Humanist Manifesto

Impact

One of the longer-term effects of the 1933 Humanist Manifesto was the need for a second manifesto, which was published in 1973. Humanists believed that major cultural and socioeconomic changes were affecting the ability of people to assign meaning to their lives and that the original document was too naive and optimistic. It was noted that the 1930s and 1940s saw the rise of Nazism, with its unspeakable brutality. In the years following World War II, other regimes used warfare, espionage, and military power to enforce their wills. Racism and sexism continued to plague societies. The belief emerged that the principles of humanism had to adapt to these realities. Further, humanists came to believe that the supporters of the 1933 document still held to some form of traditional theism and that prayer provided a path to salvation. By 1973 humanists had come to regard these as outmoded beliefs.

Another problem raised by the 1933 document was that it was frequently misunderstood and misused. Some observers saw the document as the articulation of a creed—even though the document’s originators specifically indicated that they were not advancing a creed. Still others regarded the document as in some measure responsible for a decline in morality. In effect, humanism became a scapegoat for many of the ills plaguing modern society. In particular, many religious conservatives, including such figures as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker, and Jimmy Swaggart, saw the Humanist Manifesto as a statement intended to substitute ethical opportunism for religious belief. These and other critics were particularly agitated by what they saw as the creeping influence of humanism in the schools.

Even at the time, the Humanist Manifesto was controversial, at least in some ways. A particular point of controversy—and one that prompted some people to refuse to sign the document—was the fourteenth point, which states in part: “The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible.” During the 1930s, many people in the West were watching the rise of Communism with fear; indeed, the threat of Communism in post–World War I Germany contributed to the rise to power of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. In the United States, anti-Communist hysteria had been a feature of American life since the Russian Revolution of 1917. During the “Red Scare” of 1919–1920, thousands of foreign-born radicals and anarchists were arrested. Many Americans attributed the labor unrest of the 1920s to Communist influences. But during the Great Depression of the 1930s, many Americans became sympathetic to Communist ideology because of the unemployment and poverty presumably created by the excesses of capitalism. In this climate, the House Un-American Activities Committee would be formed in 1938, and after World War II its chief mandate was to root out Communists. Thus, statements about “acquisitive and profit-motivated society” and “equitable distribution of the means of life” were perceived by some as an attack on the foundations of American capitalism and self-sufficiency.

Humanism and Its Aspirations, often referred to as Humanist Manifesto III, was promulgated in 2003. It is briefer and simpler than the two earlier documents, but the fundamental views remain the same. The manifesto was signed by a large number of people, including twenty-one Nobel Prize winners.