HIERARCHY. (LL. hierarchia; Gr. hierarchia, the power or rule of a hierarch, from hierarches, a hierarch). Order or rank of persons or things; each of the nuclei or groupings that make up any ranking system.

In information science, h. is understood as the priority given to any element, datum, or instruction of a program, prior to carrying out any computational process.

HISTORICAL moment. Every social situation takes place within a particular h.m., in which several generations (*) coexist. One h.m. is distinguished from another by the appearance of a rupturing generation which emerges to contend for power with the generation that currently holds it. Once a break or rupture has occurred, conditions in the new h.m. either initiate a process involving a broader and more developed stage, or simply allow the mechanical process of the generational dialectic to continue. The h.m. appears as the minimal system (*) of a structure (*) formed by the several generations that coexist, in relation with the structure of their corresponding sociocultural environment (*landscape). An appreciation of this minimal system is necessary for an understanding of any historical process. In other words: the coexisting generations and the landscapes surrounding them are the dynamic structures in the minimal system termed a h.m.

HISTORICAL or RENAISSANCE HUMANISM, Conditions of. From the temporal and physical points of view, the medieval pre-humanist European world was a closed environment which tended to deny the importance of the contacts with other cultures that did in fact take place. History, from the medieval point of view, is the history of sin and redemption; knowledge of other civilizations not illuminated by the grace of God holds little interest. The future simply prepares one for the Apocalypse and God’s Judgment. In the Ptolomeic conception, the Earth stands motionless at the center of the Universe. Everything is surrounded by the fixed stars, and the planetary spheres revolve under the influence of angelic powers. Above everything is the Empyrean, the throne of God, unmoved Mover of all. Social organization corresponds to the same vision: a hierarchical, hereditary structure differentiates nobles from serfs. At the vertex of the pyramid stand the Pope and the Emperor, at times allied, at others locked in fierce struggle for hierarchical pre-eminence. The medieval economic regime, at least until the eleventh century, is a closed economic system based on the consumption of products at the place where they are produced. There is almost no circulation of money. Trade and commerce are slow and difficult. Europe is a landlocked continental power with the sea lanes in the hands of the Byzantines and Arabs. But the journeys of Marco Polo and his contact with the cultures and technology of the Orient; the teaching centers of Spain from which new and rediscovered knowledge is being disseminated by Jewish, Arab, and Christian teachers; the search for new trade routes to circumvent the obstacle of Byzantine-Moslem conflict; the formation of a merchant sector of rapidly growing vigor; the growth of a bourgeois citizenry that is becoming ever more powerful; and the development of more efficient political institutions such as the Italian principalities – all these developments gradually mark a profound change in the social atmosphere, and that change allows the development of the humanist attitude (*). It should be noted that the development of this new attitude had to undergo numerous advances and setbacks until it penetrated the general consciousness.

HISTORICAL or RENAISSANCE HUMANISM, Development of. Only one hundred years after Petrarch (1304-1374), knowledge of the classics was ten times greater than it had been during the entire previous thousand years. Petrarch searched through ancient codices, trying to rescue and correct the cultural memory that had been distorted, and in so doing he initiated both a movement to reconstruct the past and a new point of view that included the flow of history, which had been blocked by the "immobilism" of the Medieval epoch. Another early humanist, Manetti, in his work De dignitate et excellentia hominis ("On the Dignity of Man"), revindicated the human being from the "contemptu mundi" or scorn for the world preached by the monk Lothar of Segni (later to became Pope Innocent III) in De miseria condicionis humanae ("On the Misery of the Human Condition"). Subsequently, Lorenzo Valla in his De voluptate ("On Pleasure") attacked the ethical concept of pain, an idea of central importance in the society in his time. Thus, at the same time the economy and the structures of society were undergoing transformation, humanists were creating a consciousness of this process, generating a cascade of productions which gradually gave shape to a movement that spread beyond the cultural ambit and ultimately called into question the structures of temporal power that were then in the hands of the Church and the Monarchy. It is well known that many of the themes implanted by the humanists continued to develop, eventually giving inspiration to the encyclopaedists and revolutionaries of the eighteenth century. However, following the American and French Revolutions, the humanist attitude (*) began to wane, and finally sank from sight. By then, critical idealism, absolute idealism, and romanticism, which in turn inspired absolutist political philosophies, had abandoned humankind as the central value, converting the human being into an epiphenomenon of other powers.

HISTORICAL or RENAISSANCE HUMANISM. (From historic: L. historicus; Gr. historikos, from historia, history. Humanism, see etymology at human being). In the Western academic world it is customary to label as "humanism" the process of cultural transformation that, beginning in Italy, especially Florence, between the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth centuries, went on to expand throughout Europe in what is called the Renaissance. That current appears to have been related to the humanae litterae (texts referring to things human) in contraposition to the divinae litterae (with the accent on things divine). And this is one of the reasons why its representatives are called "humanists." Following that interpretation, humanism in its origins is a literary phenomenon, with a clear tendency to consider anew the contributions of Greco-Latin culture, which had been stifled by the medieval Christian vision. It should be noted that the rise of this phenomenon was not due simply to the endogenous modification of economic, social, and political factors in Western society, but that it received transformative influences from other environments and civilizations. Extensive contact with Jewish and Arabic cultures, trade with cultures of the Orient, and a broadening of the geographic horizon all formed part of a context that gave incentive to a concern for things generically human and discoveries of things human.

