Humanism, an educational and philosophical outlook that emphasizes the personal
worth of the individual and the central importance of human values as opposed to
religious belief, developed in Europe during the Renaissance, influenced by the
study of ancient Greek and Latin literature and philosophy. Humanism thus began
as an educational program called the humanities, which inculcated those ancient
secular values which were consistent with Christian teachings. The Renaissance humanists
were often devout Christians, but they promoted secular values and a love of pagan
antiquity.
The fact that the Russian Humanistic Society (RHS) was established
only in 1995 ' in the latest, post-Soviet history of Russia - has a special
meaning and presents a subject for particular consideration. In this article
I will try to demonstrate that this fact has one very important cause deeply
connected with the fate of humanism as an idea, a theory, and an attempt to
realize it in practice in Russia. (leader)
The establishment of the RHS was at the same time a significant
and an unnoticed event. Neither at the moment of its formation, nor at present
after more than five years of activity, has the RHS been, or is, an influential
or noticeable public organisation. The RHS has practically never been mentioned
in the mass media, and its actions and opinions were not taken into account
by government officials or by the leaders of such major political parties as
Edinstvo [Unity], Liberal'no-demokratichaskaya partiya [Liberal-Democratic Party],
Kommunisticheskaya partiya Rossiskoi Federatsii [Communist Party of Russian
Federation], Soiuz pravykh sil [The union of right forces], Yabloko [Apple]
or by the leaders of the so-called tvorcheskikh soiuzov [creative unions]
such as soiuz kinematografistov [the union of cinematographers] and
soiuz zhurnalistov [the union of journalists].(1) The total number of
RHS members may be no more than several hundred; its St. Petersburg branch has
just about fifty members - not that many for the 'second', 'northern' or 'cultural'
capital of the country, as this city is often referred to in the mass media.
On the one hand, the RHS is simply one of hundreds, if not thousands, of newly
emerged public associations in Russia. On the other hand, the RHS has its own
journal Zdravyi Smysl [Common sense], which has subscribers probably
throughout Russia. This situation appears rather strange for the country in
which not too long ago the slogan 'all men are brothers' was a commonplace,
but it has its history, its logic and its explanations.(2) It can be said that
this situation is typical enough for the origin of a civic association in a
still non-civic society,(3) and that the future of the RHS, its success or failure,
will depend (although not exclusively) on its ability to solve various problems,
which are of the utmost importance for the fate of humanism in Russia. I do
not pretend to define exactly and exhaustively all these problems, and to consider
the meaning of each of them. However, I shall briefly describe two problems
which have been discussed by RHS members more often than any other, and which
are still 'hot' topics.
The most hotly debated issues are the unbelievably rapid
expansion of the Russian Orthodox Church into almost all spheres of social life,
and the continuing growth and flourishing of pseudo-science, astrology, mysticism
and many other 'non-traditional' forms of rationality and irrationality. These
two types of spiritual invasion are indeed a real cause for anxiety and they
have to be taken seriously. The most dangerous tendency is a fusion (which
is not very obvious yet) of the state and the church, the quiet' clericalisation
of various facets of life and of social and state structures. Here are
some recent examples.
First, Radio Rossiia [Radio Russia] reported in its news
broadcast of 27 January 2002 that Aleksii II, the patriarch of All-Russia, had
announced that an introduction of 'zakon bozhii' [God's law, that is,
lessons of religion] in the school does not contradict Russian legislature.
This statement can be considered a first step in an attempt to actually introduce
religious teaching into Russian schools. Second, only several days earlier,
the Russian president Vladimir Putin had received an award from Aleksii II in
the Kremlin for his outstanding activity in consolidating the unity of the peoples
of the Orthodox Christian faith'.(4)
Under these conditions, many members of the RHS have
concentrated their efforts mainly on protecting a secular, non-theistic mode
of thinking and living, and recreating the values of scientific, rational and
sceptical thought. With this aim they write and publish articles and
popular pamphlets, and take part in public debates and programmes on radio and
TV.(5) Last autumn, from 3 to 7 October, the RHS held a special conference at
Moscow university on the problems of pseudo-science and related matters.(6)
One of the latest issues of Zdravyi Smysl was devoted entirely to modern
atheism in Russia. Thus there is a certain one-sidedness or narrowness in the
RHS activities, and at present, judging from its actions, the RHS is an atheistic
rather than a humanistic organisation, although humanistic and ethical subjects
are included in its agenda. For instance, a permanent monthly seminar on ethics
and humanism has already been in operation for three years at the philosophical
faculty of St. Petersburg University under RHS guidance.
