INTRODUCTION

HUMANISM is a commonly applied and widely misunderstood term, originally emerging from the
dynamic paradigm-changing influence of the European Renaissance. Descartes, and the many others who
helped to shape the first appearance of the humanist movement, saw for the first time the human being as
not only central in its universe, but also the figure having the potential power to define and control it as
well. When it returned in the 19th century, mainly in the form that is now referred to as liberal
humanism, it was responsible for supporting the whole romantic movement which placed such an
emphasis on individual passion, and even parts of the modernist movement which although essentially
reacting against romanticism, shared (perhaps unintentionally) many of the main characteristics of liberal
humanism. The intention of this paper is to discuss in more detail the number of contrasting appearances
of humanism and what is today referred to as post-humanism. This is the development
upon humanism which allowed it to become the humanities of today, a form of classification many of us
accept unquestionably without knowing its true origin.
Today, as it will be made clear, a humanist is a word used to refer to someone who bases his or her
conception of reality or truth on human experience and bases values on human nature, rejecting the
superstitions of a supernatural reality existing above our own. The word humanism was actually a term
originally invented by a German educationalist, F. J. Niethammer, in 1808 to describe the study of the
Greek and Latin classics, literae humaniores, 'humane letters', the revival of which had been one of the
distinguishing features of the Italian Renaissance, later spreading to the rest of Europe as 'the New
Learning'. The actual use of the term has since been widened, as will be expanded upon in this article, to
signify theories or doctrines, however varied their conclusions may be, which take human experience as
the starting point for mans knowledge of himself and the work of God. After early Christian
Humanism, a new movement began which was based on the critical, rational methods of scientific
enquiry which Newton had applied so successfully to the natural order and which the philosophies of the
Enlightenment sought to extend to the systematic study of man and society. As a result, a period was
brought in which is now referred to as secular humanisma variation upon the original conception,
directed from the time of Voltaire (1694-1778) and Hume (1711-1776), against the dogmatic claims of
orthodox Christianity which was currently guiding the way people interpreted reality. This form
of humanism emerged from the advancement of the scientific method as the sole source of knowledge. It
was based on the understanding that the natural and human sciences alone can (and in time, will) provide
a comprehensive, rational explanation of the universe and human life, replacing the incomplete and
misleading earlier accounts offered by myth and religion.

In general, then, the different forms of humanism can be viewed as broad tendencies, a dimension of
thought and belief within which are found very different views held together not by a unified structure but
by certain shared assumptions. The two most important of these are: (i) The belief that human beings
have a potential value in themselves and that it is respect for this which is the source of all other human
values and rights, and (ii) the rejection of any system of thought which (a) despairs of Man and denies any
meaning to human life (such as nihilism) or (b) treats him/her as a depraved, worthless creature who can
only be saved by divine grace (such as Calvinism) or (c) is deterministic or reductionist in its view of
human consciousness, or (d) regards men and women as having no value as anything more than
expendable raw material for use or exploitation by political or economic systems (Bullock, Stallybrass &
Trobley, 1988: 396).

ORIGINS OF THE HUMANITIES

The origins of humanism can actually be traced back to the early fourteenth century. As we will see,
rather than representing a sudden shift away from the Medieval period, it represents a movement in which
the old and the new are held together, and was in fact sometimes interpreted as being pagan in that it
supported the study of the false gods of Ancient Greek and Roman culture. In the sixteenth century, the
word humanist was coined to signify one who taught or worked in the studia humanitatis (Latin for the
Humanities)that is as mentioned above grammar, rhetoric, history, poetry and moral philosophy, as
distinguished from fields less concerned with the moral and imaginative aspects and activities of man,
such as mathematics, natural philosophy and theology (Abrams, 1981: 76). The humanism that issued
out of the Italian Renaissance carried within it a constant danger of paganism, i.e. the intellectual and
moral values of Greek and Latin literature, it goes without saying, were not those of Christianity. For a
Protestant such as LutherProtestantism was certainly a movement in religion which was to influence
the suppression of humanism-as if Greek and Latin were not bad enough-Hebrew, the language of the
Jews-was also considered to obscure the central Biblical message rather than help clarify it. The main
reason for the Protestant antagonism towards the humanists is because of their adoption of Aristotle and
Plato. There is a direct link, here, between science and religion. This took place because Protestantism
became an important geo-political factor in distinguishing the northern European powers from the
southern European empires. It involved a specific attitude to the metaphysical systems underpinning
rationalism and most notably neo-Platonism, and generated its own specific attitudes with regard to intersexual relations that had very little to do with courtly romance. Ironically, in England, humanism was
actually to bring with it important educational reform based on the introduction of German cultural ideals
into English thought during a period of active reform of English education following the introduction of
universal manhood suffrage with the Second Reform Bill of 1867.