HISTORIOLOGY. (Gr. historia, history, and -logia, from legein, to speak. A term first used by Ramón Ortega y Gasset). The science of the interpretation of history. H. establishes the previous conditions upon which any interpretation of temporal events is based. H. is, then, a necessary prior construction enabling us to arrive at "the events themselves." One of the most important points to be considered is an awareness of the "interference" effected by the observer on the object being studied. In h. there is a revision of the notion of temporality and the landscape of formation (*) in which historians are situated, and which establishes the perspective from which they make their observations or descriptions. One of the problems of h. appears when we realize that the description of the landscape of formation of the historian is also made from a particular perspective. This meta-landscape nevertheless allows us to make comparisons between homogeneous elements to the extent that they are grouped into a category that is not taken for granted but established beforehand.

HUMAN BEING. (ME. humayne; OFr. humaine; L. humanus, human, humane; from homo, man, humus, soil. Being, from be: from AS. beon, to be, beom, I am; OHG. bim; G. bin). The reference of the h.b. in situation is the body itself. It is in the body that the relationship between the human being’s subjective moment and objectivity takes place, and it is through the body that the h.b. can understand itself as "interiority" or "exteriority," depending on the direction it gives to its intentionality (*), to its "look." Before it the h.b. encounters everything that is not itself, everything that does not respond to its intentions. Thus, the world in general and other human bodies – which the body of the h.b. affects and has access to and which it also registers the action of – set the conditions in which the h.b. constitutes itself. These conditionings also appear as future possibilities, and in future relation with the body itself. In this way, the present situation can be understood as something modifiable in the future. The world is experienced as something external to the body, but the body is also seen as part of the world, since it both acts in the world and receives the action of the world. Corporality is also something that changes and, in this sense, a temporal configuration, a living history launched toward action, toward future possibility. For human consciousness, then, the body becomes the prosthesis of intention, responding to intention in a temporal sense and in a spatial sense; temporally, to the extent that it can realize in the future what is possible for intention; spatially, as representation and image of intention.

In this becoming, objects are extensions of corporal possibilities, and other bodies appear as multiplications of those possibilities insofar as they are governed by intentions recognized as similar to those governing one’s own body. But why would the h.b. have the need to transform the world and to transform itself? Because of the situation of finiteness and temporo-spatial deficiency in which it finds itself, and which it registers, in accordance with various conditionings, as pain (physical) or suffering (*) (mental). In this way, the overcoming of pain is not simply an animal response, but a temporal configuration in which the future has primacy, and which becomes a fundamental impulse in life, though it may not be felt as urgent in any given moment. Thus, apart from responses that are immediate, reflexive, and natural, deferred responses and constructive activity to avoid pain are motivated by suffering in the face of danger, and these are re-presented as future possibilities, or as present actualities when pain is present in other human beings. The overcoming of pain, then, appears as a basic project that guides human action. It is this intention that makes possible communication among various bodies and intentions in what is referred to as the social constitution. The social constitution is as historical as human life, is configuring of human life. The transformation of the social constitution is continual, but in a mode different from that of nature. In nature, changes do not come about due to intentions. Nature appears as a "resource" for overcoming pain and suffering, at the same time that it is a "danger" to the human constitution; hence, the destiny of nature itself is to be humanized, intentionalized. And the body, insofar as nature, insofar as danger and limitation, has the same project: to be intentionally transformed, not only in physical location but also in motor capabilities; not only in exteriority but in interiority; not only in confrontation but in adaptation.

In a talk given May 23, 1991, Silo presented his most general ideas about the h.b.:

. . . When I observe myself, not from a physiological point of view but from an existential one, I find myself here, in a world that is given, neither constructed nor chosen by me. I find that I am in situation with, immersed in phenomena that, beginning with my own body, are inescapable. The body is at once the fundamental constituent of my existence and, at the same time, a phenomenon homogeneous with the natural world, in which it acts and on which the world acts. But the nature of my body has important differences for me from other phenomena, which are: 1) I have an immediate register of my body; 2) I have a register, mediated by my body, of external phenomena; and 3) some of my body’s operations are accessible to my immediate intention. It happens, however, that the world appears not simply as a conglomeration of natural objects, it appears as an articulation of other human beings and of objects, signs, and codes that they have produced or modified. The intentionality (*) that I am aware of in myself appears as a fundamental element in the interpretation of the behavior of others and, just as I constitute the social world by comprehending intentions, so too am I constituted by it. Of course, this refers to intentions that are manifested in corporal action. It is by virtue of the corporal expressions of the other, or by perceiving the situation in which the other appears, that I am able to comprehend the meanings of the other, the intention of the other. Furthermore, natural or human objects appear as either pleasurable or painful to me, and so I try to place myself in favorable relationship to them, modifying my situation. In this way, I am not closed to the world of the natural and other human beings; rather, precisely what characterizes me is opening. My consciousness has been configured intersubjectively in that it uses codes of reasoning, emotional models, patterns or plans of action that I register as "mine," but that I also recognize in others. And, of course, my body is open to the world insofar as I both perceive it and act upon it . . ."

