, for example, to caring for others, are present in Humanist documentation and texts, as already identified, but certainly exemplification of such conduct is missing, and describing what Humanist conduct might look like in everyday practice, is also omitted. Kindness, love, sex, justice, relationships, what ‘care for all others’ (ibid Amsterdam declaration) means in practice, the everyday implications of Humanist commitment to freedom, rationality and reason and other elements that Humanists would no doubt consider of great importance, are not dealt with in any detail in terms of that meaning for our everyday lives.

And again, it seems to me that this is a crucial area of omission from the documentation and statements of our Humanist leaders, of our Humanist influencers, from our Humanist literature and thinking. It might be said that many of these Humanists illustrate the caring nature of Humanism through their personal conduct, and many of such Humanists seem admirable in terms of general character to me, yet there are clearly differing realisations and different interpretations about what a caring Humanism involves. The omission of such a relevant area from Humanist consideration, as with our lack of engagement with poverty and suffering, or the challenges of everyday living, again serves to set Humanism aside from having centrality in the lives of everyday people, and is to my mind a barrier both to the general well-being, because Humanism has much to offer, and to progress for Humanism.

Why is this area of our everyday conduct not addressed with in any detail? Indeed why are certain areas central to our personal conduct in our everyday lives not deal with at all? The motivation for avoiding comment and discussion on personal conduct and behaviour may well originate in our Humanist perceptions and beliefs about the controlling and oppressive nature of many religions which lay down rigid rules and behaviours for intricate, personal areas of people’s lives and the conduct which they require of adherents and often wish to impose on non-adherents. Such oppressiveness is something from which we as Humanists, wish to escape.

Thus, in the main, Islam requires prayer five times a day, dietary rules, rules for fasting at certain times, rules determining male-female conduct amongst other things, being particularly controlling of women, laying down their legitimate garb amongst other things. Jewish laws prescribe a range of conducts and behaviours in similar areas (don’t eat bacon, shellfish), for the orthodox Jewish woman prescribing behaviour during menstrual periods with women at such times being seen as unclean. Christianity in its various forms has been through history, and can still be, in many forms, highly prescriptive in its requirements of personal conduct, though can be in some modern Western contexts, sometimes, open, tolerant and less prescriptive (something which can also be applied to some forms of Islam and Judaism).

Of course, as we know, some of the conduct proscribed by religions on small and intricate, or on very personal matters such as sexuality, where prescriptions are breached, is accompanied by severe punishments (including death), or being made a social outcast with possible total ostracism from the community including friends and family. Even expression of differing personal beliefs from the orthodox and mainstream can result in violent and horrendous consequences for those who have expressed such beliefs and indeed their families and communities.

By contrast, Humanism states an emphasis on freedom, freethought, and personal liberty, these comprising central parts of the Humanist system of beliefs as laid out in various key sources. For example, the Amsterdam Declaration in its preamble mentions freethought, with the importance of freedom and personal liberty as well as human rights mentioned in the declaration, though liberty is not seen as limitless and is said to require social responsibility. I have already mentioned in passing the emphasis on freedom of thought described by Bertrand Russell cited in the Humanists UK Introduction to Humanism (2006) document.

Bearing in mind such emphasis on personal liberty, human rights and freethought, these certainly being accepted by myself and the range of Humanists as key principles, it is hardly likely that Humanists or Humanism would wish to replicate an oppressive interference in the detailed living of our everyday lives, such oppressive and controlling rules being something that, for some Humanists, must be and must have been an important element amongst others, which drove them and drives people away from religions, aside from factors such as irrational beliefs in the supernatural, the intolerance of much religion and the rejection of such oppression attracting us to Humanism.

Reflecting further this commitment to individual freedom and emphasising an acceptance of difference and flexibility in belief and conduct, the Amsterdam declaration describes Humanism as being “undogmatic, imposing no creed on its adherents [being]… committed to education free from indoctrination”. Yet, of course, in spite of our commitment to freedom, freethought and liberty, and I should add our recognising the importance of personal autonomy, there must be some guidance about, prescription and restrictions on our personal and social conduct and actions, implied if not in reality stated in the notion of social responsibility already mentioned as present in the Amsterdam declaration. Still, while we recognise the need for such social responsibility, as Humanists we would certainly not be wed to many superfluous and unnecessary prescriptions on how we live our everyday lives, largely because of our commitment to personal, individual freedom and liberty, and our wish to avoid stultifying, constraining, oppression.

