How do we sell humanism if few seem willing to buy?

By Professor Christian Colombo

In this article, Christian observes that it's difficult to get people to join humanist organisations in an increasingly secular society. How do you sell water to fish? He suggests that we could adopt a “brands” approach with humanist organisations acting as “umbrella” structures. Christian is Vice President of Malta Humanists and Associate Professor in the Computer Science Department at the University of Malta.

In Malta, Humanism has only existed as a movement since 2010, enabled by the rise of social media (namely Facebook). The country experienced a fast transition to an increasingly secular society, especially among the young, in the span of just over a decade. As adherence to religion started to wane, many members no longer felt the need to remain active in Humanism. To make matters worse, a good chunk of members who were mainly driven by their anti-clericalism had an aversion to anything “smacking of religion”. So as soon as we started Humanist ceremonies, and gradually stepped back from the association’s rather combative stance on religion, they felt uncomfortable and mostly quietly disappeared. Several other Western countries seem to have had similar experiences over the years, struggling to increase paid memberships.

Seeing the numbers dwindle, our first inclination is to explore ways through which we could perhaps reverse the trend. Should we maybe try to grow into a more active community, closer to what has been achieved in the US with, for example, the St Louis Ethical Society? This could make Humanism feel more grounded, steering it away from being perceived solely as an intellectual pursuit. While I find this personally appealing, I have a hard time seeing it happen in contemporary Europe where belonging and commitment to a group feels no different than choosing a brand which you can switch at any time. In the current climate in Malta, even the Church and big-umbrella political parties who have traditionally been superpowers in the non-profit sector are finding it hard to recruit committed members. Instead, we are seeing the sprouting of a number of smaller parties and interest groups with narrower aims.

Ethical Society of St Louis (photo Aaron Gipperich)

Another option is to consider areas of advocacy beyond our usual focus on secularism, such as ethical issues related to technology and the environment – topics that are current, urgent, and serious, as highlighted by Mike Flood (see link below). We could develop “technology ethics” as a focus area, addressing emerging threats to freedom of thought, such as targeted propaganda on social media platforms. This could be very relevant while at the same time presenting a clear continuation of the Humanist focus. Such an approach could well bring in more members – but would it be enough to mobilise people to join a community, given it lacks a clear “opponent” (such as religion) to campaign against?

This brings me to my next point: as the Western world is shifting towards the right, should Humanism emphasise its left-leaning elements to counteract this? Could this new challenge provide Humanism a clearer “enemy” to fight and bring in more members? On the downside, this could alienate members who are politically right-leaning, as Humanism has traditionally attracted members from across the political spectrum. If taken to an extreme, this approach might lead to explicit political allegiances, or even establishing political parties under the Humanist banner. While this could also be an interesting avenue to explore (as is already the case in various countries – see for example https://humanistfuture.org and https://www.pdh.eu/), it would be a major shift in the Western Humanist movement.

“Can you really promote water to a fish? It’s hard to find a unique selling point.”

Reflecting on all these possibilities, one cannot know for certain if any of them hold promise for a Humanist revival. As our societies have become more secular in their “default” outlook, marketing Humanism in itself has become increasingly hard. For many, advocating for human rights, freedom of thought, separation of church and state, etc., have (thankfully) become second nature and “obvious”. So how do you get people to join and support such an association which doesn’t really stand out? Why should people support Humanism if it isn't promoting controversial views which they can latch onto, but “only” a well-reasoned and level-headed (boring) view on things? Can you really promote water to a fish?

My view is that, as things stand, promoting Humanism in itself has little chance of success in attracting mass membership. It is hard to find a “unique selling point” which is clear and simple enough for people to buy into. By the time you explain Humanism (which is a challenge in itself going by the disagreements among ourselves on what constitutes a minimum statement), most people’s attention would have already wandered away. In the face of these realities, should we give up? My proposal is that we might need to adapt significantly, particularly by considering other strategies and even measures of success.

What if instead of trying to “sell” Humanism in its entirety, we focus on marketing smaller elements of it such as ceremonies, advocacy for narrowly-focused issues, social activism, etc? This is something that large corporations already do through holding companies. Take Alphabet Inc. for example, the parent company of Google and YouTube. It's one of the largest public companies in the world but it's definitely not a household name, unlike its subsidiaries. Similarly, while we might never have heard of the parent companies of many brands we use daily, this doesn’t mean that we don’t benefit from the philosophy behind them, making possible the quality products we enjoy.

Measuring our success by the number of paid-up members, or by how many people choose Humanism as their “philosophy of life”, might not be very meaningful if we adopt such a marketing approach. Instead, it might be more constructive to look at how many people interact with and benefit from our “brands” – various types of advocacy, community groups, projects, ceremonies, etc. – all inspired and driven by the Humanist philosophy. So, one might ask, what is the point of having the umbrella organisation of Humanism when most people just want to interact with its branches? Wouldn't it be easier to dismantle it altogether and focus directly on the branches?

Keeping the same analogy of the holding company with various brands, it's well known that not all brands are equally lucrative. Google and YouTube are Alphabet’s cash cows but this doesn’t stop it from having many other lesser-known brands in which it can invest millions to remain at the forefront of technological research, in line with its overarching mission. Humanism can take the same approach, making it possible (through an umbrella structure) to have a mix of initiatives which fund each other. Ceremonies tend to be popular and lucrative, while advocacy can be harder to get people to pay for. Projects funded nationally and internationally could bring in money to cover salaries which, in turn, could be used as a basis to enable educational campaigns and community building. This is the ingenuity which the high-level management of modern Humanist associations need to muster: to be able to juggle different Humanism-inspired operations, while remaining loyal to the broad Humanist vision. Otherwise, it could be tempting just to focus on the cash cows while neglecting the financial drains, betraying the wider mission.

Apart from providing a practical and reliable way of funding Humanist operations, this proposal offers an opportunity to address the bigger picture. Those of us who are so inclined (and democratically elected) can run Humanism as a “parent company”, making sure that our “brands” evolve and align with contemporary “fashion”. In this sense, secularism could be just one brand, rather than a main, almost synonymous, theme of Humanism.

The Humanist Association of Germany offers services to everyone – not just humanists

What I'm suggesting is not new to Humanism. The Humanist Association of Germany, which receives state funding, runs a plethora of “practical Humanism” projects – offering services “aimed not only at members, but at all interested parties, regardless of their worldview”. With around 2,000 employees and many more volunteers, these services encompass hospices, child day-care centres, youth clubs, and exhibitions and concerts. Isn't the Humanist philosophy that inspires these initiatives fulfilling a great purpose even if those on the receiving end might not consider themselves Humanists (or in some cases might not even realise they are using a Humanist service)?

Being practical humanists, we should pause occasionally to reflect on the broader needs of humanity.

We shouldn’t hesitate to rebrand or adjust what we do when necessary. Similarly, we shouldn't shy away from selling bite-sized Humanism through our brands. For some people, the importance of “freedom of thought” is all that we can hope to sell them. For others, a Humanist ceremony (perhaps with only minimal understanding of our philosophy) could be all that they find valuable in what we have to offer. For others still, it could be a policy proposal on digital ethics that captures their attention. This pick and mix approach shouldn’t worry us. Rather, it should help us appreciate what a wide variety of products we have on offer.

To conclude, the context in which Humanists operate has significantly changed in the past decades. The time when we had clear opponents, and easily definable wins, is mostly over – at least in the short term. Rather than aiming to increase our membership numbers at the core, we could shift our focus towards more finely-grained Humanism-inspired causes. Let’s not shy away from establishing new targets and goals. Let’s be innovative and agile in creating new “brands”. Humanism might have lost its mojo for the masses, but its philosophy could still drive many initiatives from which “the masses” may unknowingly benefit.

Further reading

• Ten years of humanism in Malta by Joanna Onions and Christian Colombo

• Is humanism fit for purpose in the 21st century? A response to Mike Flood and an eleven-point blueprint for the future by David Warden

• St Louis Ethical Society

• Is humanism fit for purpose in the 21st century? A call for action by Mike Flood

• International Humanist Party

• The Party of Humanists (PdH – Germany). Wikipedia entry: Partei der Humanisten