The natural world, as distinct from the human, appears to me as without intention. Certainly I can imagine that stones, plants, and the stars possess intention, but I find no way to achieve effective dialogue with them. Even those animals in which at times I glimpse the spark of intelligence appear basically impenetrable to me, and changing only slowly from within their natures. I see insect societies that are rigidly structured, higher mammals that employ rudimentary technology but still only replicate such codes in a slow process of genetic change, as if each was always the first representative of its respective species. And when I observe the benefits of those plants and animals that have been modified and domesticated by humanity, I see human intention opening its way and humanizing the world.

. . . To define the h.b. in terms of its sociability seems inadequate, because this does not distinguish the h.b. from many other species. Nor is human capacity for work a distinguishing characteristic when compared to that of more powerful animals. Not even language defines the essence of what is human, for we know of numerous animals that make use of various codes and forms of communication. Each new h.b., in contrast, encounters a world that is modified by others, and it is in its being constituted by that world of intentions that I discover that person’s capacity for accumulation in and incorporation into the temporal – that is, I discover not simply a social dimension, but each person’s historical-social dimension.

With these things in mind, a definition of the h.b. can be attempted as follows: Human beings are historical beings, whose mode of social action transforms their own nature. If I accept this definition, I will also have to accept that the human being is capable of intentionally transforming its physical constitution. And indeed this is taking place. This process began with the use of instruments which, placed before the body as external "prostheses," allowed human beings to extend the reach of their hands and their senses and to increase both their capacity for and the quality of their work. Although not endowed by nature to function in aerial or aquatic environments, they have nonetheless created means to move through these media, and have even begun to emigrate from their natural environment, the planet Earth. Today, moreover, they have begun to penetrate their bodies, replacing organs; intervening in their brain chemistry; conceiving in vitro; and even manipulating their genes.

If by the word "nature" one has meant to signify something permanent and unchanging, then today this idea has been rendered seriously inadequate even when applied to what is most object-like about the h.b., that is, the body. In light of this, it is clear in regard to any "natural morality," "natural law," or "natural institutions," that nothing in this field exists through nature, but on the contrary, everything is socio-historical…

After denying this so-called "human nature," he concludes with a brief discussion that involves the supposed "passivity" of the consciousness:

Hand in hand with the idea of human nature goes another prevalent conception which asserts the passivity of the consciousness. This ideology has regarded the h.b. as an entity that functions primarily in response to stimuli from the natural world. What began as crude sensualism has gradually been displaced by historicist currents that, at their core, have preserved the same conception of a passive consciousness. And even when they have privileged the consciousness’s activity in and transformation of the world over interpretation of its activities, they still have conceived of its activity as resulting from conditions external to the consciousness . . .

Today, those old prejudices concerning human nature and the passivity of consciousness are once again being asserted, transformed into neo-evolutionary theories embodying such views as natural selection determined through the struggle for the survival of the fittest. In the version currently in fashion, now transplanted into the human world, this sort of zoological conception attempts to go beyond former dialectics of race or class by asserting a dialectic in which it is supposed that all social activity regulates itself automatically according to "natural" economic laws. Thus, once again, the concrete h.b. is submerged and objectified…

We have noted those conceptions that, in order to explain the h.b., have begun from theoretical generalities and maintained the existence of an unchanging human nature and a passive consciousness. We maintain, quite the opposite, the need to start from human particularity; that the h.b. is a socio-historical and non-natural phenomenon, and that human consciousness is active in transforming the world in accordance with its intention. We view human life as always taking place in situation, and the human body as an immediately perceived natural object, also immediately subject to numerous dictates of the person’s intentionality.

The following questions therefore arise: 1) How is it that the consciousness is active, i.e., how is it that it can operate intentionally on the body and, through the body, transform the world? 2) How is it that the human being is constituted as a socio-historical being, that is, both socially and historically? These questions must be answered starting from concrete existence, so as not to fall again into theoretical generalities from which a dubious system of interpretation might be derived – which could then go on even to deny it was an interpretation!

Answering the first question will require apprehending through immediate evidence how human intention acts upon the body. In answering the second, one must begin from evidence of the temporality and intersubjectivity of the h.b., rather than beginning from some supposed general laws of history and society.

These two themes are further developed in the two essays of Silo’s work Contributions to Thought. How human intention acts on the body, through the image, constitutes the nucleus of the explanations in the first essay "Psychology of the Image." The second essay, "Historiological Discussions" (*historiology), considers the problem of temporality.

HUMAN LANDSCAPE. Configuration of human reality based on the perception of the-other, of society, and of objects produced with intentional meaning. The h.l. is not simple object-perception, but an unveiling of meanings and intentions in which the human being recognizes itself.

HUMANISM. (See etymology at human being). 1) Practice and/or theory of New Humanism (*). 2) Every position that supports the values defined by the humanist attitude (*). 3) Any activity that is in practice committed to the values defined by the humanist attitude. 4) Any doctrine that proclaims the solidarity and freedom of choice of the human being can be so designated.

HUMANIST ASSOCIATIONS and CLUBS. Informal, decentralized, nonpartisan organizations that promote both development of and open discourse regarding the proposals of N.H. in specific fields corresponding to the interests of their members. The first such club was founded in Moscow on May 27, 1991. H.A. typically adhere to the Statement of the Humanist Movement (*) and frequently establish active relations with other H.A.s.

HUMANIST ATTITUDE. (See etymology at human being). The h.a. existed long before words such as "humanism," "humanist," and others like them had been coined. The following positions are common to humanists of all cultures: 1) placement of the human being as the central value and concern; 2) affirmation of the equality of all human beings; 3) recognition of personal and cultural diversity; 4) an emphasis on the development of knowledge beyond conventional wisdom or that imposed as absolute truth; 5) affirmation of the freedom of ideas and beliefs; and 6) repudiation of all forms of violence.

Beyond any theoretical definition, the h.a. can be understood as a "sensibility," a way of approaching the human world in which the intentionality and freedom of others are acknowledged and in which one assumes a commitment to non-violent struggle against discrimination and violence (*humanist moment).

HUMANIST CENTER OF CULTURES. A type of humanist organization undertaken in one country in order to coordinate actions in defense of ethnic and cultural minorities within and from other countries. Such organizations work principally with immigrants and refugees forced to emigrate from their countries of origin, and H.C.C.s work with them in defense of their interests, providing legal and medical advice, working with appropriate governmental and private organizations, and publicizing the needs and demands of such groups in order to inform national and international public opinion regarding violations of their human rights. Such centers are frequently organized in cooperation with Humanist Associations and Clubs (*) in these immigrants’ countries of origin.

HUMANIST FORUM. Open forum of N.H. in which organizations and individuals participate to exchange contributions and experiences based on their interests, generally formalized in the following areas: 1) health care; 2) education; 3) human rights; 4) anti-discrimination; 5) ethnicities and cultures; 6) science and technology; 7) the environment; 8) art and popular expression; 9) religiosity; 10) grassroots groups of the social base; 11) political parties; 12) alternative movements; 13) alternative economies.

Convened by The Community for Human Development (*), the first H.F. took place in Moscow on October 7-8, 1993; the second in Mexico City on January 7-9, 1994; and the third in Santiago, Chile on January 7-8, 1995.

HUMANIST INTERNATIONAL. Convergence of various national humanist parties into an organization without binding authority in resolutions concerning the tactics of each individual member. The First H.I. was held in Florence, Italy on January 7, 1989. On that occasion the Doctrinal Theses (*), Declaration of Principles, Bases of Political Action, and Bylaws were approved. In addition, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights approved by the United Nations in 1948 was adopted. The Second H.I. was held in Moscow on October 8, 1993, at which time the Humanist Statement or Document (*Humanist Statement) was presented as the ideological basis of the Humanist International.

HUMANIST MANIFESTO I Published in 1933 and signed by thirty-four well-known authors, among them John Dewey. Written with a strong naturalist tone. In this as in the later Humanist Manifesto II, there is great emphasis on personal freedom and maintaining a democratic political regime.

HUMANIST MANIFESTO II. Published in 1974 and signed by numerous authors and others, among them B.F. Skinner, Jacques Monod, and Andrei Sakharov. The author, Corliss Lamont, serves as nexus between Manifestos I and II. This second manifesto has a strong social-liberal tone. It highlights the need for economic and environmental planning that does not impinge on personal liberties, among them in particular the rights to suicide, abortion, and the practice of euthanasia.

HUMANIST MOMENT. Historical situation in which a younger generation struggles against the generation in power in order to modify the dominant anti-humanist framework. (*generations) Such a period is often identified with social revolution. A h.m. acquires full significance if it inaugurates a stage in which successive generations can adapt and deepen the founding proposals of this process. Frequently, however, the h.m. is canceled by the very generation that came to power with the intention of producing a change of schema or system. It may also happen that the generation that initiates the h.m. will fail in its project. Some have wished to see in the social consciousness (*) of certain cultures the presence of a h.m., represented by a person or group of persons who have attempted to institutionalize this h.m. from a position of power (whether political, religious, cultural, etc.) in an elitist way, "from the top down." One of the more notable historical examples of this was the ancient Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaton (1375-58 BCE). When he attempted to impose his sweeping reforms, there was an immediate reaction from the generation being displaced. All of the structural changes he had initiated were dismantled, which brought about, among other new circumstances, the exodus of certain peoples, who in their departure from the lands of Egypt carried with them the values of that h.m. In other cultures about which current knowledge is not extensive, this phenomenon can still be observed. For example, in pre-Colombian Meso-America, the ruler Topiltzín of the governing Toltec, from the city of Tula, has been credited with the inauguration of the humanist attitude (*) called "toltecayotl." A similar thing took place with Kukulkán, the ruler of Chichen-Itzá and founder of the city of Mayapán. Similarly, with Metzahualcóyotl in Texcoco we observe the opening of a new h.m. In pre-Colombian South America, a similar tendency appears in the Inca ruler Cuzi Yupanqui, who was given the name Pachacutéc, "reformer," and in Tupac Yupanqui. Further cases emerge as the number of cultures about which we have knowledge and the depth of that knowledge increases and, of course, as the linear historical account of the nineteenth century is increasingly challenged.

So, too, has the influence of the great religious reformers and cultural heroes been interpreted as the opening of humanist moments, which continued forward in a new stage and even at times a new civilization, but which have eventually come to an end, deviating from and annulling the initial direction.

