Dictionary of New Humanism

A

ACTION
(L. actionem). In the sphere of human relations, every manifestation of intention or expression of interest capable of influencing a given situation. For example, social a. (strikes, public protest, declarations in the mass media), political a. (participation in elections, political demonstrations, negotiations, participation in elected bodies), diplomatic a., military a., etc.
The existence of extreme or diametrically opposed positions does not invalidate the broad gamut of possibilities that constitute a. in general. While anarchists place absolute priority on direct a., Buddhists tend to overvalue passivity.
In one’s personal life, a combination of more or less codified actions called “conduct” or “behavior” can be observed. Humanist psychology (*) discovers in the image the direction of the consciousness toward the world, and understands this as intentional activity and not at all as passivity, simple reflection, or deformation of perception.
N.H. postulates: 1) the recognition of freedom of a. within a matrix of situational conditions and responsibility toward oneself and others; 2) the evaluation of ends and forms of a. in relation to their correspondence with the values of humanism.
In conformity with the previous postulates we can speak of the coherence or incoherence of an a.
ACTION FRONT
Activist organization that unites members of a given social sector in the struggle to defend their interests. Today, grassroots organizations are able to develop thanks to the expansion of different a. f. considered as “converging diversities” in their objective of producing progressive changes or changes by demonstration effect (*) in the present power structure. In this sense, organized labor cannot confine itself to the limits proposed by the existing system of unions and guilds, removed as these are from the social base and progressively tending towards isolated hierarchies. Grassroots labor associations that join together to form autonomous a. f. with multiple ties to other fronts constitute a new form of organization and action that corresponds to the process of destructuring (*) and decentralization that can be observed today in all fields. 
ACTIVE NON-VIOLENCE
The strategy for struggle of N.H., which consists of the systematic denunciation of all forms of violence exercised by the System. Also, a tactic for struggle applied in specific situations where discrimination of any type is occurring.
ADAPTATION
(From adapt and from the L. adaptare). A characteristic of living beings through which they are able to survive when their environment changes. Compatibility between a structure and its environment. Without entering into the debate concerning the meaning of the terms structure (*) and environment (*), we note in passing that: 1) the development of a structure in interaction with its environment is termed growing a.; 2) in stable a. a structure may remain more or less invariant, but will tend to destructure (*destructuring) as the environment changes; 3) in decreasing a., the structure tends to become isolated from its environment and, correlatively, the differentiation of its internal elements increases; 4) in cases where non-adaptation occurs, two variants can be observed: a) situations of decreasing a. either through isolation from or deterioration of the environment; and b) situations of surpassing an environment that has become insufficient for maintaining interactive relationships. Every growing a. leads to a progressive modification of both the structure and its environment and, in that sense, entails the new surpassing the old (*). Finally, in a closed system, the disarticulation of structure and environment is produced.
In general terms, N.H. favors personal and social conducts of growing a., while questioning conformity and non-adaptation. 
ADMINISTRATION
(From administer and from the L. administrare. Also from the L. gestio: the act of administering). Management, direction. Professional activity of establishing objectives and the means to realize them, designing the organization of systems, preparing the strategies for development and managing personnel.
Important distinctions: direct a., through command, and indirect a., through incentives and penalties. Additionally, three styles can be observed: democratic, with the participation of the collectivity; authoritarian, with power held by a single individual; and liberal, which allows compromises and lessens rigidity in the implementation of decisions. These methods are used in different combinations in different systems. The modus operandi of the Armed Forces, of businesses, teaching centers and social organizations will all differ from each other due to the nature of each of these institutions. In different circumstances and times, the methods of a. cannot be the same.
No State can function without an administrative apparatus. Any group or institution requires management, the development of goals and means to reach those goals, the mobilization of resources to fulfill them, the expression of the collective will, etc. Without guidance, any system loses its direction. While administrative cadres need to be developed through democratic procedures, their training requires specialization, instruction in appropriate educational centers, and the understanding and practice of social activities.
AGGRESSION
(L. aggressio, from aggredi, to attack. The use of the adjective “aggressive” to refer to something dynamic, active and resolute is an Anglicism). Action and effect of attacking, an act contrary to the rights of another. Armed attack of one nation against another in violation of international law.
