What do you think?
Rate this book
Humanism: The wreck of Western culture
Part of the "Paladin Movements and Ideas" series, this book takes the opposite view of the claim that scientific humanism is the pinnacle of human civilization, and traces an alternative record of humanism's effects and failures.
240 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
4 people are currently reading
69 people want to read
About the author
John Carroll
18 books4 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
John Carroll is a professor of sociology at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia, and a fellow of the Center for Cultural Sociology at Yale University.
John Carroll is a professor of sociology at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia, and a fellow of the Center for Cultural Sociology at Yale University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
September 7, 2015
This book deserved a solid one star. I disagreed with Carroll's theistic critique of humanism, but this is not the whole reason for my ire. Carroll's history of humanism is very narrow, lacks nuicance and depth of analysis, at times is grossly wrong (misconstrued) and feels like it merely floats upon the surface of a European movement which is part of a few different Euporean, American and International movements and periods while freezing the concept of humanism in some undefined concept which his whole book presupposses (i.e., that selfishness/moral egoism/hedonism are the basis of and synonymous with humanism and freewill). Carroll has a few very interesting ideas, interpretations and, removed from the body of his work, a few interesting aphorisms, but scholarary techique is missing, a thorough engagement with Humanism is missing, and presupposition (dogma?) not analysis rules his narrative and arguments. As well, an assumption that Western culture (whatever that is) has died even though when it was alive is undefined too. Furthermore, 《Humanism》reads like a series of lecture notes for an introductory class which lack quotations, citations and any room for questions: Carroll lecturs with the 'truth', with superiority - with arrogance? - and as he tells us this truth, his tone at times sounds bored, burdenned even, with its long summeries (justifications) of paintings, plays, Henry James, and John Ford; his blatant misinterpretation of Darwin; his (like too many's) admiration of Frued's and Marx's 'science' and methods; and his dogmatic approach to Max Weber.
All in all, I wish I could post a picture of me burning this book as my statement of review.
All in all, I wish I could post a picture of me burning this book as my statement of review.
September 14, 2013
Excellent book and read it at a timely stage in my life. The back sleeve details the triumphs of humanism at some length and then deftly announces that the book is not going to tell this story but instead uncover the delusions and failures that have driven and spun out of the humanist project. Starting with Luther's denouncement of Erasmus that 'you are not devout', covering key texts and art-works in the 500 year span of humanism, up to Freud's theories about the depth and dynamics of the human psyche, this book is an expose of the stumbling shadows going on behind the great hopes of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Romanticism and the entry into the Modernist era, whilst covering Reformation and Counter-Reformation challenges. Carroll himself has deep sympathies with both the Judeo-Christian and Greek tragic traditions and makes it clear that he thinks one of humanism's major errors was to unmoor itself from the deeper currents of faith experienced in darkness, awareness of sublime and demonic dimensions and an acceptance of trial and suffering. This is tackling similar themes to John Gray's books, such as Straw Dogs, but from a different, more traditional angle, but with a similar degree of perspicacity and commitment. There is a telling phrase lodged in the middle of the book, where Carroll tells of one person's yearning for the clear and simple ground of Christianity in an earlier age - probably located within the monastic and feudal certainties of the Dark/Middle ages - and a delusion in itself, in terms of its relationship to the perennial complexities of life, though a helpful and comforting one for many in its various manifestations.