With the configuration of the single, closed global civilization (*planetarization) that is now taking shape, the opening of a new h.m. inaugurated in a top down fashion, from the summit of political, economic, or cultural power, is no longer possible. Rather, we believe a new h.m. will emerge as a consequence of the increasing disorder in today’s closed system, and that it will be initiated from the social base where, even while undergoing the general destructuring (*), human beings will discover, driven by their immediate needs, the possibility of promoting the growth of minimal autonomous organizations. It is precisely such concrete, local actions that are today on the verge of becoming a demonstration effect (*), thanks to the shrinking of space brought about by the development of technology and, in particular, the growth of communications. The worldwide synchronization that took place within a certain generational stratum during the 1960s and early 1970s was a symptom of this type of phenomena. Another example may be seen in the social upheavals that at times exhibit synchronization in geographical points far removed from one another.

HUMANIST MOVEMENT. Refers to the people who participate in the proposals of New Humanism (*). These proposals are outlined in broad terms in the Statement or Document of the H.M. (*Humanist Statement). The H.M. is not itself an institution, though it has given rise to a wide range of groups and organizations. The H.M. does not seek to establish a monopoly or dominance within the many existing humanist and humanitarian movements (*humanitarianism), and clearly differentiates itself from all of them. It establishes close working relationships with all progressive groups on the basis of criteria of non-discrimination, reciprocity, and the convergence of diversity.

HUMANIST PSYCHOLOGY. (humanist: see etymology at human being; psychology: from psyche: Gr. psyche, life, spirit, soul, self; and -logy: der. Gk. legein, to gather, speak, der. Gr. logos, word, discourse, study, reason). As Fernand-Lucien Mueller has written, "The influence of Husserlian phenomenology and the philosophy of Heidegger, which is derived from it, has been substantial in the psychological sciences; it is an influence both direct and distinct, of which we can give no more than a brief glimpse. Phenomenology has given the lie in a most singular fashion to the promoters of the "new" psychology, who have sought to relegate philosophy to the museum of antiquities."

Many authors belong to the current of h.p. Almost all have been influenced by Brentano and by Husserl’s phenomenological method. The works of Jaspers, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, and Binswanger are universally known. Frankl’s "Third School of Vienna" may be placed in this movement as well as a branch of psychiatry. There are also methods of psychological work such as those formulated by L. Ammann in his work Self Liberation. Many works of h.p. are oriented toward social psychology.

HUMANIST statement or STATEMENT OF NEW HUMANISM. Presented at the Second Humanist International (*) and the First Humanist Forum (*) on October 7–8, 1993 in Moscow, this statement constitutes the basis of the ideas of New Humanism (*). It is divided into an introduction and six paragraphs: 1) Global Capital; 2) Real Democracy Versus Formal Democracy; 3) The Humanist Position; 4) From Naive Humanism to Conscious Humanism; 5) The Anti-Humanist Camp; and 6) Humanist Action Fronts.

The complete text of the Humanist Statement follows:

Humanists are women and men of this century, of this time. They recognize the achievements of humanism throughout history, and find inspiration in the contributions of many cultures, not only those that today occupy center stage. They are also men and women who recognize that this century and this millennium are drawing to a close, and their project is a new world. Humanists feel that their history is very long and that their future will be even longer. As optimists who believe in freedom and social progress, they fix their gaze on the future, while striving to overcome the general crisis of today.

Humanists are internationalists, aspiring to a universal human nation. While understanding the world they live in as a single whole, humanists act in their immediate environments. Humanists seek not a uniform world, but a world of multiplicity: diverse in ethnicity, languages and customs; diverse in local and regional autonomy; diverse in ideas and aspirations; diverse in beliefs, whether atheist or religious; diverse in occupations and in creativity.

Humanists do not want masters, they have no fondness for authority figures or bosses. Nor do they see themselves as representatives or bosses of anyone else. Humanists want neither a centralized State nor a para-State in its place. They want neither armed gangs nor a police state in their place.

But a wall has arisen between humanist aspirations and the realities of today’s world. The time has come to tear down that wall. To do this, all humanists of the world must unite.

I. Global Capital

This is the great universal truth: Money is everything. Money is government, money is law, money is power. Money is basically sustenance, but more than this it is art, it is philosophy, it is religion. Nothing is done without money, nothing is possible without money. There are no personal relationships without money, there is no intimacy without money. Even peaceful solitude depends on money.

But our relationship with this "universal truth" is contradictory. Most people do not like this state of affairs. And so we find ourselves subject to the tyranny of money – a tyranny that is not abstract, for it has a name, representatives, agents, and well-established procedures.

Today, we are no longer dealing with feudal economies, national industries, or even regional interests. Today, the question is how the surviving economic forms will accommodate to the new dictates of international finance capital. Nothing escapes, as capital worldwide continues to concentrate in ever fewer hands – until even the nation state depends for its survival on credit and loans. All must beg for investment and provide guarantees that give the banking system the ultimate say in decisions. The time is fast approaching when even companies themselves, when every rural area as well as every city, will all be the undisputed property of the banking system. The time of the para-state is coming, a time in which the old order will be swept away.

At the same time, the traditional bonds of solidarity that once joined people together are fast dissolving. We are witnessing the disintegration of the social fabric, and in its place find millions of isolated human beings living disconnected lives, indifferent to each other despite their common suffering. Big capital dominates not only our objectivity, through its control of the means of production, but also our subjectivity, through its control of the means of communication and information.

Under these conditions, those who control capital have the power and technology to do as they please with both our material and our human resources. They deplete irreplaceable natural resources and act with growing disregard for the human being. And just as they have drained everything from companies, industries, and whole governments, so have they even deprived science of its meaning – reducing it merely to technologies used to generate poverty, destruction, and unemployment.