A. is expressed not only in the form of physical actions but also in words, gestures, or attitudes (moral a.). A. is the initiative behind every act of violence (*).
ALIENATION
(From alienate and from the L. alienare, estrange). Distortion in the balance of the factors of individual and social activity in favor of the reification or objectifying of values, and to the detriment of other intangible psychological factors that contribute to the development of the human being.
The word “alienation” as used by Hegel in his Phenomenology of Spirit can also be translated as dis-possession, as a moving-away-from or estrangement. A. is described by this author as embodying an “unhappy consciousness,” a “consciousness of self as divided nature.” This philosopher considers that consciousness may be experienced as separated from the reality to which it belongs, which produces a register of the consciousness feeling “torn” from itself. The popularity of this idea grew when Feurbach developed its “natural-social” aspect, influencing Marx’s interpretation of a. in Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts in 1844. 
With the development of the State and greater complexity in the organization of social life, individuals are more and more overwhelmed by the “socium”, especially through the sacrifice of their own freedom and interest to the authority and power of others. As civil society evolves, however, there is also an expansion of the sector made up of citizens who participate in different ways in social and state affairs, in decision-making and the management of society, until the advent of worker ownership (*) of resources and means of production. The boundaries of democracy, initially narrow, have widened to include the majority of the adult population, even though such democracy has been, up until now, more-or-less formal in character. Finally, foreigners and stateless individuals, formerly deprived of civil rights, have acquired certain nationally- and internationally-recognized rights. On the other hand, the development of technology has increasingly subordinated human beings to machines, changing the rhythm of life and constraining many organic functions. Progress in the scientific-technical sphere assures persons of an ever-expanding dominion over the forces of nature, providing them with unprecedented mobility in space and accelerating the pace of social life, generating a greater variety of communications, enabling travel to the cosmos, allowing them to create artificial environments that correspond to their needs. However, all these achievements have generated new dangers that threaten the existence of life on Earth. The development of culture and especially the increasing flow of and control over information in general, attests to human intellectual progress, but at the same time shows an increase in subjective control over individual existence as this existence is subordinated to others’ impulses and thoughts. In the sphere of culture and art, the human being moves toward the creation of a new world with characteristics that do not exist in nature. There has been enormous growth in diversity, but hand-in-hand with this broadening of human cultural boundaries, a dangerous tendency towards uniformity is revealed, which can lead to the obstructing of civilization in the form of a closed system.
The increasing division of labor, the expansion of markets and the growth of technology and communications correspond to a general destructuring of earlier institutional forms and modes of social relations, that is also shown in changes in collective and personal behavior that threaten our capacity for growing adaptation (*) to new circumstances. The social inertia of institutions and obsolete modes of interaction are of no help in navigating the moment of change through which we are now passing; meanwhile, the demands of progress do not in themselves provide us with any clear direction for development. We experience this predicament as just one of many kinds of alienation now buffeting the gates of civilization. These disturbances find expression in growing aggressiveness, neurosis, suicide, etc. The fetishism of social and technological mechanisms occurs to the detriment not only of appropriately human interpersonal relations but of the moral and spiritual improvement of human beings as well. Power, culture, spiritual life – these are now increasingly concentrated in the hands of narrow elites, so that individuals are placed in a situation of dependence as a consequence of their separation from vital goods and values. The personality becomes an object of manipulation and exploitation, isolation and loneliness grow, and each individual feels increasingly unnecessary, abandoned, and powerless. All of this facilitates the manipulation of the consciousness and conduct of whole peoples. 
N.H. sees in a. not so much an economic problem as an existential, vital, and moral problem, and consequently proposes as an objective the reduction of the level of a. as a dangerous condition that deforms the personality. The crisis of contemporary civilization is engendered in large part by the hypertrophy of alteration and violence (*) on one hand, and the search for ways to overcome them, on the other. Humanity aspires to ensure progress in new directions, but without an increase in a. The future will not be lacking in alienating factors, but human beings are capable of acting on society and on themselves in a conscious way and in a chosen direction in order to harmonize the external and internal factors of their life. In this sense, N.H. represents an important movement against the danger posed by increasing a. 
ALTRUISM
(Fr. altruisme). Concern for and satisfaction in the well being of others, even at one’s own expense, and out of purely humane motives. Refers to service for others’ welfare and the willingness to sacrifice personal interest for others’ benefit.
The term was introduced into scientific and philosophical language by Comte, who used it in formulating the moral doctrine of Positivism. In the experience of a. Comte saw, moreover, a criterion of experience capable of counteracting ordinary selfishness as well as the selfishness defended by Liberalism as a factor of progress. A., along with solidarity (*) and reciprocity (*), is proper to the humanist ethic, because these attitudes contribute to the progress of humankind and to the favorable and just resolution of interpersonal and social conflicts. 
ANARCHISM
Sociopolitical movement whose fundamental principle is the negation of the State, which is considered to be an organ of violence (*). In general, a. also rejects private property and religion, which it regards as factors that threaten the absolute freedom of the human being.
From the theoretical point of view, a. is eclectic, admitting from the most violent formulations to Stirner’s anarcho-individualism, Kropotkin’s anarcho-communism, and anarcho-syndicalism, so profoundly influenced by Kropotkin.
Anarcho-syndicalism denies any validity to political struggle or a leading role in the workers movement by any political party, attributing to the anarchist union the highest revolutionary status.
Bakunin maintains that the new order will spring spontaneously from anarchy, a thesis conflicting with that of Proudhon, which conceives the new society as an organization based on exchange of services and mutualism, involving cooperatives and the principle of self-governance. (*)
Some specialists have seen in Nietzsche an axiological a. and in Tolstoy and Gandhi practical expressions of an ethical, socialist, and non-violent a. 
ANTHROPOCENTRIC HUMANISM
A position based on the centrality of the human being and generally excluding any theistic proposal. Additionally, a. h. rejects the domination of one human being by another, displacing action towards the control of nature, defined as the medium over which humanity should exert unrestricted power. There are differences with New Humanism (*) in that the latter starts with the centrality of the human being but does not reject theistic positions. Moreover, N.H. considers nature not as a passive medium but as an active force operating in interaction with the human phenomenon. Consequently, the impulse toward individual and social improvement must bear in mind the human impact on nature, something that imposes limitations that are not only moral but must be reflected in the legal system, and ecological planning. 

ANTI-HUMANISM
Any practical and/or theoretical position that tends to support a structure of power based on the anti-values of discrimination (*) and violence (*). 
ANTI-HUMANIST ATTITUDE
This is not a doctrinal position but a behavior that is in practice the inverted image of the humanist attitude (*). It does not refer to particular situations or to the commission of specific acts that may well be reprehensible from the perspective of humanist ethics. In concrete terms, the a.-h.a. is a personal emplacement or stance in the world, an “objectifying” mode of relationship characterized by the negation of the intentionality and liberty of other human beings.
ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT
Movement against wars in general and any specific war, whether present or future. In antiquity, universal religions and ethical systems began to condemn warfare as an institution contrary to divine will and harmful to society in that it corrupts the human being and dissolves society. In the Middle Ages, various popular religious movements had an antiwar component, and gave expression to popular protest, especially among serfs and peasants, against the kind of devastation commonly produced in the warfare between fiefdoms. 
The modern international a.m. arose in the nineteenth century and gained strength on the eve of the First World War. At national and international conferences and conventions, antiwar organizations were formed to forestall the outbreak of a world war and to condemn what were called colonial wars that involved the pillaging of less developed countries. These movements forced international diplomacy to develop a series of standards and to approve documents on specific procedures to limit the scope of international conflicts and the effects of military actions on civilian populations, to issue rules for providing medical aid to the wounded and treatment of prisoners of war, etc. In spite of these efforts, the a.m. was not able to prevent either of the two world wars.
Following the Second World War, the a.m. grew larger and put forward the necessity of disarmament, above all the prohibition and elimination of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, as well as conventional weapons; the dissolution of military blocs and alliances; the closing of military bases on foreign soil and withdrawal of troops. The a.m. did achieve its objectives, even if only partially. The end of the Cold War caused a crisis for the a.m.
ARMY
(ME. armye, armeye; OFr. armee; It. armata; L. armata, army, fleet; f. of armatus, pp. of armare, to arm; arma, arms. The body of military forces of a state, especially the land forces.)
One of the military institutions of the State, which contributes to the external function of defense. However, national states utilize the a. not only for the defense of the country but also to attack and subjugate other countries and peoples, i.e., to expand their borders; this is considered a violation of international law (*aggression). 
Another improper use of the a. consists of employing it to resolve internal conflicts through armed force. There are national states that do not have armed forces and fulfill their defense needs through other methods. 
In some countries, the a. is professional and behaves like a corporation; its members are hired by contract, their duties and rights spelled out in a contract with the State. In other countries, citizens of certain ages are required to perform compulsory military service. There are also mixed systems.
N.H. condemns the use of violence (*) in all its forms, including armed force. However, to achieve the full realization of the principle of non-violence (*) requires appropriate external and internal conditions for eliminating violence from daily life and social practice, national as well as international. In the meantime, to make progress in this direction it is necessary to increasingly limit the use of the a., to democratize its operation and relations with civil society, to ensure that it is under public control, and to discuss fully in the communications media its internal life, its relations, the military budget, and the military doctrine of the State. From the humanist point of view, any intervention by the a. in political life is inadmissible, and military personnel on active duty should not have electoral rights or make public statements concerning state policy. They recover this right upon leaving the military service and becoming ordinary citizens. 
ATHEISM
(from Gr.; a without; and theos, god). Literally, negation of divinity. Hence, rejection of religion and negation of any kind of supernatural or unknown powers. Generally, a. rejects the landscapes proposed by religions (heaven, hell, etc.) as well as the existence of psychic entities independent of the body (angels, spirits, etc.).
A. admits various beliefs concerning the origin and functioning of nature, but in all cases excludes the participation of an intelligence, reason, or logos in the development of the Universe.
There is a theoretical a., based on convictions corresponding to the state of development of science at any given moment; there is also an empirical a., which needs no theoretical development or justification. There is sincere a. and apparent a.
Over the course of human development, religion and a. have developed along parallel lines in different cultures. It is also true that devotees of each of these positions have been subjected to persecution and massacres by those of the other faction. 
As with any other faith, a. must be protected, as must the right to publicize and teach it without subjecting it to any comprehensively applicable requirement for uniformity.
Those who are partisans of N.H. are well-disposed to maintaining an amicable dialogue with adherents of the many forms of a., as well as those of confessions and organizations of religious inspiration, whether social institutions, political parties, unions, etc., with the aim of acting in broad solidarity and cooperation on behalf of the human being and social progress, freedom, and peace.
AUTHORITARIANISM
(From authority: L. auctoritatem: power, force, order, dignity). 1) Irrational faith in and obedience to the person, institution, or social group that is considered the source of authority. 2) Anti-democratic political regime based on the unlimited power of a single person, institution, or social group, which sustains itself through manipulation and violence. 3) A form of dogmatism that considers authority the only or supreme source of wisdom or ethics.
N.H. condemns all forms and manifestations of a. as incompatible with the freedom of people, and it points out a path and method of struggle for replacing a. through the democratization and modernization of society.
B

BELIEF
A structure of pre-predicative ideation upon which other apparently “rational” structures are erected. B. determines the field or perspective chosen, from which an idea or a system of ideas is developed. In the case of dialogue, even the most rational, the parties take for granted certain undemonstrated propositions, and make use of them without examination. We call such assumptions “pre-dialogal.” Beliefs determine practices and customs as well as the organization of language, or the illusion of a world that is accepted as “real” but is observed from the limited parameters determined by a particular historical perspective. Any such perspective typically tends to exclude others.
As the historical “level” of the generations (*) changes, so does the system of beliefs, which also involves a change in the perspective, the “point from which” one is able or willing to observe the world (personal, social, scientific, historical, etc.). This change of perspective is what allows the emergence of new ideas. These new ideas take root in the new historical level, and copresently establish new pre-predicates, new propositions that then become incontestable and in turn give rise to new beliefs. As an example we can consider a behavior common in the West until only recently: the affirmation that certain knowledge or information was “scientific” was all that was required to defend a given position and to discredit an opposing one as “unscientific” (*science). Several generations remained mired in this dispute, until the b. on which their scientistic artifices were based itself became subject to debate. When it came to be understood that every scientific theory was, at bottom, a construction of approximation to reality and not reality itself, this rigidly scientistic perspective began to change. However, this change in turn opened the way for the emergence of neo-irrationalist currents of thought.
BOURGEOISIE
(French; OFr. