Process
As a committed humanist practitioner, whose practice has spanned nearly 40 years, I am very cautious in my support of Humanist organizations. This is part of my humanist practice. Group formation entails the development of a group process, which entails the group's ethics, ideals, activities and etiquette.
Religions consist of congregations, which are mostly directed and entertained passive audiences, in the hands of a hierarchy or clergy. These groups vary in their process of allotting power to the hierarchy. Catholics, until the recent sex scandals, gladly handed over their group process formation to a centralized authority. Protestant sects generally consist of more localized authority in pastors and church boards. Jewish congregations tend to be similar, with perhaps more community involvement in the overall group process. Muslims utilize similar models, centered on mosque and/or madrasa. Priests, pastors, imams and rabbis, with varying degrees of authoritative (dogmatic) and administrative power, lead the group process, based on prescribed ancient texts and/or rituals.
Humanists are forming visible associations and communities. Having gradually discovered acceptance among themselves in groups, humanists, here including atheists, agnostics, nihilists, naturalists and other skeptical and scientific free-thinkers, are exploring a group identity in society. Facebook and the Internet have made this more possible. Reliance on traditional media is no longer necessary to bring people of like minds together. Meet-ups can be arranged at any time for a very small amount of money by anyone with an idea for group activity. Gradually, humanist groups may continue to develop into stable communities with centers and regular activities.
Who will own the process of humanist communities? Will humanist communities rely on a permanent hierarchy or bureaucracy to maintain its meeting places and direct its mindset? Will humanist thought gel into a dogmatic humanist ideology, constructed in committees of professional Humanists?
The process of humanist group formation is happening now. In the humanist community I have helped to form as a community member, I already feel a benign tension between humanism with a small 'h', which I understand to be an individual daily choice and practice, and Humanism, an ideological product being developed and marketed by professional Humanists. I do not think this tension is a negative thing for me. However, I sometimes feel a defensiveness coming from the professionals who feel they possess personal ownership of the community of which I feel I am an active and intentional member with my own humanist practice and identity.
For me, there is no possessive fear associated with my membership in a humanist community. I have been a member of others, not labelled Humanist by any national logo-stamping group. In those, as in my present group, I have given of myself for the cause of fellowship and fostering the greater good. This process has not been my humanism. It has been a part of my humanist lifelong practice. If my humanism were encapsulated in one or two meetings a week, I would no longer consider myself a practicing humanist obviously. And, if I feel pressure within my current humanist community to submit to hierarchical domination or dogma, I can simply leave and practice my humanism within other communities, as I have done and currently still do.
I recognize that developing and leading humanist associations or groups is an admirable activity. However, I think the measure of a humanist leader is his/her personal humanist practice. A practicing humanist cannot lead unfairly or egotistically, in my opinion. And, in my opinion, a humanist who does not put his/her humanism into practice cannot make up for lack of personal development by putting a capital 'H' on his/her humanism or by becoming famous. A leader without humanist practice will become a priest, a hierophant, relying on bureaucratic dogma or personal celebrity to promote a personal career for personal gain. It is an old process, an old story, at the root of all religion.
The question which will be answered with time is this: Will Humanism remain a vital, intentional community of active participants, who manage their community from the bottom up, or will it become secular religion with all the hypocrisy that accompanies religion?
Religions consist of congregations, which are mostly directed and entertained passive audiences, in the hands of a hierarchy or clergy. These groups vary in their process of allotting power to the hierarchy. Catholics, until the recent sex scandals, gladly handed over their group process formation to a centralized authority. Protestant sects generally consist of more localized authority in pastors and church boards. Jewish congregations tend to be similar, with perhaps more community involvement in the overall group process. Muslims utilize similar models, centered on mosque and/or madrasa. Priests, pastors, imams and rabbis, with varying degrees of authoritative (dogmatic) and administrative power, lead the group process, based on prescribed ancient texts and/or rituals.Humanists are forming visible associations and communities. Having gradually discovered acceptance among themselves in groups, humanists, here including atheists, agnostics, nihilists, naturalists and other skeptical and scientific free-thinkers, are exploring a group identity in society. Facebook and the Internet have made this more possible. Reliance on traditional media is no longer necessary to bring people of like minds together. Meet-ups can be arranged at any time for a very small amount of money by anyone with an idea for group activity. Gradually, humanist groups may continue to develop into stable communities with centers and regular activities.
Who will own the process of humanist communities? Will humanist communities rely on a permanent hierarchy or bureaucracy to maintain its meeting places and direct its mindset? Will humanist thought gel into a dogmatic humanist ideology, constructed in committees of professional Humanists?
The process of humanist group formation is happening now. In the humanist community I have helped to form as a community member, I already feel a benign tension between humanism with a small 'h', which I understand to be an individual daily choice and practice, and Humanism, an ideological product being developed and marketed by professional Humanists. I do not think this tension is a negative thing for me. However, I sometimes feel a defensiveness coming from the professionals who feel they possess personal ownership of the community of which I feel I am an active and intentional member with my own humanist practice and identity.
For me, there is no possessive fear associated with my membership in a humanist community. I have been a member of others, not labelled Humanist by any national logo-stamping group. In those, as in my present group, I have given of myself for the cause of fellowship and fostering the greater good. This process has not been my humanism. It has been a part of my humanist lifelong practice. If my humanism were encapsulated in one or two meetings a week, I would no longer consider myself a practicing humanist obviously. And, if I feel pressure within my current humanist community to submit to hierarchical domination or dogma, I can simply leave and practice my humanism within other communities, as I have done and currently still do.
I recognize that developing and leading humanist associations or groups is an admirable activity. However, I think the measure of a humanist leader is his/her personal humanist practice. A practicing humanist cannot lead unfairly or egotistically, in my opinion. And, in my opinion, a humanist who does not put his/her humanism into practice cannot make up for lack of personal development by putting a capital 'H' on his/her humanism or by becoming famous. A leader without humanist practice will become a priest, a hierophant, relying on bureaucratic dogma or personal celebrity to promote a personal career for personal gain. It is an old process, an old story, at the root of all religion.
The question which will be answered with time is this: Will Humanism remain a vital, intentional community of active participants, who manage their community from the bottom up, or will it become secular religion with all the hypocrisy that accompanies religion?
Comments
Post a Comment