Humanists do not overstate their case when they contend that the world today is technologically capable of swiftly resolving the problems of employment, food, health care, housing, and education that exist across vast regions of the planet. If this possibility is not being realized, it is simply because it is prevented by the monstrous speculation of big capital.

By now big capital has exhausted the stage of market economies, and has begun to discipline society to accept the chaos it has itself produced. Yet in the presence of this growing irrationality, it is not the voices of reason that we hear raised in dialectical opposition. Rather, it is the darkest forms of racism, fundamentalism, and fanaticism that are on the rise. And if groups and whole regions are increasingly guided by this new irrationalism, then the space for constructive action by progressive forces will diminish day by day.

On the other hand, millions of working people have already come to recognize that the centralized state is as much a sham as capitalist democracy. And just as working people are standing up against corrupt union bosses, more than ever citizens are questioning their governments and political parties. But it is necessary to give a constructive orientation to these phenomena, which will otherwise stagnate and remain nothing more than spontaneous protests that lead nowhere. For something new to happen, a dialogue about the fundamental factors of our economy must begin in the heart of the community.

For humanists, labor and capital are the principal factors in economic production, while speculation and usury are extraneous. In the present economic circumstances, humanists struggle to totally transform the absurd relationship that has existed between these factors. Until now we have been told that capital receives the profits while workers receive wages, an inequity that has always been justified by the "risk" that capital assumes in investing – as though working people do not risk both their present and their future amid the uncertainties of unemployment and economic crisis.

Another factor in play is management and decision making in the operation of each company. Earnings not set aside for reinvestment in the enterprise, not used for expansion or diversification, are increasingly diverted into financial speculation, as are profits not used to create new sources of work.

The struggle of working people must therefore be to require maximum productive return from capital. But this cannot happen unless management and directorships are cooperatively shared. How else will it be possible to avoid massive layoffs, business closures, and even the loss of entire industries? For the greatest harm comes from under-investment, fraudulent bankruptcies, forced acquisition of debt, and capital flight – not from profits realized through increased productivity. And if some persist in calling for workers to take possession of the means of production following nineteenth-century teachings, they will have to seriously consider the recent failures of real socialism.

As for the argument that treating capital the same way work is treated will only speed its flight to more advantageous areas, it must be pointed out that this cannot go on much longer, because the irrationality of the present economic system is leading to saturation and crisis worldwide. Moreover, this argument, apart from embracing a radical immorality, ignores the historical process in which capital is steadily being transferred to the banking system. As a result, employers and business people are being reduced to the status of employees, stripped of decision-making power in a lengthening chain of command in which they maintain only the appearance of autonomy. And as the recession continues to deepen, these same business people will begin to consider these points more seriously.

Humanists feel the need to act not only on employment issues, but also politically to prevent the State from being solely an instrument of international capital, to ensure a just relationship among the factors of production, and to restore to society its stolen autonomy.

II. Real Democracy Versus Formal Democracy

The edifice of democracy has fallen into ruin as its foundations – the separation of powers, representative government, and respect for minorities – have fallen into ruin.

The theoretical separation of powers is nonsense. Even a cursory examination of the practices surrounding the origin and composition of the different powers reveals the intimate relationships that link them to each other. And things could hardly be otherwise, for they all form part of one same system. In nation after nation we see one branch gaining supremacy over the others, functions being usurped, corruption and irregularities surfacing – all corresponding to the current global economic and political situation of each country.

As for representative government, since the extension of universal suffrage people have believed that only a single act is involved when they elect their representative and their representative carries out the mandate received. But as time has passed, people have come to see clearly that there are in fact two acts: a first in which the many elect the few, and a second in which those few betray the many, representing interests alien to the mandate they received. And this corruption is fed within the political parties, now reduced to little more than a handful of leaders who are totally out of touch with the needs of the people. Through the party machinery, powerful interests finance candidates and then dictate the policies they must follow. This state of affairs reveals a profound crisis in the contemporary conception and implementation of representative democracy.

Humanists struggle to transform the practice of representative government, giving the highest priority to consulting the people directly through referenda, plebiscites, and direct election of candidates. However, in many countries there are still laws that subordinate independent candidates to political parties, or rather to political maneuvering and financial restrictions that prevent them from even reaching the ballot and the free expression of the will of the people.

Every constitution or law that prevents the full possibility of every citizen to elect and to be elected makes a mockery of real democracy, which is above all such legal restrictions. And in order for there to be true equality of opportunity, during elections the news media must be placed at the service of the people, providing all candidates with exactly the same opportunities to communicate with the people.

To address the problem that elected officials regularly fail to carry out their campaign promises, there is also a need to enact laws of political responsibility that will subject such officials to censure, revocation of powers, recall from office, and loss of immunity. The current alternative, under which parties or individuals who do not fulfill their campaign promises risk defeat in future elections, in practice does not hinder in the least the politicians’ second act – betraying the people they represent.

As for directly consulting the people on the most urgent issues, every day the possibilities to do so increase through the use of technology. This does not mean simply giving greater importance to easily manipulated opinion polls and surveys. What it does mean is to facilitate real participation and direct voting by means of today’s advanced computational and communications technologies.

In real democracy, all minorities must be provided with the protections that correspond to their right to representation, as well as all measures needed to advance in practice their full inclusion, participation, and development.