Although there may have been some conflict with Luther and Protestantism, a difference between
the humanists of the Renaissance and those of later movements was that they remained during the early
year pious Christians. This is why this movement was sometimes referred to as Christian Humanity,
preceding secular humanism as introduced above (Abrams, 1981: 76). It must not be forgotten, of course,
that the only reason the humanists actually had access to texts in these ancient languages was thanks to
the work of monks who worked consistently through ancient history to continually rewrite volumes of the
texts in order to save them from the ravages of timethe monasteries, of course, did not have access to
the printing press which was to be invented during the Renaissance by Gutenburg. Although they may
have been pious Christians, they tended to value the things in this world rather than glorifying the world
hereafter, which was a general characteristic of the humanist movement in general.

LIBERAL HUMANISM & POLITICS

After its appearance in the Renaissance, developments in liberal politics, the study of English literature,
industrialization and other important forms of technological determinism were to see a change in this
form of individualism in the 19th century, particularly Great Britain; liberal politics and political
philosophy had a number of influences on what became instituted as liberal humanism (particularly
thanks to the efforts of the Leavisitesa group of academics cum social activists who worked behind a
literary journal who were to turn the study of English literature into a powerful form of strengthening
cultural identity). According to Abrams (1981: 7) the Victorian era saw many proponents
of humanism which became the natural expression of current political and epistemological ideals; the
example used by Abrams is of Matthew Arnold who was a proponent of humanism in the Victorian
period: Many of Arnolds leading ideas are adaptations of the tenets of the older humanismhis view,
for example, that culture is a perfection of our humanity proper, as distinguished from our animality,
and consists of a harmonious expansion of all the powers which make the beauty and worth of human
nature (Abrams, 1981: 77).
Another important example of humanistic approaches embedded in 19th century thought which connected
this new liberal form of humanism with Renaissance philosophy, was the writing of Mary
Shelleys Frankenstein in 1818. Here liberal humanism is involved with the power that humans have to
equal Godleading to disastrous results in Frankenstein. According Feury & Mansfield (2000: 11) this
important novels purpose has been to use the construction of artificial life as a way of creating an
otherness that threatens the human with its sense of consistent and continuous identity and essence, and
with its self-image as the highest and most circumspect possible form of subjectivity. The general idea,
therefore, has been to question the idea of what it actually means to be human, a subject which has had an
increasing amount of significance in recent years as new forms of technology and treatment involving

ethical and moral issues about, for example, when humanity stops and machines start as devices begin to
take over the function of nerve tissue, or the uncomfortable argument involved with whether or not a
foetus from which stem cells can be harvested are actually human or not, functioning to create increasing
forms of anxiety and uncertainty in occidental culture. In this regard, it has been suggested that
departments of the humanities in higher education are part of the ideological apparatus of the modern
capitalist state (Eagleton, 1983: 200).
Humanism itself, then, came to be applied to the view of humanity, the general values, and the
educational ideas common to many Renaissance humanists, as well as to later writers in the same
tradition. Before we move on to a more detailed study of these particular developments, Id like to
present a few explanations related to the political movements which were to influence it. Liberal political
philosophy explores the foundations of the principles most commonly associated with liberal politics:
freedom, toleration, individual rights, constitutional democracy and the rule of law. Liberals hold that
political organizations are justified by the contribution they make to the interests of individuals, interests
which can be understood apart from the idea of society and politics. The challenge for political
philosophy is to design a social framework that provides this security and predictability, but represents at
the same time a safe and reasonable compromise among the disparate demands of individuals. The
deepest commitment of liberal political philosophy is to individualism as a fundamental proposition about
value; it is thanks to developments in individualism that liberal philosophy has a connection to humanism.
In the nineteenth century, philosophical liberalism is represented, first, in the utilitarian theories of
Bentham and J. S. Mill, and later in the Idealism of T. H. Green. It is clear, then, that an element of
liberal individualism involves an insistence on the rights of individual reason. This involves not just
freedom of thought, conscience or discussion, but a deeper demand about justification in politics: the
demand that rules and institutions of social life must be justified at the tribunal of each individuals
reason. Liberals accord intrinsic value to people as individuals, and attach particular importance to each
individuals capacity to organize a life on their own terms.

LIBERAL HUMANISM & ENGLISH LITERATURE

The Leavisites introduced above soon became attached to the liberal humanist movement because of
their progressive political beliefs and their devotion to English literature as a means of drycleaning the
soul. This group was defined by its rigid adherence to a very specific canon of English texts, its
concentration on the close reading of texts, its faith in the vitality of language as an indication of the
well-being of a culture, and its resolute antagonism to industrial society and the culture it produced
(Fuery & Mansfield, 2000: 12). The study of English, then, was to learn from the English texts that
represented their expression of essentially humanistic aims, i.e. studying English literature became the

means by which people attained what used to be achievable during the Renaissance by studying ancient
literature. According to Fuery & Mansfield (2000: 14), language was considered the lifeblood of a
given culture where the debasement of its language could reflect and contribute to the degradation of the
lives of its citizens. Basically this meantat least according to Eagleton (1983: 207-8), that studying
literature according to the rules instituted by liberal humanism will really make you a better person. This
almost transcendent belief in the power of literature upon the individual was very important in structuring
the views of the Leavisites and all the people they influenced thanks to their literary journal.

The value of studying literature, especially since the post-humanist movement which has questioned
many of the abstract and no longer applicable laws of liberal humanism, provides the student with a basic
set of useful critical skills which he or she can use not only to make sense of literature, but also his/her
environment and/or the reality which they are surrounded by (and which they create in the constant
process of daily existence). According to Eagleton (1983: 200-201), the very meaning of higher
education involves the fact that they make use of this set of critical skills to interrogate the authority by
which they [the values] are transmitted. The usefulness of literature in this sense, however, is indeed a
problem which romanticism fought against, evoking as it does paper-clips and hairdryers (1983:
208). Eagleton again provides us with his historical explanation: The Romantic opposition to the
utilitarian ideology of Capitalism has made use an unusable word: for the aesthetes, the glory of art is its
utter uselessness (ibid.). Liberal humanistcriticism is not wrong, however, to use literature, but it is
wrong for the movement to attempt to convince itself otherwise; utility, from the philosophical, cultural
or political perspective, is an obvious facet that makes literature a useful area of study. Liberal humanist
critics, then, want to achieve through their studies far more than just the interpretation of literature or its
historical account. They wish to discuss literature in ways which will deepen, enrich and extend our
lives (Eagleton, 1983: 210). This belief is one shared with most socialist and feminist critics, although
this second group of critics wishes to point out how such deepening and enriching can result in social
change, i.e. the transformation of a society divided by class and gender. This is a particular example of
the taboo subject of utility which flaws the argumentation of traditional liberal humanists. The
acceptance of the ultimate utility of some forms of art in removing the hierarchical divisions of
contemporary occidental society has led to the development of what is today referred to as the new
humanities, discourse or cultural studies where the active cultural side to the realisation of literature is
included in part of its study. Eagleton has entitled this as a new form of rhetoric, although discourse
theory or cultural studies are variations upon similar ideals, i.e. that in order to use literature as an
epistemological way of discovering the world, many different perspectives can be taken and the student
can pick and choose between them, ultimately meaning that as humanists the individual has the choice

him or herself about which methods to apply (they just have to know how to apply these
methods). Eagleton describes this phenomenon as follows:
"Discourses, sign-systems and signifying practices of all kinds, from film and television to
fiction and the languages of natural science, produce effects, shape forms of
consciousness and unconsciousness, which are closely related to the maintenance or
transformation of our existing systems of power. They are thus closely related to what it
means to be a person. Indeed ideology can be taken to indicate no more than this
connection the link or nexus between discourses and power
(Eagleton, 1983: 210)