Further and tied to this wish to avoid oppression in our daily lives, in terms of a broader understanding of who we are as individuals, we, and perhaps Humanists in particular, with our commitment to personal liberty, may have deep objection to those in authority or indeed perhaps any others of all sorts, interfering in the sphere of our personal lives, in our personal space, in the crucial area of our personal relationships, and in our everyday conduct. We feel this as oppressive, an invasion of our key personal space, a diminishing of our personal power and control over our own lives. To paraphrase this, and this is a sense I have gained from my experience with Humanists and Humanism, there seems to me to be a strong and prominent sense amongst Humanists of “Do not tell me what to do!”, “Don’t tell me how to live my life!” and this indeed exists amongst others in our communities, to which can be added the angered and outraged question and expression “Who are you to tell me what to do?”

Yet, as suggested by the Amsterdam Declaration’s recognition of social responsibility, accompanying our commitment to personal liberty and freedom, it must be the case that, as social beings, there will always be an important element of acceptable behaviours, social mores, conventions and rules of social conduct, indeed laws, about our personal conduct in our communities and societies, about the ways we can and should behave. Whilst on the one hand hopefully not engaging in poor behaviours and poor conduct, and whilst seeking to understand and identify causes and remedy poor behaviours and conduct, we as Humanists would surely aim to prevent and would not accept aggressively violent conduct, verbal insulting abuse, destructive racism, attacks on basic freedoms, and inciting hatred against others. And at another level we would object to spiteful, unkind and nasty behaviour, lack of generosity and unkindness, callous indifference to others, and so forth. We would similarly surely wish for kindness, cooperation, love, mutual support and understanding, the pursuit of happiness and pleasure for all and a range of other positive forms of conduct.

Thus, Humanism and we as Humanists certainly do have, as we all do, expectations or anticipated standards of personal conduct and behaviour. As an ethical system of beliefs, Humanism certainly does promote social responsibility, which accompanies and goes alongside our commitment to freedom. Humanism is clearly certainly not an anything goes system of belief and action, which says that any behaviour is acceptable.

But what we have not done in the past, and what we do not do to any great extent at the present time, is spell out or codify more precisely, with exemplification, what our Humanism means for our everyday conduct, even though there is certainly some if not much that could be identified as acceptable and unacceptable conduct from a Humanist perspective. And as I stated at the outset of this particular section of this writing, aside from leaving the nature of Humanist conduct substantially uncharacterised and undefined, leaving an apparently largely ‘anything goes’ gap in our Humanist life stance, this absence removes Humanism from a potential and deserved centrality in our lives, marginalising Humanism, giving Humanism a fragile and peripheral existence in the lives of the many, and enhancing the potential for the sidelining, diminishment and indeed destruction of Humanism, Humanist values and beliefs.

Amongst other things, for example, surely it is the case that our principles of rationality and reason are not just for science and the academic, but are worthy of, if not of key necessity through their application in our complex and challenging everyday lives. Yet what does their application mean and require of us in our everyday lives? Surely we are bound to discuss the implications of these ideas for our everyday lives. Additionally, our ideas of social responsibility and desire for individual liberty and freedom, and indeed our recognition of the tension between the two, need promotion and definition in our everyday lives, not simply in relation to the more abstract and theoretical, sometimes rather philosophical debates at our Humanist meetings, or in the public sphere, but in our families, homes and our local social groups.

Moving on now towards the end of this article, I have hopefully established a range of areas that I judge Humanism as an entity and our Humanist groups and leaders are not substantively addressing and speaking out about, and I have argued the necessity of modifying this position and remedying these omissions. The areas identified as omitted have been in broad terms specified as including areas of personal conduct and behaviour as well as issues of well-being, poverty and suffering, alongside and tied to broader social and economic policies and actions. I have linked this argument to some key Humanist documentation and other sources tied to Humanism.

Tied to this I have shown a connection between the intellectual history of Humanism, the elitist nature of Humanism in history, and the significantly elitist nature of modern Humanist leadership, certainly in the UK, positing that this elite identity supports the marginalisation of issues which should be central to any reasonably encompassing life stance or life philosophy.

Having done this, it now becomes necessary to suggest solutions to that which I have identified as a problem, a problem which itself, I have argued, serves not only, as stated, to marginalise the identified issues but which, to my mind, serves to marginalise Humanism from the lives of the many, marginalising us from the living of everyday lives, a matter of marginalisation which in my view, poses a serious threat to the long-term sustainability of Humanism.

So, in terms of remedies to the identified problems, in the first place I would suggest that there is a need for an element of adjustment to the focus of our modern humanism, with a modicum of change in emphasis to a focus more based in the central area of all our lives, that of well-being and happiness, and the linked avoidance or reduction of pain and suffering, these areas being germane to the lives of us all, and in my view being fundamental to modern Humanism.

Pursuing that line of thought and action, there is consequentially a need for our Humanist entities to revisit fundamental Humanist statements of principles, beliefs and values, modifying these documents to take account of the areas mentioned which are central to all of our living and indeed giving greater priority to the identified areas. As already stated, it is difficult to comprehend that, given our claim of Humanism as a life stance, we have documents such as the Amsterdam declaration, which explicitly makes statements valuing the arts (which I reiterate are of great importance) but which has no explicit mention of issues such as poverty, health and human well-being.

In terms of personal conduct, our declarations and Humanist organisation statements need to address the range of issues and approaches to Humanist personal conduct, mentioning elements such as kindness, love, integrity, justice and fairness, personal autonomy and more, and need to provide exemplification and guidance on what, for example, kindness, integrity and love mean in practice from a Humanist perspective, in our daily lives. Further we need to address amongst other things how we as Humanists can and indeed could and should pursue happiness and pleasure, as well as addressing issues such as how we can promote self-development, learning and education, what freedom, independence and autonomy mean in our everyday lives, how and to what degree and how we can apply rationality and reason in our everyday lives.

Our Humanist statements and illustrations need to incorporate a level of flexibility with wariness about being overly-prescriptive, and certainly aiming to avoid being oppressive. As I state and recognise in my guide, Living Humanism, the situations we face are often very individual, with different people and personalities involved, different situational factors needing to influence our judgments and actions and different issues at stake, including of course, in broad terms (and likely to fundamentally underpin our own judgments and the judgments of others) the issue of our own personal well-being and the well-being of others.

The use of ideas, principles, guidance and illustration are helpful to us as individuals. They will hopefully support well-being for the many, will be helpful to Humanism, serving to enhance the relevance of Humanism to everyday living. Such guidance will undoubtedly be challenging to formulate, however in many areas the nature of such guidance may be clear for Humanists. That being said, it is worth emphasising that, within the context of Humanism, this does need to be guidance, and such guidance needs to be ideally formulated through wide-ranging discussion and including democratic consultation, though such discussion and consultation not being conducted at the expense of action and achievement. Impact would be felt through our individual lives, possibly through systems of education, and through the enabling of Humanism and Humanist representatives, following democratic and other consultation, to speak out on issues of centrality in individual lives, and in the context of our communities, society and our global humanity.

That adjustment of focus to our more everyday lives is not to set aside areas such as freedom of belief, opposing religion and supernaturalism, the promotion of rationality, reason and the use of evidence or other areas that are currently key focuses of Humanist thought and action. But it represents an adjustment in approach and philosophy that prioritises key elements which support the capacity to live the good life to which we, as Humanists strive. Such a life is difficult if not impossible to live, at least within the Humanist frame, if others are suffering in poverty and pain and we say little and do little effective about this.

Having adjusted what we state in these documents and statements of beliefs, principles and values, then we will have set a context, as mentioned above, in which Humanist representatives and groups are able to speak out on central matters such as integrity, kindness, love, tolerance and understanding, caring for others in our everyday lives, as well as providing a basis through which we as Humanists, our Humanist leaders and organisations can speak out on poverty, issues of social conflict and how we can manage to live effectively together in a complex world.

Thus, for example in the context of recent angst and abuse-ridden argument about the UK leaving the European Union, Humanists UK, would be in a better position to speak out against language which sets people against each other, against racism and gender discrimination, against social and economic policies and ideas which lead to suffering and pain, which cause poverty, and against social and economic policies which support oppression, reduce our power over our own lives, which suppress invention, creativity and initiative.

Pursued wisely and carefully, adding the Humanist voice of tolerance and cooperation to debate in regard to issues and policies which might brutally serve to undermine or even destroy our communities and societies will be beneficial for all. Our speaking in regard to, and indeed leading against policies and actions that provide a context in which irrationality and intense and perhaps violent conflict will thrive, will serve us all, individuals, communities and societies, and will serve Humanism as well. Adding our voices and actions to those calling for and perhaps leading on the pursuit of the cooperativity, tolerance, rationality democracy and togetherness which we expect from Humanism, and adding our Humanist voices to the voices of those intent on, and indeed our leading on as far as possible, efforts to reduce poverty, destitution and suffering, will mean that we are contributing in these key areas and that we will be communicating our Humanist beliefs and values to a wide audience.

Further, our Humanist groups need to provide a space through which these types of issues and ideas, social, political and economic policies, the nature of optimal Humanist personal conduct and so forth, can be discussed. This needs to occur in an atmosphere in which Humanist members and others listen to and discuss the range of issues tied to these central areas of our lives, engaging in not only persuasion, but being prepared to be persuaded; engaging in finding value, creativity and solution finding – such that we can all learn and develop based in such discussions and such that we can develop understanding of and solutions to the difficulties we and our communities face. While certain arguments and statements, particularly those which directly threaten, attack and demonise others, cannot be acceptable within the frame of Humanism, open attentive and listening discussions should prove beneficial and rewarding to us all with positive consequences for well-being and happiness, and for Humanism and Humanists.

Finally, our broader Humanist organisations need to develop democratic means for establishing statements and policies and indeed determining what needs to be stated in our public documents and statements. As Humanist organisations, not only do we need to pursue well-being and happiness in all its forms but we need to recognise that not only will we be benefitting others and ourselves by so doing, but we will also likely be broadening our appeal when we deal with those issues close to everyday living. This has the potential to broaden our membership and supporter base in a manner such that we do not appear to be led by or represented by a privately educated or privileged form of elite.

Finally, effective organisations need all sorts of people and all sorts of skills, and they certainly need to have support as far as possible from all quarters. The leadership of Humanists UK certainly needs to be more diverse and representative of the population, yet the profound skills and abilities of those who currently lead should of course not be swept away. That being said, if we do not address the lack of diversity within our Humanist organisations, if we do not address the elite nature of our leadership and its consequences, that may prove a substantial impediment to the successful sustaining, development and implementation of Humanism.

Moreover I would argue that if we do not modify our emphasis and focus to a greater degree on issues which are core to the everyday lives of ordinary people, then aside from the core fact that we will not be supporting well-being and happiness and will not be acting in a robust manner to reduce and prevent pain and suffering, our Humanism may be also be the unwitting the author of its own irrelevance, marginalisation and in some scenarios, destruction.

Rani climbs down from her Delhi rubbish tip and heads off on her search for shelter. She has hope because far away, she knows that there are people who are concerned for her well-being, those who are doing all they can to help her, people in her own town, country and beyond. She has learned that there are those who speak out for her, through charitable and other works, but also politically, through national and international organisations. Sometime soon she believes that she or future generations will receive the benefits of the efforts these Humanists are making. She knows that as far as she can, aware that others care for and support her, she will help out and support others, understanding that, whatever her situation, it is her Humanist responsibility to take care of herself and to look after others.

Andy is sitting in his front room in his cold house in Barrow-in-Furness. He is listening to the radio and hears a local Humanist speaking. The local Humanist says that the poverty of people like Andy is an affront to Humanism and all people. She says that no-one should have to rely on charitable donations for their daily food. She says that Humanists and Humanism aims to remove such poverty, and will support any reasonable form of action, including political action to make this happen. Andy has become cynical over the years. He hopes these Humanists can help his life improve.

Harshani, despite her hunger, takes a few minutes to sit on the sand with her back to a palm tree on her Colombo beach. It’s another humid day, but for a few moments life for her feels good. Her local Sri-Lankan Humanist group has raised funds for her to attend a nearby college course and have arranged a room for her in some flats next to the college. It’s one small part of the Humanist group’s ‘support for well-being’ policy. For once Harshani has some hope for a better future.