Today, minorities the world over who are the targets of xenophobia and discrimination make anguished pleas for recognition. It is the responsibility of humanists everywhere to bring this issue to the forefront, leading the struggle to overcome such neo-fascism, whether overt or covert. In short, to struggle for the rights of minorities is to struggle for the rights of all human beings.

Under the coercion of centralized states – today no more than the unfeeling instruments of big capital – many countries with diverse populations subject entire provinces, regions, or autonomous groups to this same kind of discrimination. This must end through the adoption of federal forms of organization, through which real political power will return to the hands of these historical and cultural entities.

In sum, to give highest priority to the issues of capital and labor, real democracy, and decentralization of the apparatus of the State, is to set the political struggle on the path toward creating a new kind of society – a flexible society constantly changing in harmony with the changing needs of the people, people now suffocated more each day by their dependence on an inhuman system.

III. The Humanist Position

Humanist action does not draw its inspiration from pretentious theories about God, nature, society, or history. Rather, it begins with life’s necessities, which consist most elementally of avoiding pain and moving toward pleasure. Human life, however, entails the additional need to foresee future necessities, based on past experience and the intention to improve the present situation.

Human experience is not simply the product of natural physiological accumulation or selection, as happens in all species. It is social experience and personal experience directed toward overcoming pain in the present and avoiding it in the future. Human work, accumulated in the productions of society, is passed on and transformed from one generation to the next in a continuous struggle to improve the existing or natural conditions, even those of the human body itself. Human beings must therefore be defined as historical beings whose mode of social behavior is capable of transforming both the world and their own nature.

Each time that individuals or human groups violently impose themselves on others, they succeed in detaining history, turning their victims into "natural" objects. Nature does not have intentions, and thus to negate the freedom and intentions of others is to convert them into natural objects without intentions, objects to be used.

Human progress in its slow ascent now needs to transform both nature and society, eliminating the violent animal appropriation of some human beings by others. When this happens, we will pass from pre-history into a fully human history. In the meantime, we can begin with no other central value than the human being, fully realized and completely free. Humanists therefore declare, "Nothing above the human being, and no human being beneath any other."

If God, the State, money, or any other entity is placed as the central value, this subordinates the human being and creates the condition for the subsequent control or sacrifice of other human beings. Humanists have this point very clear. Whether atheists or religious, humanists do not start with their atheism or their faith as the basis for their view of the world and their actions. They start with the human being and the immediate needs of human beings. And if, in their struggle for a better world, they believe they discover an intention that moves history in a progressive direction, they place this faith or this discovery at the service of the human being.

Humanists address the fundamental problem: to know if one wants to live, and to decide on the conditions in which to do so.

All forms of violence – physical, economic, racial, religious, sexual, ideological, and others – that have been used to block human progress are repugnant to humanists. For humanists, every form of discrimination, whether subtle or overt, is something to be denounced.

Humanists are not violent, but above all they are not cowards and, because their actions have meaning, they are unafraid of facing violence. Humanists connect their personal lives with the life of society. They do not pose false dichotomies such as viewing their own lives as separate from the lives of those around them, and in this lies their coherence.

These issues, then, mark a clear dividing line between humanism and anti-humanism: humanism puts labor before big capital, real democracy before formal democracy, decentralization before centralization, anti-discrimination before discrimination, freedom before oppression, and meaning in life before resignation, complicity, and the absurd. Because humanism is based on freedom of choice, it offers the only valid ethic of the present time. And because humanism believes in intention and freedom, it distinguishes between error and bad faith, between one who is mistaken and one who is a traitor.

IV. From Naive Humanism to Conscious Humanism

It is at the base of society, in the places where people work and where they live that humanism must convert simple isolated protests into a conscious force oriented toward transforming the economic structures.

The struggles of spirited activists in labor unions and progressive political parties will become more coherent as they transform the leadership of these entities, giving their organizations a new orientation that, above short-range grievances, gives the highest priority to the basic proposals advocated by humanism.

Vast numbers of students and teachers, already sensitive to injustice, are becoming conscious of their will to change as the general crisis touches them. And certainly, members of the press in contact with so much daily tragedy are today in favorable positions to act in a humanist direction, as are those intellectuals whose creations are at odds with the standards promoted by this inhuman system.

In the face of so much human suffering, many positions and organizations encourage people to unselfishly help the dispossessed and those who suffer discrimination. Associations, volunteer groups, and large numbers of individuals are on occasion moved to make positive contributions. Without doubt, one of their contributions is to generate condemnations of these wrongs. However, such groups do not focus their actions on transforming the underlying structures that give rise to the problems. Their approaches are more related to humanitarianism than conscious humanism, although among these efforts are many conscientious protests and actions that can be extended and deepened.

V. The Anti-Humanist Camp

As the people continue to be suffocated by the forces of big capital, incoherent proposals arise that gain strength by exploiting people’s discontent, focusing it on various scapegoats. At the root of all such neo-fascism is a profound negation of human values. Similarly, there are certain deviant environmental currents that view nature as more important than human beings. No longer do they preach that an environmental catastrophe is a disaster because it endangers humanity – instead to them the only problem is that human beings have damaged nature.

According to certain of these theories, the human being is somehow contaminated, and thus contaminates nature. It would have been better, they contend, had medicine never succeeded in its fight against disease or in prolonging human life. "Earth first!" some cry hysterically, recalling Nazi slogans. It is but a short step from this position to begin discriminating against cultures seen to contaminate or against "impure" foreigners. These currents of thought may be considered anti-humanist because at bottom they hold the human being in contempt, and in keeping with the nihilistic and suicidal tendencies so fashionable today, their mentors reflect this self-hatred.

There is, of course, a significant segment of society made up of perceptive people who consider themselves environmentalists because they understand the gravity of the abuses that environmentalism exposes and condemns. And if this environmentalism attains the humanist character that corresponds, it will direct the struggle against those who are actually generating the catastrophes – big capital and its chain of destructive industries and businesses, so closely intertwined with the military-industrial complex.

Before worrying about seals they will concern themselves with overcoming hunger, overcrowding, infant mortality, disease, and the lack of even minimal standards of housing and sanitation in many parts of the world. They will focus on the unemployment, exploitation, racism, discrimination, and intolerance in a world that is so technologically advanced, yet still generates serious environmental imbalances in the name of ever more irrational growth.

One need not look far to see how the right wing functions as a political instrument of anti-humanism. Dishonesty and bad faith reach such extremes that some exponents periodically present themselves as representatives of "humanism." Take, for example, those cunning clerics who claim to theorize on the basis of a ridiculous "theocentric humanism." These people, who invented religious wars and inquisitions, who put to death the very founders of western humanism, are now attempting to appropriate the virtues of their victims. They have recently gone so far as to "forgive the errors" of those historical humanists, and so shameless is their semantic banditry that these representatives of anti-humanism even try to cloak themselves with the term "humanist."

It would of course be impossible to list the full range of resources, tools, instruments, forms, and expressions that anti-humanism has at its disposal. But having shed light on some of their more deceptive practices should help unsuspecting humanists and those newly realizing they are humanists as they re-think their ideas and the significance of their social practice.

VI. Humanist Action Fronts

With the intention of becoming a broad-based social movement, the vital force of humanism is organizing action fronts in the workplace, neighborhoods, unions, and among social action, political, environmental, and cultural organizations. Such collective action makes it possible for varied progressive forces, groups, and individuals to have greater presence and influence, without losing their own identities or special characteristics. The objective of this movement is to promote a union of forces increasingly able to influence broad strata of the population, orienting through these actions the current social transformation.

Humanists are neither naive nor enamored of declarations that belong to more romantic eras, and in this sense they do not view their proposals as the most advanced expression of social consciousness or think of their organization in an unquestioning way. Nor do they claim to represent the majority. They simply act according to their best judgment, focusing on the changes they believe are most suitable and possible for these times in which they happen to live.

HUMANIST, Related Words. (See etymology at human being). The word "umanista," which designated a specific type of scholar, came into use in Italy in 1538. Concerning this point we refer the reader to the observations of Augusto Campana in his 1946 article, "The Origin of the Word ‘Humanist’". The first humanists would not have recognized themselves by that name, which entered common usage only much later. Related words such as "humanistische" (humanistic), according to studies by Walter Rüegg, came into use in 1784, and "humanismus" (humanism) became common following the works of Niethammer in 1808. It is not until the middle of the last century that we find the term "humanism" circulating in almost all languages. We are speaking, then, of recent designations and recent interpretations of phenomena that were experienced quite differently by those using them than the way they have since been interpreted in the historiography and history of culture of the previous century.

HUMANIST. (See etymology at human being). 1) In a broad sense, any person who manifests a humanist attitude (*). 2) In a more restricted sense, any person who participates in the activity of the N.H. and the Humanist Movement (*).

HUMANITARIANISM. (From humanitarian; cf. humanity; see etymology at human being). Practical activity aimed at solving specific problems of individuals and human groups. H. does not attempt to modify the structures of power, but frequently contributes to shaping a style of life that is very useful from the point of view of commitment to meeting the most pressing needs of the human being. Any action characterized by solidarity (*) is, to greater or lesser degree, an example of h. (*altruism, philanthropy).

HUMANITY. (OFr. humanite; L. humanitas, human nature, the condition of being a man, from humanus, human, humane, re: homo, man; humus, soil). The quality of having sensitivity and compassion regarding the misfortunes of others; benevolence, gentleness, friendliness.

In a broad sense, h. includes all the generations of Homo sapiens past and present. In this light, the history of h. spans approximately 200,000 to 300,000 years, but neo-anthropoids appeared some 60,000 years ago in Africa and 40,000 years ago on the Arabian peninsula. In a narrow sense, h. includes the entirety of the present generations, i.e., the approximately 6,400,000,000 persons who now inhabit our planet Earth.

The notion of h. emerged about 7,000 to 9,000 years ago concurrently in the ancient civilizations of Europe, Asia, and Africa, and was manifested in the world religions. However, only since the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries has the concept of present h., meaning the entirety of all human beings now inhabiting the terrestrial globe, become transformed into a legacy or focus of scientific study and the practice of international relations. And it is only since the Second World War, with the creation of the United Nations which proclaims the priority of human rights, that the practice of discrimination against different human groups has been officially condemned by the international community, although it has still not been eradicated.

      |A |B |C |D |E |F |G |H | I |J |K |L |M |N |O |P |Q |R |S |T |U |V |W |X |Y |Z |

We invite everyone to participate with us in putting into practice the moral principle that says: "Treat others as you would like to be treated."
More information:
www.dialogo.org , [email protected] or [email protected]