He cites Nietzsche as both the most clear denouncer of the groundlessness of humanism and announcer of its apotheosis in his self-confident prophecy of the Superman, before he himself descended into madness. Kierkegaard is identified as perhaps the only philosopher to make a serious attempt to haul Western culture back from the humanist cliff, alongside religious and artistic efforts - citing his model of three modes of life, the aesthetic (or pleasure), the ethical and the religious. Carroll thought that the Puritan bourgeois culture had its own virtues of hard work, piety and family, on which the humanist concerns of pleasure and comfort built and to a certain extent trumped, confining life for too many to the mere aesthetic. Kierkegaard is deemed not to have succeeded but is clearly valued for laying down seeds in his attempts. Kant is given some credit for attempting to re-establish some kind of moral order after emphases on liberty or utilitarian calculuses reduced people to the often shallow motives of liberalism but is accused of naivety in thinking that people, once becoming aware of the 'moral law', will necessarily follow it. Here Carroll reaches back to the Greek proto-humanism of Socrates (via Plato), who equated evil with ignorance and had an optimistic view of humanity, being as he was a mouthpiece of the post-tragic Greek philosophic tradition. He tears into Marx and Darwin, affording both short-shrift in terms of intellectual achievement and instead accusing them of contributing to the destruction of much that was of value in the West. He is particularly damning of Marx who apparently had never visited a factory in his life, despite invitations from Engels. Darwin's writing failed to distinguish between human and animal violence, making a god of Biology and leading to an interesting but reductive emphasis on that realm, at the expense of the human and metaphysical. Carroll is a little kinder to Freud but thinks that he opened up the door to 'the unconscious' following Nietzsche's lead in valorising the Dionysian, and acting as a 'Pied Piper' to the lost citizens of the 20th century who sought some kind of salvation in psychoanalysis from the confines of their stifled existence.
The French revolution was a successful vehicle for humanist ideals, at its height elevating Reason to the status of a deity but conservative instincts meant that the British, in their own process of reform, kept hold of some older values, tempering the pioneering spirit. Parliamentary democracy has been retained as an ideal, forged over many centuries of careful evolution, despite some humanist urges to overturn and reach beyond it. Carroll clearly has some respect for conservatives, like Burke, who were sceptical of insurrectionary instincts. Reason, one of the great treasures of the humanist tradition, particularly in its Enlightenment manifestation, is put in its place as having only limited power, knowledge too is not held as of supreme importance, free will is downplayed but not completely negated, whilst the imagination is acknowledged as having tremendous breadth, which gave tragic scope for the many delusions of the humanist project. There is a sense of verticality in his vision, acknowledging the importance of hierarchy to complement the horizontality of community and is unimpressed by humanist cries for equality which animated many of the democratic revolutions and continues to be a rallying cry for many political projects. Carroll does give humanism credit where credit is due, for providing the intellectual background to the many achievements of science that have improved life for so many in the West, as well as the celebration of life that humanism was so keen to embody. We live surrounded by triumphs of scientific endeavor, enjoying electrical power in our homes, entertained by the works of artists for whom religion is a background private concern, if at all and debating the ethics of genetic engineering and nano-technology. Humanism has succeeded in demonstrating the power of the human will and is increasingly putting evolution in our own hands. What thinkers like Carroll will continually urge people to consider is the hubristic dangers of such power and the inability of innovations to deliver deeper satisfaction, beyond the admitted progress, in terms of material comfort. He wonders near the end of the book where next civilisation will go, whilst acknowledging that it cannot avoid influence from the towering lights in Western traditions such as Plato and Shakespeare, as well as what is embedded and carried forth in our own characters, consciously or unconsciously. Carroll acknowledges that the next stage is unknown and the possibility that it will conform to some of his own desires and biases is entirely uncertain, however much he hopes that a Kierkegaard-like figure will succeed in awakening civilisation to the anchoring depth of religious faith, which the Reformation only had partial success with, in relation to Renaissance humanism.
In the penultimate chapter of the book, Carroll goes into some considerable detail examining the films of Henry Ford, a director I am unfamiliar with, but one who apparently explored the theme of the search for ground throughout a long and prolific career. This chapter seems rather token and off-key, bearing in mind the focus on literary and artistic giants through the rest of the book, but Ford's films clearly speak to Carroll's concerns and film providing an appropriate vehicle to examine 20th century reflections. I ended up skipping over most of the chapter, deciding it was indulgent and unnecessary to the overall purpose of the book. Perhaps I would have felt different if I'd seen any of Ford's films.
This is a sobering, deep and critical book. Carroll speaks of a 'sacred rage' which he thinks has been lost by those optimistic and self-reliant heroes of the humanist era and it is clear that a degree of sacred rage, disciplined by his clarity of mind and taut writing, drove the accomplishment of this book. There is much that is missing from this text - don't expect any commentary on gender or environmental issues, nor indeed any great exploration of the economic, though bear in mind it was published in 1993 and I am guessing by a man of a senior age. Another omission is the phenomenon of anarchism, which is one of the extreme examples of humanist possibility, though perhaps its marginal influence meant Carroll thought it not worthy of inclusion. Certainly, the history of the late 19th and 20th century is littered with examples of various anarchic and Dionysian movements of different flavours, which Romanticism partly anticipated and which both a writer like Nietzsche and one like Carroll would understand in their context. This is high philosophy in a traditional sense of the word, with close allegiance to the Western canon, making no reference to anything outside Europe or America, nor to pagan traditions other than the Greek. It lacks humour or levity and perhaps that exclusion is a function of the focus of the book, seeking to deflate the high-flying balloon of humanist achievement. What it does have is insight and an intent to unmask the perceived usurper of what Carroll cherishes dearly from older Western traditions. If you approach the book with that awareness, there is much to learn from this writer and I personally found it refreshing and fortifying to engage with someone who has such clear-sightedness of the structure, sequence and shortcomings of the humanism that imbues the societies we live in at the moment, without offering any glib answers as to how to proceed. Like all the best writers in the wisdom tradition, he advises awareness of the shadow and cautions us not to get caught in attractive delusions, lest we lose our moorings from the truer currents of life.
He cites Nietzsche as both the most clear denouncer of the groundlessness of humanism and announcer of its apotheosis in his self-confident prophecy of the Superman, before he himself descended into madness. Kierkegaard is identified as perhaps the only philosopher to make a serious attempt to haul Western culture back from the humanist cliff, alongside religious and artistic efforts - citing his model of three modes of life, the aesthetic (or pleasure), the ethical and the religious. Carroll thought that the Puritan bourgeois culture had its own virtues of hard work, piety and family, on which the humanist concerns of pleasure and comfort built and to a certain extent trumped, confining life for too many to the mere aesthetic. Kierkegaard is deemed not to have succeeded but is clearly valued for laying down seeds in his attempts. Kant is given some credit for attempting to re-establish some kind of moral order after emphases on liberty or utilitarian calculuses reduced people to the often shallow motives of liberalism but is accused of naivety in thinking that people, once becoming aware of the 'moral law', will necessarily follow it. Here Carroll reaches back to the Greek proto-humanism of Socrates (via Plato), who equated evil with ignorance and had an optimistic view of humanity, being as he was a mouthpiece of the post-tragic Greek philosophic tradition. He tears into Marx and Darwin, affording both short-shrift in terms of intellectual achievement and instead accusing them of contributing to the destruction of much that was of value in the West. He is particularly damning of Marx who apparently had never visited a factory in his life, despite invitations from Engels. Darwin's writing failed to distinguish between human and animal violence, making a god of Biology and leading to an interesting but reductive emphasis on that realm, at the expense of the human and metaphysical. Carroll is a little kinder to Freud but thinks that he opened up the door to 'the unconscious' following Nietzsche's lead in valorising the Dionysian, and acting as a 'Pied Piper' to the lost citizens of the 20th century who sought some kind of salvation in psychoanalysis from the confines of their stifled existence.
