In his new book “Christian Atheism,” Zizek writes: “The question is: humanism presents itself as universal, all-encompassing, but this universality is already grounded in an exclusion. It is not just that humanism imposes a Western standard of being-human which reduces subaltern Others to a lower level of humanity; Humanism is based on the exclusion of a large group of humans… as non-Human…” p.27
Why Zizek feels the need to engage in this distortion of Humanism is… perhaps, because he wants to insinuate a contrast of superiority for Christianity?
Here Zizek is thinking of Humanism as being synonymous with Christian fundamentalism as well as Westernism. This is a problem. None of this is reflected in any of the Humanist Manifestos. More importantly, it’s not even presupposed by them. To interpret Humanism thus is to erect a straw man of Humanism.
What then is Humanism?
In short, it’s the axiom of the value of humans as central, of human life and dignity as central. This doesn’t mean that Humanism lacks an ecology, quite the opposite. Because Humanism is axiomatic, and proceeds by means of reason and evidence, it can be said to be foundational to progress/ because it’s not a superstitious system, its approach to the world is open and reflective, it doesn’t dogmatize, but is a continual process of open learning.
“Humanism is an ethical process through which we all can move, above and beyond the divisive particulars, heroic personalities, dogmatic creeds, and ritual customs of past religions or their mere negation.” Manifesto II
Zizek gives no citations to back up his negative and limited characterization of Humanism. He simply asserts that it’s a system of “exclusion,” when in fact, it’s just the opposite!
The religions of the world have failed, so much so that Zizek is now offering a negative version of Christianity/ why not the positive one? (In contrast, Humanism is not something that needs to be inverted!)
So far from “reducing” people, Humanism embraces the hope of a world united. “We urge recognition of the common humanity of all people.” Ibid. It is an approach whose time has come.
The historical religions of the world aren’t epistemologically or ontologically broad enough to cope with the increase of social complexity, but Humanism is, because its foundation is universal. Zizek wants to claim that this universalism contains an exclusion. Fair enough. What then is that exclusion? It’s not Humans as he wants us to believe! (He got it wrong because he doesn’t understand Humanism, or purposely tried to distort it): it’s the exclusion of the non-universal. This alone makes Humanism exceptional among the religions of the world.
I suspect that Zizek is threatened by Humanism because, even as an Atheist, he’s still too much of a Christian!
-
-
-