However, despite the pressing nature of these issues, which
indeed occupy a central place in the discussions among humanists in Russia,
as well as in the practical activities of the RHS and of some other organisations
such as Atom (Moscow association of young atheists), there is one more issue
that still has not been considered at all. This most important issue can be
defined as the problem of a 'humanistic ideal'. What is this? Why is this problem
more significant and more fundamental than others, and perhaps even crucial
for the fate of humanism in Russia? And what is the basis for such a conclusion?
Let me propose a hypothesis based on the historic events
in Russia, events which, for the second time in the 20th century, shocked the
world. The end of Soviet society in 1991 not only meant the fall of a 'totalitarian'
regime, the collapse of 'socialism' in the Soviet Union and other Eastern European
countries, the dissolution of the USSR, and the elimination of the Soviet Communist
party, but also the end of... a humanistic ideal.
This latter event was neither recorded nor noticed. The humanistic
ideal was neither cursed nor derided, as was the 'communist utopia'. No propagandist
or other actions were undertaken against it. Instead, it just simply ceased
to be. The RHS itself began its activities without mentioning it, as if the
RHS started to create humanism in Russia 'from scratch'. There is no reference
to the existence of the idea of humanism in Soviet or even in tsarist Russia
in the printed or electronic publications of the RHS, and the RHS documents
are written in a cosmopolitan style.(7) Perhaps it was shameful to remember
the previous humanistic ideal, maybe because of its link with 'communism' and
its use for ideological purposes. It had been intensively exploited by the Communist
Party propagandists, lectors and professors of 'scientific communism' and 'scientific
atheism', by announcers on radio and TV programmes. Ten years ago all this 'scientific
bosh' was thrown out, but the 'baby' was thrown out together with the 'dirty
bathwater'. What was the 'baby'? What was this humanistic ideal?
'Man is born for happiness as a bird for flight'. Nobody
says these words. Nobody remembers anymore that 'man sounds proudly'. Nobody
calls to 'the yawning heights'. Not to the communist ones, but to the heights
of man's development and perfection. 'We are not slaves, slaves we are not'.
Of course, these and similar phrases cannot express the humanistic ideal completely,
but they were signs of a new era and of a new world,(8) where no human being
can be used as a thing. It is difficult to describe this humanist ideal in detail,
in all its exactly formulated aspects, because it was not fixed in any single
classical text as were religious texts such as the Bible or the Talmud, or such
Marxian ones as the Manifesto of the Communist Party. This ideal was dissolved,
as it were, in society's atmosphere, it was presented in relationships among
common people and in the notions of the intelligentsia, in poems and films,
in songs and novels.
Here are just two examples to illustrate the diversity of
its manifestations. In one of the most famous and beloved poems by Andrei Voznesensky
it was proclaimed poetically that no progress can be named progressive if it
caused harm to man. Another and very 'communist' example is the episode in the
film for children produced on the basis of Aleksei Tolstoi's book Zolotoi
kliuchik ili prikliucheniya Buratino [The Golden Key or Buratino's Adventures]
in which the following words are spoken: 'Neither the rich, nor the poor will
be, but everybody will be happy'.(9) After all, as a legacy of 'all the best
that was created by human thought', the humanistic ideal, in its most general
and essential and not specifically Russian features, was, perhaps, the same
as a humanist ideal in any other European (western or eastern) country. When
ten years ago 'Communism' was kicked out, this humanist ideal was, at least
temporarily, lost too.
It is not difficult to foresee the very first objection:
this was a 'Communist' ideal! The attempt to realise this ideal inevitably brought
Stalinism and later the so-called 'real socialism'.(10)
For this reason, although not only for this, the idea of
humanism, as a 'communist' idea that resulted in inhuman practices, was forgotten
for almost five years, from 1991 to 1995. Let us also remember that Gorbachev's
perestroika had been conducted under the slogan of a more humane, renovated
socialism, and resulted in a new crash. I will not mention the whole set of
the many other reasons and obstacles which influenced the image - consciously
and unconsciously - of humanism in the mind of various groups of men and women,
from the so-called intellectuals to the common folk. What I want to emphasize
is the relative conjunction, indissolubility and partial overlap of humanist
and communist ideals (and systems of views). Thus those five years were needed
to clear humanism of its previous Soviet communist cover.
Nevertheless, this ideal was - historically and theoretically
- a humanistic ideal in the first place, and only then a communist one. The
ideal originated, changed and developed during a long period as a humanistic
one, and only then was it used by men who were members of one party that proclaimed
that this ideal would be implemented in life. This party had different names
(and abbreviations): Rossiaskaya sotsial-demokraticheskaya rabochaya partiya
(RSDRP) [Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party], Rossiaskaya sotsial-demokraticheskaya
rabochaya partiya bol'shevikov (RSDRP(b)) [Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party
(of Bolsheviks)], Vsesouznaya kommunisticheskaya partiya bol'shevikov (VKP(b))
[All-Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks)], Kommunisticheskya partiya Sovetskogo
Souza (KPSS) [Communist Party of the Soviet Union]. However, there were other
men and women who believed in the same humanistic ideal and were devoted to
it, but they were members of other parties in Russia, such as the constitutional
democrats, the party of socialist-revolutionaries, and the Russian social-democratic
labour party [of Mensheviks].(11) All these parties, and some others, fought
for the 'freedom of the people' and the 'free development of the individual';
at least they announced these tasks as their goals. (Although there are a lot
of recent works on political parties in Russia at the beginning of the 20th
century and during the Russian revolutions,(12) no research has been devoted
specifically to the connection between an idea of humanism and political movements
in Russia during this period.) Furthermore, there were many individual humanists
with very different political and cultural views who were not members of any
party, and who did not even participate in political struggles: one of the best
humanist slogans ever was coined not by a politician, but by the physician and
writer Anton P. Chekhov: 'In man all has to be wonderful'.
In other words, it is true that the humanistic ideal was
communist (that means, communists incorporated it in their programmes and ideology,
and in this way the humanist ideal became associated with them in people's minds),
at least in Russia during a certain period. But it was non-communist, and even
totally non-communist. Let me reiterate: in this 'communist' humanistic ideal,
and not in the reality of 'real socialism', 'all the best that was created by
humankind' found its embodiment. That is why, when 'communism' or the 'communist'
humanistic ideal was thrown out, 'all the best that was created by humankind'
was thrown out too.
To ascertain that this is true, it is enough to compare the
following three definitions of humanism: Soviet, post-Soviet and non-Soviet.
The definition of the latest Soviet times (just before
perestroika) contains a clear 'class' approach: 'Humanism... [is] the recognition
of the value of man as a personality, his right of free development and manifestation
of his abilities, assertion of man's ''well-being'' as a criterion of evaluation
of all social relations. In a narrower sense h[umanism] is a secular freethinking
of the Renaissance epoch, which withstood the scholasticism and spiritual supremacy
of the church, and which was connected with the study of newly discovered works
of classical antiquity. To reject an abstract and class-independent approach
of humanism, Marxism connected it with the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat
for the building of the communist society, that created preconditions for the
all-round development of man. In this sense Karl Marx referred to communism
as a ''real h[umanism]''. H[umanism] gets its practical realization through
the achievements of socialism, proclaimed as its principle: ''All in the name
of man, all for the good of man''.'(13)
The post-Soviet definition of humanism does not include the
class approach: the latter part of the above definition, starting with the words
'To reject an abstract and class-independent approach of humanism...', was simply
deleted.(14) 'Western' definitions of humanism, including modern ones, are almost
identical to the Soviet one, except for the same 'communist' addition (the latter
part of the Soviet definition).(15) On the other hand, the earlier Soviet definition
of humanism as a historic movement of Renaissance almost coincides (in its content)
with a pre-Soviet one. For example: 'Humanism... 1. Ideological movement of
the Renaissance, directed at the liberation of human personality and thought
from fetters of feudalism and Catholicism (historic). 2. Enlightened philanthropy
(obsolete)'.(16) One year prior to the dramatic year of 1917, it was as follows:
'Humanism or Renaissance. - In historical literature, the term h[umanism] is
used to describe a literary-scientific movement, which started in Italy in the
14th century, and slowly, until the beginning of 16th
century, embraced the main countries of Europe. The essence of this movement
is usually defined as a tendency to the completeness of personal development,
which is free of those constraints that were imposed by the mediaeval Church
through its theocratic and ascetic demands'.(17)
It is a mistake to say that there was only 'communistic'
humanism in the USSR. The official Soviet humanism (that is the humanism of
official philosophers and party ideologists) constantly criticized an 'abstract
humanism', that was also Soviet, but non-official. This 'abstract humanism'
was denigrated in a standard manner: 'Socialist h[umanism] stands against abstract
h[umanism], which preaches ''humanity in general'', without a connection to
the struggle for the complete release of man from all kinds of exploitation'.(18)
In 1991 this 'abstract humanism' disappeared, not absolutely, of course, but
as a noticeable public (cultural) phenomenon.
So far there has been no satisfactory explanation of the
existence and blooming of abstract humanism during the ten years of Khrushev's
'thaw'. How could it happen that in this still totalitarian society abstract
humanism indeed flourished in literature, cinema, the arts and humanitarian
sciences such as literary criticism, the history of literature and even in some
sections of ideologised Soviet philosophy? Why was it impossible to extirpate
this abstract humanism, in spite of all the criticism? And why does it vegetate
in modern post-Soviet Russia?
Neither was the 'communist' humanism something invariable,
as it was not the primary and absolute evil. It changed historically even within
the Soviet period of Russian history. The humanism of A.V. Lunacharskii is not
the same as that of R. Kosolapov, I.T. Frolov or E.V. Il'enkov. It was not a
homogeneous monolith in each historical moment: the humanism of the KPSS programme
(the corresponding phrases in it) was not the same as the humanism of V.G. Kelle
or G.S. Batishev. Moreover, there was also the pre-Soviet 'communist' humanism
of G.V. Plekhanov or of Karl Marx himself. Finally, in the Soviet period there
was a 'communist' humanism of A. Gramsci or of R. Garaudy.
Anything better than the 'communist' humanism of the so-called
'early Marx' was not proposed in Russia; it was not superseded by a new, more
profound and more humane humanism. The task of the 'liberation' of man is still
unfulfilled. It is a commonplace in present-day Russia that the 'communist'
humanism is the same utopia as communism itself. Then a question is natural:
is a non-communist humanism an impossible, far-away utopia too? If so, humanism
(not as the stoic ethic of one individual but as the ethical norm of many and
as a way of living for the whole society) makes no sense. If humanism, at least
as a humanistic ideal, is not only an abstract, theoretical possibility, but
also a necessity to be realized, it has to be recovered and returned to the
place it occupied in the development of Russia, in its evolution to a better
country, a better society, a better life, a better people and to better persons
who formed this people, this society and this country.
Perhaps one can say that humanism as the ethical norm of
many and as a way of living for the whole society is not a personal ideal for
individuals, but an ideal for a society. However, this is just the same, at
least from the vantage point of the Russian historical situation. 'Free development
of everybody is a precondition of free development of all', and vice versa.
Has everybody the opportunity to develop his abilities freely in a society with
unjustifiable inequalities of income and property? Or without a solid system
of social services protecting unfortunate people from poverty and misery? Or
in a society lacking respect for human rights and human personality, lacking
a real democracy for both majority and minority, the responsibility of man,
society and state to each other? The development of all personal abilities means
the development not only of artistic or mathematical talents or sporting achievements,
but also of the ability to become a citizen, to be a ruler and be ruled. In
this case, a humanistic ideal for society coincides (in principle, although
not totally) with a humanistic ideal for an individual, and this joint or united
humanistic ideal would naturally mean improving the Russian society as a civil
society, in which, through some institutional mechanisms, citizens are both
the rulers and the ruled, and are socially, culturally and politically active
agents and public figures.
Of course, a lot of questions then arise. For instance: how
to initiate humanitarian, social and political activities of Russians and groups
such as the RHS, that will help to realise this ideal or a part of it? And,
of course, this ideal has not to become an idol. The problem is: can a humanistic
attitude become a norm of life; and if it can, does it have to become, and under
what conditions, a norm of life or, at least, 'the guidance to action'; and
if it has to, the guidance to what actions? In other words, can a humanism,
as an idea or a system of related ideas, or, perhaps, even as a theory, become
a practical humanism? This problem, the problem of humanism in practice, is
the most important and the most pressing for Russia, especially from the point
of view of a certain balance between ideal and action, or between goals and
means. It also includes such 'particular' questions as: should the RHS be a
club of intellectuals, or purely an organisation of enlightenment (as the former
Znanie [Knowledge] organization), or a civic mass movement 'above the parties',
or an independent humanistic party? The type of action depends on a choice that
may be reduced to the following three options: a propagation (or propaganda),
a reform, a revolution.(19) The actuality and the cost of this choice for Russia
is too evident.
At present, the RHS has proclaimed a mixture of more propagandistic
and less reformative activity. This activity is based on its understanding of
the real situation in Russian society. First of all, this situation is determined
by the deep moral crisis of society which leads to the disintegration of basic
social and individual values. This crisis has been ignored by the state and
the mass media, and in this crisis Russia can find the final defeat.(20) Therefore,
the RHS has to assist in forming the mechanisms to resolve this crisis, which
are as follows:
1. a broad moral and intellectual enlightenment of the individual
and society;
2. the adoption by state, public and political leaders of
their moral responsibility, and by the electorate of the application of a strong
moral criterion in elections;
3. a social policy of the state and businessmen supporting
those organisations which fight for the moral reconstruction of society;
4. extension of the financial support for education, science,
and true culture;
5. support for the natural willingness of each individual
to be in good physical, spiritual and mental shape, to be happy;
6. formation of more active and powerful elements and bodies
of civil society such as the RHS.(21) As a whole, this set of measures is defined
by its author himself as a general call 'to return to the all-human values in
order to change the attitudes of both the state and the mass media in Russia
towards the problem of human rights and dignity'.(22) It should be noted that
this strategy of activity is connected essentially with contemporary RHS interpretation
of humanism as 'a guiding star of humankind, an improving, open, historically
dynamic system of values, actually a meta-value because it covers in itself
all the fundamental values of individual and society, and in eco-humanism of
the whole world.' (23) Humanism is 'to be the worldview of the individual, his
ideal and at the same time a mark of his ''zrelosti i samostoyatelnosti'',
the means of self-perfection and self-realisation.' (24) Humanism is neither
a political nor a religious ideology. Then it is argued that, as a value-system
and a social movement, humanism plays an important general and trans-political
role. As a meta- and inter-political phenomenon, humanism brings to the political
scene such fundamental political values as freedom, democracy, social justice,
supremacy of law, participation of citizens in political processes, etc. All-human
values of humanism provide the best moral ground for the struggle of political
ideologies, protecting this process of a competition of ideas from transforming
into a clash between people and social classes. Humanism is a worldview and
a moral power. Therefore the social role of humanism is to be an organized and
socially active worldview, and the general political mission of humanism in
Russia is to humanize both the people's political consciousness and the political
institutions of society.
Such an approach means that the political role of humanism
in Russia can be defined as follows. Humanism is:
1) not outside of politics, as it proclaims democracy, freedom,
etc.;
2) above all parties and it speaks directly to everybody;
3) for all parties, as it brings all-human values;
4) a link between parties, for the same reason.
But at the same time, humanism cannot become a party or a
political ideology as the goal of any party is power, and where there is power
there is violence.(25) That is why any attempt to transform humanism as a worldview
and a public movement into a party will lead to its fall. However, a humanist
movement has to try and become an influential moral-political force, and its
'all-political role is the humanisation of political consciousness of civic
man, of practices of political parties and of the state.' (26) Thus the actual
choice of the RHS is for humanistic enlightenment.
Whether this proclaimed activity of the RHS is sufficient
or not, and whether this choice of strategy is right or wrong, partly or totally,
only the future will show.(27) It is natural that in a normal, civilised society
all parties stay on the platform of human values. Humanity is the main criterion
of any political regime and social order. The problem is that humanism (as any
idea) also 'can be used for good or for evil'.(28) It can be added that in present-day
Russia humanism 'can be used for good or for evil', as were many other ideas
used throughout Russian history.
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to
the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the
subject.
It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist
in order to save us.
