After reading the definition(s) of humanism found at the American Humanist Association, answer the following question in one post and then comment on another post.
Given Barton & Levstik's fondness of "Democratic Humanism" as the dominant ethos for social studies educators, we should pursue the philosophy's meaning a bit deeper. While it's possible that Barton and Levstik use the term "humanism" in the generic sense of "the betterment of humanity," it seems that their overall philosophy presented in the book is consistent with many of the humanist values enunciated by the AHA. It's important to note here that there is certainly such a thing as "Christian Humanism" and that the first Humanists were in fact Christians. That being said, what is your impression of Humanism as a philosophy, as it pertains to social studies education? Do you see it in direct conflict with Christian values and worldview or are Humanist and Christian values reconcilable? Should "Democratic Humanism" be embraced or rejected by Christian educators?
14 comments:
I think the definitions of humansism listed on the American Humanist Associtaion page demonstrate that certain aspects of humanism contradict Chirstian vaules, while other aspects of humanism affirm a Christian worldview.
Obviously, a central part of humanism is that is not thesitic. This would obviously go against Christian vaules. Also, I believe the definition that states "moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone." As a Christian I believe that our experience and interactions with each other on earth is important and valuable, however, my ultimate meaning and purpose in life comes from God, and is to serve him.
Of course, a large part of serving God is through serving others in our life. This is where part of the humanism definitions aligns with Christian views. I agree that "love coupled with empathy, democracy, and a commitment to selfless service" are necessary for improving our world. Christ instructed us to show love to our neighbor, and I believe that command is also part of humanism.
As a social studies educator, I think including aspects of humanism would enrich the classroom. I think it would be possible to present the need for "bettering humanity" and society without touching on atheism or theism at all.
According to the definitions on the AHA website, I would have to agree with Kaity in that some of the principles they stand for are Christian principles, but there are many ideas that are in direct conflict with Christianity.
Humanists do not believe in the supernatural and that this life is all we have. This conflicts completely with the Christian belief in God and in Heaven.
As a whole, humanism strikes me as a sort of bleak view of life. While one definition states that it is a "joyous alternative" there is no belief in God, miracles, and a life after death. There is no hope of a life without pain, tear, suffering after life on earth. There is no comfort that all things work together for good.
The area where Christianity and humanism seem to align is the emphasis on the betterment of society. The belief that we need to take care of others and our world with compassion.
I think that it is necessary to take value in one's society and to do things to make it better. This would be helpful in discussions and the teaching of social studies in a high school classroom. It would be a great aid for interesting discussion especially when teaching about genocide and other social issues.
Re:Kaity
Your point about serving others being a commonality between Humanism and Christianity is right on. This is perhaps what people of different religions should be doing as well. Instead of arguing about different dogmas, they could be focusing on the many things that they hold in common. Perhaps the struggle for us Christians is to really take seriously the "golden rule." Its the most important rule (that and loving God with all our heart) but its often the one that Christians forget to apply - especially for Christians living as the dominant group in a society.
Re: Melissa
Humanists would argue that the bleakest of view of life would be one based on a fiction. They argue that religion is superstition and therefore destructive. Remember again that the roots of humanism are in the Renaissance / Reformation era in which Christians rediscovered Greek and were able to better critique the dominant interpretations of the Bible as well as rediscover important literature that challenged the prevailing assumptions at the time. So in a way there is an application to social studies teaching here: social studies teachers should be in some way "pulling back the curtain" so that our students see "what is really going on." A deeper analysis. More critical reflection. Perhaps the skepticism that humanism esteems and employs can also be embraced in some way by Christians, progressives and conservatives.
These definitions scare me. They scare me because on the surface they may appear to be in line with Christianity. After all, be kind to people and make the world a better place through love. Christ certainly preached a gospel of love didn’t he? However, it doesn’t take long as one reads these definitions to realize that they have taken God out of the equation.
Lines such as these scare me:
humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny. •The Humanist Magazine
Humanism is: A joyous alternative to religions that believe in a supernatural god and life in a hereafter The Humanist Society of Western New York
Humanism serves, for many humanists, some of the psychological and social functions of a religion, but without belief in deities, transcendental entities, miracles, life after death, and the supernatural Steven Schafersman
History shows that those efforts are most effective when they involve both compassion and the scientific method - which includes reliance on reason, evidence, and free inquiry.
