Antihumanism?

[ev]

I don't understand how a Communist or an Anarchist cannot be Humanist..


"Humanism is a progressive life stance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity."


"Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethics based on human and other natural values in a spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality."

How can a Communist or Anarchist be opposed to this?
Why are some Marxists Antihumanists?

Can someone clarify?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Antihumanists? Aren't they the people who go on shooting rampages before fellating their own weapon?

[BobKKKindle$]

No. Anti-humanist in a philosophical context refers to the belief that individual agency has a minor impact on the course of events and human behaviour when compared to the influence of structures, which, by definition, exist independently of individuals. Marxist anti-humanism (insofar as that isn't a contradiction in terms, which I believe to be the case, given Marx's persistent emphasis on the desirability of individuals being able to exercise control over their lives, and the debilitating effects of alienation under capitalism) is associated with Althusser, who, when responding to humanists such as Sartre, famously argues that history "is a process without a subject" and that human beings merely function as "traeger" (holders, in German) of the relations of production.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No. Anti-humanist in a philosophical context refers to the belief that individual agency has a minor impact on the course of events and human behaviour when compared to the influence of structures, which, by definition, exist independently of individuals. Marxist anti-humanism (insofar as that isn't a contradiction in terms, which I believe to be the case, given Marx's persistent emphasis on the desirability of individuals being able to exercise control over their lives, and the debilitating effects of alienation under capitalism) is associated with Althusser, who, when responding to humanists such as Sartre, famously argues that history "is a process without a subject" and that human beings merely function as "traeger" (holders, in German) of the relations of production.

I see. The name was kind of misleading, since I was unaware that humanism had any kind of "theory of history", which in any case strikes me as extraneous.

[BobKKKindle$]

I see. The name was kind of misleading, since I was unaware that humanism had any kind of "theory of history", which in any case strikes me as extraneous.

Well, based on my scarce knowledge of the concept, "humanism" refers not only to ideas which emphasize individual agency, but also to a school of history and literary criticism that arose during the Italian Renaissance, the adherents of which admired the achievements of the ancient civilizations, emphasized the importance of arguments being delivered in a persuasive manner, advocated an educational curriculum based on knowledge of Latin and Greek, as well as the study of classical texts, and, in some cases, such as that of Machiavelli, sought to extract lessons from the history of Rome that could be applied to contemporary circumstances. I don't think those usages are related though.

[ev]

My original question still hasn't been answered.. :closedeyes:

So I will ask another instead, does the definition of humanism oppose or not correlate with Marxism or Anarchism.

It's quite simple really, if it does, how, where?

[Agrippa]

I am very anti-humanist. That's not to say that I am anti-human, but I am very strongly opposed to humanist philosophy.

[Hiero]

Earlier Marx is Humanist, later Marx starting with the German Ideaology is anti-humanist. That is Althusser's perspective.

[FreeFocus]

I am a humanist as it is described in the OP.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am a humanist as it is described in the OP.

Same here, which is why I get very confused and not a little concerned when people label themselves "anti-humanists", whatever that means.

[Hit The North]

I don't understand how a Communist or an Anarchist cannot be Humanist..

How can a Communist or Anarchist be opposed to this?
Why are some Marxists Antihumanists?

Can someone clarify?


I think it may further our understanding if we examine the three definitions of humanism which Althusser allows and his different positions to each.

1. Humanism in the sense of a moral philosophy which places human development and welfare at the centre of its concern. This is in opposition to religious morality which puts service to God as the highest concern and also modern ecocentric values which give equal priority to non human life. Althusser made it clear in Reading Capital that he was not anti-humanist in this sense. In fact, he argued that as a reaction to Stalinism and its crimes, humanism had real historical sanction.

2. Humanism as a philosophy of history which sees it as a progressive process whereby the human species achieves full development and whereby human beings are the agents of their own development. This, according to Althusser, is the humanism of the early pre-scientific Marx, still trapped in the problematic of Hegel and Feuerbach. Althusser is against humanism in this sense.

3. Humanism as a sociology of action, which produces explanations asserting the primacy of conscious human agency. In the lingo of Marxism, this is called voluntarism. This is the type of humanism which Althusser accuses Sartre of embracing and he clearly is against humanism in this sense.

Because the work of young Marx embraces the first two types of humanism, there is a continual debate within Marxism as to whether it can be properly called a humanism or whether Marx ended up moving towards a more structural account of human history. Althusser applies a structuralist reading of Marx and this is how he can be called an anti-humanist, arguing that the mature Marx rejected his earlier humanism in favour of a structuralist approach - the so-called epistemological break. It does not mean, however, that Althusser was arguing that Marxism is anti-human.

As for anarchism, I'd argue that it is a humanism in all three senses above. But I'm not a anarchist and they may want to contest this.

[ev]

This is just bullshit, what the fuck was Althusser thinking calling his philosophy of the structuralist account of human history antihumanism - It would be like calling capitalism businessism or something more absurd. I mean, the name, it's confusing as fuck.

He created a completely new philosophy in opposition to humanism and the idea that history cannot be judged from the total human agency perspective, I agree with this - it cannot.
However instead of doing something stupid like he did why not just revise humanism to incorporate the examination of human history from a structuralist perspective as well, or was that too much fucking effort? If i could go back in time i would slap him with a fish.

I believe that it is due for a revision, especially marxist humanism and if so, we should fix this problem to incorporate both perspectives of examining human history, for neither is true without the other.

We can start with this:

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

Surely nobody but anti progressives would be opposed to humanism if it were, as i mentioned revised to incorporate Althusser's position and stop him from moaning beyond the grave..

/end rant

[Apeiron]

I'm not very familiar with Althusser's specific arguments regarding the relation between humanism and Marxism (this is actually something I'm hoping to read more about in the near future, so I appreciate the reminder); however, there is another form of anti-humanism that I find compatible with (if not essential to) critical leftist thought. That is, an anti-humanism that begins with a rejection of humanist ontology - what we might call the philosophy of the 'subject' in the Cartesian sense (the subject as an ontological rather than epistemological category; though it seems there are legitimate epistemological critiques to be had as well).
In this vein, there are plenty of great arguments that problematize the exclusive nature of the Enlightenment gesture of positing a universal human subject (I actually quite like Carl Schmitt's, though I highly doubt he's a favorite around these parts; there are plenty of others that come from a more identity politics-based perspective, or post-colonial, etc). Indeed, it seems quite fitting to criticize humanist ontologies from a Marxist perspective as a mode of ruling class ideology - merely reifying bourgeois identity into a universal ontological form to the exclusion of the 'subaltern' classes. In such a case, as Schmitt (among others) argues, the excluded other is transformed into the 'inhuman,' or in political conflict - the 'anti-human.' Of course, to normatively criticize such exclusion generally implies a 'humanist' moral philosophy, but perhaps there's a way to do so while remaining consistent...

Anyway, just a thought. Hope I made this somewhat clear.

[YKTMX]

I think we need to be careful when we say that early Marx is "humanist" and later Marx is not. Someone claimed this was Althusser's argument and I don't think they're wrong about that. The only thing I would say is that Althusser, when he critiques "humanism", is critiquing theoretical humanism. In other words, what he's critiquing is accounts of Marx's philosophy that insist upon the centrality of concepts like "man", "alienation", "transcendence" etc. For Althusser, these concepts are hangovers from a pre-Scientific problematic that Marx didn't completely break with until Capital. In Capital, Althusser says, Marx breaks completely with the problematic he inherited from Hegel and Feuerbach and found his own theory, a scientific theory in which the principle concepts are "mode of production", "forces of production", "class struggle" etc.

Now, I don't accept this argument. But when Althusser says Marxism is "antihumanist", he's not claiming that it is somehow opposed to human beings (!), what he is trying to say is that Marxist philosophy has to seperate itself from bourgeois philosophy by way of a rejection of any transcendental understanding of human beings.

[Revy]

I'm a humanist.

But my concerns do not begin and end with the human species. Although issues such as environmentalism and veganism/animal rights can be argued from a humanist perspective.

Also, I may be entering the realm of science fiction here, but I see it as relevant. We have to be ethical toward sentients that are not human i.e. robots with minds of their own and not simply driven by programming, and extraterrestrials. "the greater good of humanity" can be construed to mean anything. Can humanity expand into other worlds even though they are inhabited by indigenous alien cultures? "It's for humanity" doesn't cut it....

[FreeFocus]

I'm a humanist.

But my concerns do not begin and end with the human species. Although issues such as environmentalism and veganism/animal rights can be argued from a humanist perspective.

Also, I may be entering the realm of science fiction here, but I see it as relevant. We have to be ethical toward sentients that are not human i.e. robots with minds of their own and not simply driven by programming, and extraterrestrials. "the greater good of humanity" can be construed to mean anything. Can humanity expand into other worlds even though they are inhabited by indigenous alien cultures? "It's for humanity" doesn't cut it....

Excellent post, although I disagree about treating robots ethically. Perhaps my views would change if I were presented with and was able to observe an intelligent robot interacting with people, but we are the creators of robots. There's no equality of condition, nature, or rights between humans and robots. I completely agree about alien life, however.

[Dean]

If you're not a humanist, I don't see how you can possibly be a leftist. Almost all leftist tendencies prerequire some kind of pro-human attitudes, wherein the self-affirmative faculties of humans serve as the basis of the social organization or philosophy proposed.