Talk:Antihumanism

untitled
Uhm, does this even exist? I've googled the term but this particular meaning doesn't seem to show up. Perhaps this article is a joke. Alienus 05:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Apparently this comment made before and illustrative of why the article has its current slant. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Dead serious-
Recently came across a current description for a Comparative Culture seminar in Autumn 2006 at Columbia called  [CLME G4003]. So far, anyway, it does not appear the course has any registrants. I can not quote the entire description here, of course, but it includes references to Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, and Edward Said. I ran a search and came up with an eponymous URL (copyright 2005,maybe later than the previous comment). The page text is basically a rant that includes phrases like 'thinning the herd,' 'breeding better humans,' and an insert [which links to a Foucault page] noting a purported assertion by Nietzche that Antihumanism was the true humanism. It (antihumanism) may (or may not) be an historical artifact, but it was/is no joke.


 * Don't know about the Columbia course, but the eponymous URL, http://www.antihumanism.com/, is a 3-page web site that may well be someone's personal web site. I don't know that there is any evidence of a real organization. It doesn't seem to be a reliable reference. And the "anti-humanism" it describes doesn't at all match the description of anti-humanism in the Wikipedia article anyway. -Rhwentworth 04:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Antihumanism or Anti-humanism?
I think there's a need for clarification: the author of this article seems to take one specific doctrine of certain 'scientific' approaches to humanism, whereas I am familiar with a kind of anti-humanism that instead deconstructs the 'universalism's of humanism (eg certain conceptions of personal identity, ideas of anachronistic human qualities), and often positions itself in opposition to the post-enlightenment theory that the article's subject seems to embody itself. We need to clarify the terms- and also that of 'humanism', which itself changes significance in a variety of contexts (my experience of humanism has been primarily mediated through knowledge of literary movements such as liberal humanism and the ideas of A.C. Bradley.

I have deleted the ideas and origins sections of this article as they bear no relationship to those who would calls themselves anti-humanists such as Heidegger, Althusser, Derrida, Foucault, and Deleuze.

References needed
Wikipedia requires that articles be verifiable. This article has no references to anti-humanism. Unless references can be supplied, material in this article should be considered for deletion. -Rhwentworth 15:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I find a few references to "antihumanism":
 * http://www.rebelion.org/harnecker/althusser251102.pdf
 * http://www.crimsonbird.com/cgi-bin/a.cgi?j=0870236954
 * http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-15071

So, the word exists. But it is not clear that it is used in any coherent way. It might just be a recurrent neologism? -Rhwentworth 04:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Errol Morris claims to be "secular anti-humanist".

Never heard of this
I'm a secular humanist, and I've never heard of this whatsoever. (unsigned)


 * Agreed. This article needs deletion. Alienus 02:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. If you've never heard of it, then it doesn't exist.


 * Antihumanism was of course revendicated by Louis Althusser as in attack not on the Enlightenment, as some have misinterpretated his theory, but on the liberal ideology of individualism, i.e. "humanism". From a Marxist perspective, there is nothing sacred about "Humanity" (see Stirner's critique of Feuerbach), and Marx criticized the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen on the grounds that they were not universal as they claimed to be, but relative to the bourgeois who proclaimed it. Thus, antihumanism as used by Althusser was not a pejorative term: in Marxist circles, it was rather to be "humanist" that was considered pejorative. Michel Foucault's famous description of the evanescence of the "figure of man" like "figures in the sand" in the end of Words and Things also gave interest to this neologism, which has since been used by critics of structuralism to claim that these theories &mdash; and the alleged postmodernist theories that succeeded to them &mdash; were "anti-humanists", that is "against-human", in other words fascists. This is of course a gross (purposeful?) misinterpretation of the original sense of the term. Santa Sangre 12:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not surprisingly, the google search above gave an Althusser text... Santa Sangre 12:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: Although I do not know that Martin Heidegger explicitly used the term, it is clear that his "Letter on humanism" or "Existentialism is not an humanism" is far from being an apology of humanism, and may be considered as foundator in many senses of "antihumanism". I would argue that Althusser's declared "antihumanism" may easily be said to be influenced by Heidegger's displacement of the question of the subject to the Dasein (not to be mistaken with a psychological - or universal, for that matter - subject; i.e. it is not consciousness); as for Foucault, Dreyfus & Rabinow have shown in their famous book in which ways Heidegger had influenced his thought. Santa Sangre 12:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This Does Exist
Althusser developed his theory of anti-humanism in a portion of his book "For Marx" titled "The Humanist Controversy". Other antihumanist (or ahumanist) authors followed. I don't recall specifically, but there are at least two collections of essays I remember seeing, "What Comes After the Subject?", and a sort of dry bit written by a famous female theorist which I beleive was simply called "Antihumanism".

Althusser's personal take on the matter is sometimes called "theoretical antihumanism", which highlights the fact that the theory is not misanthropic, but only theoretically opposed to the /category/ of human, and also refers to his "theory of theories", which Althusser thought would necessarily be anti-humanist.

Outsider's Opinion
As someone who knows nothing about this theory, I cannot figure out what it is. A good entry should leave me with a clear definition at the minimum, and this article does not do that. I would recommend a re-do of the first paragraph to more clearly state what antihumanism is.Minidoxigirli 01:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is one term of a Marxist argument. Without an understanding of the general theory it will be hard to understand a segement of it. Car54 00:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Then at least give a brief summary or overview of the argument, and of its place in the general theory, because right now, I totally agree with the user above. Besides, how can something (a belief system or stance) be "not misanthropic, but only theoretically opposed to the /category/ of human,"? Almost sounds like the reverse of traditional Christianity (which was only against the physical reality of humans, not the abstract spiritual "idea"). Shanoman (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Antihumanism" does not mean opposition to humanity; it signifies opposition to the belief that there is such a thing as "human nature"; "antihumanism" means opposition to the idea of humanity. It means a rejection of the idea that human beings have an essence, that there are certain unchanging properties of human beings that were an individual fail to possess, he could not be said to be human. Historically, the idea of such an unchanging human nature has been used as the basis for projects of political and social emancipation.


 * For instance, Karl Marx believed human beings to be fundamentally productive. On this premise he argued that because under industrial capitalism, the means of production are privately owned, the worker is robbed of what he produces and thus "alienated" and dehumanised by work and society. Marx believed that the collective ownership of factories, steelworks, etc. established by communism would restore dignity to work and end the antagonistic opposition between individuals. Similarly, Immanuel Kant argued that because every human individual can be said to possess an innate Reason, human emancipation would be realised in the establishment of a state wherein each individual has the freedom to think for himself and use his own understanding without fear of coercion.


 * The essence of human beings is that they are social i.e. a set of social relations. If you divorce a human being from all social interaction (deprive him or her of any socialisation) will you end up with a human being? No. You can't sit, eat, deficate, walk, not even crawl, without socialisation. The contradiction of this system is that we are socialised to be anti social, and so the anti-social individualistic self (appearance) parades as a human essence in capitalist society. This is a point Hegel (at least with respect to the human being as a social animal) and Marx emphasise in their works. Second, Marx did not believe that workers are 'robbed' of what they produce. The use of such jargon is almost an unwitting confession by the expositor that s/he has little or no first hand knowledge of his work. If you were to read Marx in this way (capitalism as violating the laws of exchange) then his theories (labour theory of value, theory of surplus value, capital accumulation, falling rate of profit, etc.) would not make any sense.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * One work that critiques these sort of beliefs is Foucault's antihumanist Madness and Civilisation. It highlights that in the 18th century, because it was believed that the capacity to reason was what distinguished a human being from an animal, insane people could be treated as animals, as they had renounced reason. Hanshans23 (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and perhaps you could also add as an example of Foucault's antihumanist stance, his unwavering support for the Islamic theocracy after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Clean up
Some needs to clean up this article. Some of the stuff in there about evolution, etc. have nothing to do with the subject. Car54 00:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This article needs significant work, especially the second on "Ideas". The claims put forward here have nothing to do with any anti-humanist position I've ever come across. I would suggest that this section be erased entire. There should be an opening paragraph that briefly describes the central claims of humanism and links to the Wiki article on humanism. Following this, there should be a discussion of anti-humanism as it was first put forward implicitly in Heidegger's "Letter on Humanism" and then explicitly as theorized by Althusser. Then the remainder of the article should discuss how this concept developed in later figures such as Foucault. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.129.137.2 (talk).

I'm not sure that the humanism sidebar is appropriate for this article at all. It seems like the marxism sidebar would be more appropriate (maybe both if the article was long enough...) as this appears to be of little interest to humanists and of great interest to marxists. — Coelacan | talk 00:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

For students of cultural studies, rhetoric, discourse analysis, and post-structuralism
I am a student at UC Berkeley, and I am taking a rigerous course of training in rhetoric and getting into post-structuralism. I think that it should be organized in the way that the last writer spoke of: 1) Heidegger, 2)Althusser , 3)Foucault and Derrida . The problem is, is there any way to categorize all of their ideas together? Who's ambitious enough to take on this feat? Navidnak 02:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations Please!
An interesting article by any means. However, if you are going to drop names like Marx, Heidegger, and Althusser please include some references. If not particular passages then at least specific works. I am generally familiar with the writings of all three of these authors and agree that they belong in this article, but it would be nice to see some solid quotes and refernece so the idea can be more firmly established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbinsanity (talk • contribs) 07:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. And since the concept is problematic on its own, it doesn't help to have a completely unsourced article. I deleted the "In fiction"-section since it doesn't mention any works of fiction, only various more or less fictionally concepts that has no direct link to the subject of this article. I am also considering nominating this for deletion, although a stubification could also be a way forward. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Intro sentence?
I'm a relative newbie and interested in working on this and related pages (e.g. Posthumanism and the ones that link out from there, including this one). Antihumanism came up for me in a course I taught this past semester for first-year grad students in language, literature, and culture at the University of South Carolina. We read Edward Said's Humanism and Democratic Criticism. Said uses the term "antihumanist" apropos of people who were frustrated with the state of humanism and the humanities in the US in recent decades, in the wake of French theory in the 1960s and 70s and identity politics in the 1980s and 90s. That's one reason why I think it would be nice if this article started out with a broader and simpler definition that could then be elaborated in different ways. Here's what I propose:


 * Antihumanism is a set of ideas, beliefs, and practices responding critically to traditional humanism or to traditional ideas about humanity and the human condition.

Given how actively this page is being edited by some very committed members, I did not want to make a change like this without putting it up for discussion first. Mhbroder (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've noticed a re-write of this article appeared in the Guardian last summer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jun/04/atheistic-critique-of-humanism-forgotten). It's not the first time I've seen a rewrite of something I put on wiki appear in a newspaper. Hanshans23 (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Althusserian reading asserted as fact
The following claim is based on an 'epistemological break' reading Marx, no? Whoever wrote this must be in his 70s or heavily influenced by or obsessed with an Althusserian reading of Marx, a reading which by the way was discredited long ago.

"The young Karl Marx is sometimes considered a humanist,[6] as opposed to the mature Marx who became more forceful in his criticism of human rights as idealist or utopian."

Citations Lost
There are two citations for a source referenced as Halliwell, but I can't find it. Google Books has one by a Halliwell that mentions Derrida, but it has zero mentions of Foucault. Everything else listed by this guy on GB or Amazon is about Classical stuff, and I may not know much philosophy, but I DO know that Derrida came after the Roman Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasCollins (talk • contribs) 08:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I too have been unable to find this alledged source and so I am removing it. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Antihumanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102225447/http://home.southernct.edu:80/~gillilandr1/jobs/WhatBecomesoftheHumanafterHumanism5.htm to http://home.southernct.edu/~gillilandr1/jobs/WhatBecomesoftheHumanafterHumanism5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Karl Marx
the article states, "The young Karl Marx is sometimes considered a humanist". should it say antihumanist? I don't know enough to correct it, but it seems to read inappropriately for the article. Cliff (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The writings of Karl Marx from about 1843 - 1845 are strongly humanistic, clearly betraying the influence of Ludwig Feuerbach. Louis Althusser considered Marx to have broken with humanism and become an anti-humanist thereafter, albeit one who wasn't fully aware of his own anti-humanism -- Hanshans23 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

How do Derrida, Saussure fit in here?
Ideas about language are thrown in here, with no obvious link to anti-humanism other than the fact that Derrida and Saussure were French.

Saussure and Derrida oppose the view of humans as subjects whose conscious intentions control language. Human thought is instead subordinated to the code in which it functions. This is in fact mentioned in the article if you read it more carefully. Hanshans23 (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I've read carefully and it's far from clear JQ (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Positivism and Antihumanism
How does Auguste Comte's positivism even fit here? There's a section which claims Comte's positivism lead to deterministic views of humanity, but doesn't mention what that premise entails for antihumanism. For people that actually know who Comte is, you'd be aware that his version of positivism is hardly anti-humanist, quite the contrary, it's humanistic to levels of mystic worship. 186.20.200.114 (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)