Clearly, these quotes taken from the definitions do not align with the theology or doctrine found within the Christian faith. I am also leery of promoting the idea that if left to their own devices, humans will act in a positive manner. Didn’t the fall cause each human being to be sinful? In our sin-filled state would we/do we act in a positive manner? I don’t think so. Therefore, I think I would hold the reins of democratic humanism loosely. Certainly, not all the ideas are bad, and some general truth can be found within it.
As a philosophy i think that Humanism is trying to be an association that is out to promote the creation of the common good in society. Humanism wants to extend the ideas that we hold to be important in most history classes in America, i know my teachers tended to, in that they wanted us to become active in our society and create the common good through our actions. Humanism would be an important thing to mention in class as it does promote participatory democracy, which is something that history teachers should promote. However, humanist views do contradict christian values as it does not view the supernatural (god, deities)has no certainty of knowledge, as it is not tangible so that is in direct contradiction with religion. Kaity makes a good point that it is not our ultimate meaning to make experiences with people here on earth but with our relationship with Jesus Christ our lord and savior. I do know that God would want us to cultivate relationships with all people to bring them into relationship with him, so relationships do play an important role in that respect. I think that "democratic humanism" should be included in the classroom but only for the aspects that would promote the common good, nothing that would force religion onto any kids, because that is not what the job of a teacher is, it is to educate students and teach them moral values that will improve their lives. I like the point that Melissa makes about how bleak a view the Humanists do have, with no life after death life would seem pretty useless, as we would just live and die and not have an eternity spent with Christ.
The AHA definitions of humanism seem to be quite consistent with Barton and Levstik's philosophy. Certain portions of the definitions that AHA present definitely contradict with a "Christian Humanism" approach.
It seems that the idea of humanism is all about picking oneself up "by your bootstraps" and living the best life that you can possibly lead, because it all depends on you to make that happen. In a way, this has everything to do with the foundations of the United States. People are constantly looking to better themselves and are forced to take responsibility for their actions. Humanism can be related to teaching social studies because it encourages students to become active citizens that are looking to improve their own lives, and the lives of those around them. According to the definitions of humanism, it also calls students to take interest in seeking knowledge and not just accepting what they are taught. Humanism encourages the students to analyze ideas and information critically, instead of just accepting the facts they are given.
I think that these aspects are very positive and have some good ideas within them, but other aspects of humanism conflict with a Christian worldview. For example, the approach leads to a life only focused on the here and now, with no hope or belief in life after death. If this is all that a person has, it seems that life would seem extremely empty. There is no explanation in humanism for our purpose in life, besides simply living a good life.
Although there are different parts of humanism that can be broken down and effectively applied, that is also very difficult to do. In the same way, i think it is very dangerous when Christians pick apart the Bible and decide to believe only portions of it. That is why I have a hard time simply combining my Christian worldview and Humanist values.
However, Billy makes an excellent point that it is not the job of a teacher to force any religion upon their students. That is why the part of humanism that deals with becoming a citizen that seeks to improve society can be applied in the classroom, since, like Billy said, that should be promoted in a history class.
As for the danger of it all though, I am in agreement with Kim. On the surface Humanism seems appealing, but it lacks everything that we as Christians put our hope and trust in.
I see Humanism as a somewhat needed ideal for people to follow when they decide not to follow some sort of supernatural deity. As a Christian, I see the fallenness of humanity and know that if we depend solely on ourselves, then things will never work out perfectly.
As "a belief that when people are free to think for themselves, using reason and knowledge as their tools, they are best able to solve this world's problems," (The Humanist Society of Western New York) humanism has led humanity to a false sense of progress and capabilities. One only has to look at the two World Wars as proof that viewing reason and knowledge as the pinnacle of humanity is flawed.
However, Barton & Levstik's view of "democratic humanism" is essential in the classroom. "Humanists affirm that humans have the freedom to give meaning, value, and purpose to their lives by their own independent thought, free inquiry, and responsible, creative activity" (Steven Schafersman). If our goal in education is create citizens capable of being analytical, thoughtful, and responsible, then it only makes sense to, at least at some points, take a humanist approach. This approach should also be examined. As students what the pros and cons are of viewing the world as a humanist.
I suppose one could argue that humanism and Christianity are in direct opposition. That being said, I see many of the aspects of humanism to be something I embrace as a Christian. "History shows that those efforts are most effective when they involve both compassion and the scientific method - which includes reliance on reason, evidence, and free inquiry" (Joseph C. Sommer). God has not put us on a this earth to be unaware, uninterested, and oblivious.
The Humanist Society of Western New York stated that, "Humanism a philosophy of those in love with life. Humanists take responsibility for their own lives and relish the adventure of being part of new discoveries, seeking new knowledge, exploring new options." Just because Christianity holds hope in the promise of an afterlife, it does not mean Christians cannot love their earthly life nor should they fail to acknowledge the glory of creation and the physical world. Great satisfaction can be found in new discoveries and greater understandings of the created world by following human curiosity.
That being said, i think that 'democratic humanism' is something that should be at least utilized by christian educators in the classroom.
re: Kim
I too share some of those same fears. However, does this mean that in the classroom we should be skewing the material to our own preferences? If a philosophy helps students understand material, then why not utilize it. At the very least, the exposure to humanism and its view points will give students a greater understanding of the world around them and perspective of others, as well as a possible explanation of the development and trajectory of history
I agree that I have seen history presented in humanistic terms in the classroom, especially in regard to the formation of the United States and the idea of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps as Ashley mentioned. I also agree that many of the ideas presented are ideas that would improve society in a large sense, and something that many Christians need to be reminded of: to love your neighbor as yourself and to act for the betterment of others. However, since we are saying that those ideas align, then as a history teacher would I be presenting these views to my class because I am a Christian or because I am teaching from a humanistic perspective? I guess I am wondering how often do we explicitly tell students, “I am now teaching this from a humanistic perspective” or “I believe this because I am a Christian”. Perhaps the explicitness of telling what perspective we are teaching may depend on what grade level the class is. For instance, you probably wouldn’t bog down the 7th graders with using these terms explicitly, but you may discuss them more openly with a 12th grade class hoping to formulate a discussion.
My intention is not to skew history or to shy away from presenting perspectives that are different from my own. Democratic humanism will most likely enter my classroom, but at this point I don’t see it as becoming my primary philosophy towards how I teach history/social studies to my students. But then again, I see these thoughts as preliminary, so who knows maybe I will change my mind and write a book about it someday.
Great ideas by all. The fundamental challenge for each of us is to understand how our own personal worldview impacts our historicity but also how it will inevitably impact our teaching. There is no such thing as a dispassionate, neutral, social studies teacher. Political ideology is certainly an important component, but even more fundamental is one's spiritual/theological/ethical base. Yes, we should not directly or bluntly introduce our religious or moralistic beliefs in the classroom but its important to recognize that these core beliefs and assumptions about the world impact our perceptions; and therefore they also impact our presentation of the world to our students.
I agree with Ashley when she noted that Humanism seeks to empower students to decide what they believe for themselves. I think that too often today children, adolescents, etc. don't know how to think for themselves. They are spoon fed their religious, political, and general principles/beliefs. I think that it is very important for students to know that they can question things and decide for themselves with the information that they have.
Good point Melissa. Now, there is always one or two students who want to throw out everything they've ever learned and adopt some new "truth." I've always tried to caution against that. I've encouraged my students to think about how new information or ways of looking at the world mesh with their current beliefs and knowledge. Perhaps there is a role there for use to play in helping students see how complex ideas can function together and needn't be seen as unavoidably opposed to one another.
Humanism to me is a solid theory, but a little misguided as it doesn't leave room for a creator and savior. To me as an educator it provides a useful platform to promote higher ideals when our Christian values cannot be presented.
I don't see the values in conflict with one another for the most part. Humanists want to better their world and the species of humanity. They take personal responsibility for their actions and want to create a better world. Someone who is interested in this philosophy will only need to expand a little farther to see the savior that created everything, and they can match their similar values to Christianity.
Humanism offers students who may not be religious, but desire to do good in the world an outlet. According to Barton and Levstik humanism in education teaches us judgement, critical thinking, and to dig deeper into the human stories of events. It also causes us to challange the modern historical views and allow students to create their own views based on the evidence. These are traits that are very valuable in the social studies education classroom,and christian educators should embrace this trend as not every student will embrace our views anyway.
re kim: I agree with you that you might not want to get too bogged down with 7th graders, but perhaps slightly introducing these terms to them will better prepare them for their future. In my classroom I want to switch perspectives and hopefully present multiple versions of each event, but then I also am concerned about over swamping the students.
re melissa: I agree with you that without the supernatural humanism does offer a pretty bleak view, but so does communism and many other life theories. Yet understanding communism and the marxist/class warfare school of history is essential to understanding much of recent history. I think we as Christians should stress its similarities much more than its differences.
Post a Comment