Like it or not, identity is not, absolutely not, a value in humanism, on the contrary. Even more the secular humanism of the Enlightenment. Humanism is a universalist tradition of thought.
You say humanism is a White thing.
Catholicism, of which humanism is supposed to be a disguised version, is also a White thing, I suppose? So one will have statements like “France is a Judeo-Christian country”.
Then why catholicism is a universalist religion?
Why catholicism was born in now Arabic regions, developed in at the time Hellenistic regions, and institutionalized in Western European countries, and now we find more Catholics, in absolutely neither Arabic, Hellestinic or European countries such as South America, Africa and South-East Asia? Can we still say that Catholicism is a White thing? Same for Islam.
It is also the same for humanism.
We can discuss how developed humanism from a geographical and historical perspective, but this is a different, orthogonal matter, to what is humanism.
We can also discuss if and how to spread humanism in a humanistic manner, but that is also a different, orthogonal matter.
There are many ethnicity-based thought traditions, for instance German volk culture. Humanism is not one of them. So associating identity to humanism indifferently is just incorrect, and can act as a self-fulfilling dangerous prophecy.
It is because identity is not a value in humanism, so humanism literally saved the life of tones of people adhering to humanism accross the globe who were able to join humanist societies, and improved my life (coming from a developed and democratic country, but adhering to the, what I deem better, more liberal/human, American humanism, as compared to French humanism).
Also, sorry, but if we develop a universalist philosophy opened to everybody aimed at developing welfare for everybody, and some keep repeating things like “you hypocrits, you are racists hiding behind a superfically good-looking ideology”, how do you think people will react in face of this incorrect and insulting accusation?
Identity is very important to most people in the world. Only Northwestern Europeans have a weak sense of identity because they are individualists first and foremost. It is not a coincidence that this group is where you find the most Humanists. Scientists have actually come up with a label for this unusual group.
I think you will find thatoneguy is a racist. His ideas of humanism are not exactly humanism. There are Black humanists as well as other ethnic groups too. I would not take what he says about humanism as gospel.
Murderous Identities is an essay written by Amin Maalouf. It questions the notion of identity and the conflicts it can cause. He received the Charles Veillon European Essay Prize in 1999.
Summary
Introduction
Amin Maalouf takes the case of a man born in Germany to Turkish parents: “In the eyes of his adopted society, he is not German; in the eyes of his society of origin, he is no longer really Turkish1. » Several questions then arise: why can such people not assume their multiple affiliations? Why are they constantly asked to choose one or the other? The author attempts to answer it: “Because of these habits of thought and expression so anchored in us all, because of this narrow, exclusive, bigoted, simplistic conception which reduces the entire identity to a single belonging2. » The author intends to clarify this observation in the following chapters.
When modernity comes from elsewhere
Maalouf explains how Western culture took hold. He also comments on the consequences of this from an identity point of view among Muslims. From these repercussions, he categorically excludes religious fanaticism and explains his reasoning.
The time of the planetary tribes
Maalouf begins by addressing religious affiliation: in his eyes, it should be replaced by another. To the question “Which?” », he answers: “the human”. He then drifts onto globalization, which he believes, if understood correctly, would be incredibly culturally enriching. But if it only serves to support the foundation of a hegemonic (read: Western) civilization, globalization would only lead humanity straight to its doom. He discusses possible solutions to this loss in the following chapter.
Tame the Panther
Maalouf lists some solutions and avenues for taming the “panther”, that is to say identity. First, the principle of “reciprocity”, according to which a universal heritage (global, belonging to humanity) must be created, in which everyone could find themselves, and thus, would take precedence above all human belonging. Then, “globalization”, which mainly attacks languages, should be combatted by learning English (3rd) as well as a second “heart” language, European or not. Finally, if we claim to be a democratic civilization, we must not vote “automatically”, that is to say according to our ethnic group, because it is an identity vote, which would only divide, compartmentalize, encourage segregation when, in order to flourish and coexist peacefully, identities need colors, a rich context, and not well-defined straitjackets in which they would be confined. In some countries, the identity situation is more critical than in others, “but everywhere the need is felt for calm and global reflection on the best way to tame the identity beast3. »
Epilogue
The author draws his own conclusion here (synthesis of the main ideas of the previous chapters): “We must ensure that no one feels excluded from the common civilization that is being born, that everyone can find their own language of identity, and certain symbols of their own culture, so that everyone, again, can identify, even if only a little, with what they see emerging in the world around them, instead of seeking refuge in a idealized past. At the same time, everyone should be able to include in what they consider to be their identity, a new component, destined to take on more and more importance during the new century, the new millennium: the feeling of also belonging to the adventure human4. »
Important themes
Obviously, there is “identity”, which Maalouf expands on at length (see Summary point 2). But as we read Murderous Identities, we notice other recurring principles5:
Empathy
This “intuitive ability to put oneself in the place of others and to understand their feelings and emotions6”, and which, according to Maalouf, could resolve many conflicts.
Humanism
According to Maalouf, the most important belonging, apart from the “language of identity7”, is undoubtedly belonging to humanity. Furthermore, his reasoning is imbued with “respect”, “openness” and “fairness”. Finally, he believes that everyone should know at least “three languages” (see Summary point 5).
Reciprocity
She also comes back several times. According to him, exchanges are essential. They are in fact the basis of what could be a global “cultural wealth”, as long as respect is established on both sides. Everything on earth should be exchanged: cuisines, music, words, discoveries, etc.
Categorization
He protests against “the contemporary need and/or habit of categorizing everything”. Everything must be classified; It is now essential to attach labels to any event. This would be detrimental for identities, since classifying them compartmentalizes them (which is to say that it accentuates the idea of a single belonging) and thus, makes communities easily irritable, which leads to conflicts.
Rejection of extremes
When he proposes solutions (or possible solutions), he always excludes extremes, which are (according to him), in essence, never profitable. Thus, it always favors a “golden mean”.
Maalouf has certain ideas I disagree with:
_" Furthermore, his reasoning is imbued with “respect”, “openness” and “fairness”."
_But if it only serves to support the foundation of a hegemonic (read: Western) civilization
_Finally, if we claim to be a democratic civilization, we must not vote “automatically”, that is to say according to our ethnic group, because it is an identity vote, which would only divide, compartmentalize, encourage segregation when, in order to flourish and coexist peacefully, identities need colors, a rich context, and not well-defined straitjackets in which they would be confined.
_Obviously, there is “identity”, which Maalouf expands on at length
Some ideas I agree with:
_Maalouf begins by addressing religious affiliation: in his eyes, it should be replaced by another. To the question “Which?” », he answers: “the human”
_When he proposes solutions (or possible solutions), he always excludes extremes, which are (according to him), in essence, never profitable.
_he believes that everyone should know at least “three languages”
_He protests against “the contemporary need and/or habit of categorizing everything”
These latter points still constitute a basis on which to discuss, that is, to develop humanism cross-culturally.
I feel the author is very influenced by his Lebanese background (consociationalism, respect)
I still think that identity should be excluded from humanism.
Maalouf is against categorization, but he is for identity… this is contradictory.
He also self-contradicts himself because ahead he says that the main affiliation is “the human”…
Let’s take the example of feminism. I think the goal of feminism is to see each woman as a completely unique individual, with her unique capacities and personality, instead as through her “identity as a woman”. This is really what can free women from machismo prejudices.
(I prefer the term “machismo” to “patriarchy”, which has now too strong communist connotations)
Identity is too “groupish”, with all the negative things it can imply: irrational and unhumanistic traditions, ethnocentrism, collectivism, communautarism, etc. etc.