The French revolution was a successful vehicle for humanist ideals, at its height elevating Reason to the status of a deity but conservative instincts meant that the British, in their own process of reform, kept hold of some older values, tempering the pioneering spirit. Parliamentary democracy has been retained as an ideal, forged over many centuries of careful evolution, despite some humanist urges to overturn and reach beyond it. Carroll clearly has some respect for conservatives, like Burke, who were sceptical of insurrectionary instincts. Reason, one of the great treasures of the humanist tradition, particularly in its Enlightenment manifestation, is put in its place as having only limited power, knowledge too is not held as of supreme importance, free will is downplayed but not completely negated, whilst the imagination is acknowledged as having tremendous breadth, which gave tragic scope for the many delusions of the humanist project. There is a sense of verticality in his vision, acknowledging the importance of hierarchy to complement the horizontality of community and is unimpressed by humanist cries for equality which animated many of the democratic revolutions and continues to be a rallying cry for many political projects. Carroll does give humanism credit where credit is due, for providing the intellectual background to the many achievements of science that have improved life for so many in the West, as well as the celebration of life that humanism was so keen to embody. We live surrounded by triumphs of scientific endeavor, enjoying electrical power in our homes, entertained by the works of artists for whom religion is a background private concern, if at all and debating the ethics of genetic engineering and nano-technology. Humanism has succeeded in demonstrating the power of the human will and is increasingly putting evolution in our own hands. What thinkers like Carroll will continually urge people to consider is the hubristic dangers of such power and the inability of innovations to deliver deeper satisfaction, beyond the admitted progress, in terms of material comfort. He wonders near the end of the book where next civilisation will go, whilst acknowledging that it cannot avoid influence from the towering lights in Western traditions such as Plato and Shakespeare, as well as what is embedded and carried forth in our own characters, consciously or unconsciously. Carroll acknowledges that the next stage is unknown and the possibility that it will conform to some of his own desires and biases is entirely uncertain, however much he hopes that a Kierkegaard-like figure will succeed in awakening civilisation to the anchoring depth of religious faith, which the Reformation only had partial success with, in relation to Renaissance humanism.
In the penultimate chapter of the book, Carroll goes into some considerable detail examining the films of Henry Ford, a director I am unfamiliar with, but one who apparently explored the theme of the search for ground throughout a long and prolific career. This chapter seems rather token and off-key, bearing in mind the focus on literary and artistic giants through the rest of the book, but Ford's films clearly speak to Carroll's concerns and film providing an appropriate vehicle to examine 20th century reflections. I ended up skipping over most of the chapter, deciding it was indulgent and unnecessary to the overall purpose of the book. Perhaps I would have felt different if I'd seen any of Ford's films.
This is a sobering, deep and critical book. Carroll speaks of a 'sacred rage' which he thinks has been lost by those optimistic and self-reliant heroes of the humanist era and it is clear that a degree of sacred rage, disciplined by his clarity of mind and taut writing, drove the accomplishment of this book. There is much that is missing from this text - don't expect any commentary on gender or environmental issues, nor indeed any great exploration of the economic, though bear in mind it was published in 1993 and I am guessing by a man of a senior age. Another omission is the phenomenon of anarchism, which is one of the extreme examples of humanist possibility, though perhaps its marginal influence meant Carroll thought it not worthy of inclusion. Certainly, the history of the late 19th and 20th century is littered with examples of various anarchic and Dionysian movements of different flavours, which Romanticism partly anticipated and which both a writer like Nietzsche and one like Carroll would understand in their context. This is high philosophy in a traditional sense of the word, with close allegiance to the Western canon, making no reference to anything outside Europe or America, nor to pagan traditions other than the Greek. It lacks humour or levity and perhaps that exclusion is a function of the focus of the book, seeking to deflate the high-flying balloon of humanist achievement. What it does have is insight and an intent to unmask the perceived usurper of what Carroll cherishes dearly from older Western traditions. If you approach the book with that awareness, there is much to learn from this writer and I personally found it refreshing and fortifying to engage with someone who has such clear-sightedness of the structure, sequence and shortcomings of the humanism that imbues the societies we live in at the moment, without offering any glib answers as to how to proceed. Like all the best writers in the wisdom tradition, he advises awareness of the shadow and cautions us not to get caught in attractive delusions, lest we lose our moorings from the truer currents of life.
November 10, 2019
Read as a salve to Pinker's uni-dimensional humanist apologetic The Better Angels of our Nature. And it mostly fit the bill. Carrol's Humanism is more of a collection of art essays, discussing everything from Holbein's The Ambassators to Hamlet and on to John Ford's westerns in the mid 20th century. Through his analysis he reveals the rise and fall of the humanist ethos as it further distanced itself from Christian theology, European collective myth, faith, and the spirit. Some of his essays are amazing, others mere placeholders - certainly parts II and III marking the development and fall of humanism are worth studying closely. I'll be revisiting this when I have a better familiarity with the source artists and texts.
February 6, 2020
Probably a little overdone, and lacking rigour here and there. But his basic point is probably on target.
June 11, 2023
At times sharp and insightful or even brilliant, but too apodictic and apocalyptic as a whole.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews