What’s in a word – plenty when it’s ‘Humanism’

Linguists have been informing us for decades that language influences our thoughts and our actions and, in turn, our thoughts and actions influence the language we use. Politically correct language sometimes makes people feel uncomfortable, but once it becomes habitual, we hardly even notice it. No one today squirms at the mention of ‘humankind’ or when females are referred to as ‘actors’ (because the male form should not be taken as the standard from which the female deviates). And many a person with some kind of disability is glad that their condition is now described in a language that reflects an up-to-date understanding of the condition, while retaining a degree of respect for the person.

If language can help to change attitudes, then it doesn’t need a significant intellectual leap to realise that by using the right language Humanists can help to promote the Humanist worldview and attitudes that follow from it. Using appropriate language is important to our goals and important to the moral evolution of the societies we inhabit. If we are to promote the principles of Humanism, then we must use language that will help spread these principles. In fact, our language must reflect the principles themselves.

Humanists purport to be keen supporters of science. So we should be interested in the subject of cognitive linguistics, because this group of scientists (linguists and semioticians) have much to teach us. They have discovered how human communication is undertaken and how it’s mediated, and they tell us that gaining an understanding of this area works to the advantage of any who use it. Here is simple outline of how cognitive linguistics work.

Since birth, each time we activate our bodies or receive information through our senses (walk, talk, hear, smell, etc.), these actions are made possible (and recorded) by electrical impulses in our brains. And these impulses forge a trail, a pathway. Each time we repeat the action or assimilate the knowledge, the same pathway is followed, till it becomes firmly established. Some scientists refer to these paths as ‘frames’ because when we need to understand a new concept, this ‘brain map’ of paths we’ve created, gives us a series of reference frames to help us conceptualise, to figure out what it is we’re seeing, hearing, etc. Once frames are established, they become common sense. We use them to compare new information with what we already know. If it fits our established reference frames, we accept it and it strengthens them, if not, the information is refused entry, it doesn’t make sense, and the original frames stay put. No paths on this brain map are ever erased. And there is no such thing as a negative frame, a frame that signifies nothing.

Reference frames are activated by trigger words, smells, music and so on. Even if we use the triggers to negate a concept – ‘Jesus did not exist’ – this triggers the well-established ‘Jesus frame’ and all its associations. Humanists then would be well advised to desist from using religious frames and perpetuating them. Instead, we could be busy creating and establishing Humanist reference frames.

We can start by looking at what we call ourselves and what branch of humanism we advocate, (there appear to be many). The word ‘humanism’ is a generic, abstract noun, like ‘love’ or ‘freedom’, and many describe it straight off by what it’s not – ‘its non-religious’, a description that immediately activates the religious frame. And some humanists are at pains to call themselves ‘secular humanists’.

This has come about to differentiate them from religious humanists. The fact that others want to get in on the act and call themselves some sort of ‘humanist’ shows that the concept is an attractive one. But why should we forever add descriptive adjectives to the humanist concept and dilute this reference frame? Instead, if we keep to the one reference frame, we strengthen it by repeated use.

If we subscribe to the ideas and ideals within the humanist tradition as they are commonly understood in documents like the Amsterdam Declaration (2002) and the various Humanist Manifestos derived from writers like Paul Kurtz, and we go one step further and join a humanist society – then we move from being generic humanists – to Humanists. The capital letter gives our commitment verification, it tells the world not only that we belong to a constituency of Humanists worldwide, but that we are a member of the Humanist Society of Scotland, or the North East Humanists, or the British Humanist Association, etc, and it activates one frame. Associated with this reference frame is a secular outlook on life, so there’s no need to add the word ‘secular’ - it’s already implied, the addition is tautological, it repeats the same idea.

To differentiate from those who want to call themselves humanists, but are not prepared to give up the God idea, all we need to use is that capital H. It tells the world that we are secular, that we are humanitarian, that we subscribe to reason, to compassion, to responsible conduct and so on. If an idea falls outside of humanism like ‘bigoted humanist’ or ‘religious humanist’, it doesn’t fit the Humanist frame. If it falls inside, like ‘compassionate humanist’, the qualifier is unnecessary, it’s already there embedded in the humanist reference frame.

The word Humanist will do nicely then, it’s a wonderful word and a wonderful concept. We should all own it with pride. It needs no qualification and it will activate the reference frames we want every time we use it.

reposted from: North East Humanist
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments