2 days ago8 min read

Why humanism should make its peace with conservative values

By David Warden

In this article, David explains the social psychology concept of “threat amplification” and he appeals for humanists to understand and appreciate the contribution of conservative values to humanism and democratic debate. David is Editor of Humanistically Speaking and Chairman of Dorset Humanists.

I've just received the latest Humanists UK newsletter (November 2024), which reminds me that one of the core missions of Humanists UK is “to help create a more tolerant society”. The caveat to such tolerance has always been the question of whether we should tolerate intolerance, or indeed any views which are beyond the pale. Should humanists tolerate racism or fascism for example? Of course not, so there are limits to tolerance.

Threat amplification

The problem with the caveat, however, is that views or values which humanists do not like can become subject to the social dynamic of “threat amplification”. This concept in social psychology refers to the process by which a group, community, or society exaggerates or overstates the level of threat it faces, often beyond what is objectively supported by evidence. It may involve heightened emotional responses, distorted narratives, or widespread fear that surpasses the actual level of risk. Amplifying a perceived threat can strengthen group identity and cohesion. By presenting an external danger, group members feel united against a common enemy, reinforcing bonds and loyalty. Biased media coverage can play a major role in amplifying threats because this is what sells newspapers. People tend to seek out and accept information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs, and leaders may amplify threats intentionally to achieve specific goals. I've noticed that the word “threat” often appears in humanist communications. This may be because there genuinely are threats to humanist interests. That would be the rational explanation. Or it may be because this encourages humanists to donate more generously to humanist organisations involved in a “fight” against “threats”. This would be the social psychology explanation. It’s probably a mixture of the two, but as humanists dedicated to Enlightenment values of objectivity and rationality, we need to be aware of social dynamics at play in our own movement. There may be aspects of religion which I find threatening, but as a worldview representative in Bournemouth I try to talk up what we have in common with religious communities rather than highlighting threats.

“Maybe we’ve all become dopamine junkies.”

Since 2016, our political culture has become increasingly polarised and many people have found it difficult to tolerate views and values they dislike. There’s been a powerful dynamic of threat amplification and distortion of opposing views. This polarisation has created fault lines and fissures in friendships, marriages, groups, and entire societies. Social media is partly to blame, because it removes the normal inhibitions which moderate face-to-face encounters. I rarely use Facebook, but when I do, perhaps unwisely, get sucked into political debates online I’m often shocked at how quickly keyboard warriors resort to vitriolic attacks. But I shouldn’t be surprised. Expressing moral outrage against perceived threats to a group and its values can trigger powerful dopamine rewards. Maybe we’ve all become dopamine junkies.

Teachers against fascism

Today, I browsed through the November/December 2024 issue of Educate, published by the National Education Union. On page 19, readers are warned that “We are in the throes of a far-right epidemic”. A photo shows “hundreds of anti-racists mobilised against a threatened far-right gathering at Trafalgar Square, London, on 28 September”. Opening a one-day National Education Union conference – “Educators countering the far right” – general secretary Daniel Kebede called on members to tackle the “filth of the far-right” on the streets and in their communities and workplaces. In a democracy, we should of course be able to oppose views and values we dislike, but to use the dehumanising language of “filth” is a disturbing echo of how Jews were dehumanised as “vermin” in the lead up to the Holocaust. Educate is not a humanist publication, but the National Education Union (NEU) is the largest teaching union in the UK, with over 450,000 members. It represents teachers, support staff, and education professionals in both the state and independent sectors. I expect many humanists belong to it. Joint convenor of the anti-racism organisation “Stand Up to Racism” Weyman Bennett also spoke at the conference. He said, “We have to stop Reform UK and the street movement led by Tommy Robinson coming together” and went on to argue that educators were in the best position to fight the narrative that migrants are to blame for the problems blighting the country. In the afternoon, there were workshops on how to tackle racism and fascism. Tommy Robinson is a controversial figure in the UK. He describes himself as a campaigner against Islamist extremism but his critics often describe him as an anti-Islam campaigner. The vital distinction between these two positions is easily lost in the heat of culture wars. Reform UK is a mainstream political party in the UK which takes a stance against mass immigration. This position is routinely misrepresented as “blaming migrants for the problem blighting the country”. Of course, humanists are against racism and fascism. But we need to be aware of the dynamic of threat amplification which can represent reasonable and widely-held views as scary bogeymen or worse.

Progressive and liberal values

I don’t have any data to hand, but it’s probably fair to say that most humanists subscribe to what have come to be known as “progressive” values. Since the Enlightenment, humanists have been in favour of human progress and “making the world a better place” on the basis of science and rationality. Progress has been couched in terms of getting rid of primitive superstitions, irrational traditions, and religious restrictions on human freedom and sexuality. Since the days of Thomas Paine and Robert Owen, humanism has had a radical and liberal-left bias. Humanists have often been at the forefront of progressive social change, rejecting tribal, racial, national and gender prejudices. We have generally considered ourselves to be feminists, gay liberationists, republicans, and universalists, confident that, with the application of reason and compassion, humans can ultimately build a just and peaceful world. Much good has come from such impulses. Two hundred years ago, England was a virtual theocracy which locked up young humanist heroes such as George Holyoake for atheism. Today, we have an atheist prime minister and no one bats an eyelid. We’ve already had a Hindu prime minister and a black woman has just become leader of the UK Conservative Party. The Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government legalised gay marriage equality over a decade ago.

The flaw in progressive movements

But the flaw in all progressive movements is what I refer to as the “progressive ratchet”. Progressives do not have an off switch. They keep going in the same direction until they fall off a cliff. Humanists think that liberalism and equality are socially beneficial. And in many respects, they have been a force for good. But liberalism and equality are not the only human goods which humanists should be pursuing, because they can lead to undesirable social outcomes. It is at least a reasonable hypothesis to accept that increasing liberty and equality are among the factors that have contributed to family breakdown, social atomisation, loneliness, and poor mental health. Humanists are in favour of universal human rights, but if this has rendered us incapable of privileging the citizens of a nation-state in contrast to the human rights of millions of people wanting to move to more favourable locations, we may find social cohesion coming under enormous strain. This is not because human beings are inherently racist but because we have been programmed by millions of years of evolution to be ethnophilic. We can cope with a certain amount of slow cultural change and ethnic mixing, but if politicians completely disregard human evolutionary psychology there’s bound to be a backlash and sporadic if not endemic conflict.

“Conservatism is often equated with selfishness, but this is a hangover from the bad old days of Thatcherism.”

Why we need conservative values as well as liberal values

Conservatism and humanism are unlikely bedfellows, but humanism does need to appreciate the contribution that conservative values can make to human flourishing if humanism is not to become unbalanced and intolerant. Conservatism is often equated with selfishness, but this is a hangover from the bad old days of Thatcherism. As a political creed, Thatcherism owed more to liberalism than classical conservatism. It unleashed the animal spirits of financiers and entrepreneurs, but the Enlightenment economist Adam Smith wisely recognised that economic dynamism needs to operate within an overall culture of morality. The mantra “greed is good” is a travesty of conservative values.

Conservatism is not an ideology as such. It is based on the insight that human beings are imperfect and that the socialist impulse to create a perfectly just society is a secular version of Christian millenarianism. Conservatives are more in tune with evolutionary psychology and the reality of the human situation. They accept that, in many respects, we are unequal in terms of intelligence, aptitude, physique, sexual attractiveness, inheritance and social capital. Instead of wanting to flatten out such inequalities in pursuit of a social justice utopia, they want humans to compete and to make the most of their talents for the good of all. At the same time, they want everyone to have a good education and opportunities for social mobility. Grammar schools were one way to achieve this but socialist dogma, stupidly adopted by Conservatives in the 1970s, closed most of them down.

Conservatives believe in the value of conserving one’s own indigenous culture. This is not about chauvinism and jingoism, as expressed in the playful exuberance of Last Night of the Proms. It’s about valuing our landscape, our buildings, our literature and music, our common law, our liberty, and our sovereignty. We value these things because they are our unique inheritance and together they create a sense of belonging and homecoming when we’ve been abroad. It’s not about denigrating other cultures. An Englishman can love France because of its Frenchness, at the same time as loving England because of its Englishness.

Two hundred years ago, England was virtually a monocultural Protestant theocracy. But gradually, the progressive impulse has helped us tolerate and then fully integrate Catholics, Jews, atheists, homosexuals and many other identity groups. Before the Second World War, England was mostly white. But since the War and the end of empire, we have absorbed people of many different cultures and ethnicities and we can be proud of our good record in building a tolerant multicultural society. Sir Trevor MacDonald is just as British as Sir Ian McKellen.

Conservatives recognise, however, that there are limits to the capacity of indigenous cultures to absorb and successfully integrate non-indigenous ethnicities and cultures. This is not because non-indigenous ethnicities and cultures are seen as inferior. But there are absorption limits and there may be challenges in terms of compatibility. The ideal of a multicultural society is to create a richly textured whole which is held together by bonds of friendship, appreciation, trust, and common values. It is not to create a balkanised society dotted with monocultural islands which do not communicate with other. The reality of this tendency has been documented in Ed Husain’s excellent travelogue Among the Mosques: A Journey Across Muslim Britain (2021). Husain, a liberal Muslim, is worried about the separatist trajectory of many Muslim groups across Britain, especially those which may be described as caliphist. It is not Islamophobic to recognise this problem. The answer is not to demonise Muslims but to create many more opportunities for cultural exchange and dialogue. Humanist groups could take a lead in this.

So when people raise concerns about mass immigration, humanists should resist the impulse to misrepresent them as far-right racists and fascists. Reform UK may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but categorising it as far-right or fascist is, to my mind, a clear example of threat amplification which does nothing to foster healthy democratic debate.

Conclusion

I believe that a healthy democracy needs to foster respectful conversations between liberals and conservatives and socialists. Let’s throw populism into the mix as well. At best, populism just means listening and responding to the concerns and interests of ordinary people. All of these streams belong to our vibrant democracy and each has its own insights. Absolutising one or two of these traditions, while anathematising others, is the road to extremism. Humanists UK, and humanist groups everywhere, should play their part in fostering these conversations and in so doing we will be helping to create a more tolerant and less divided society.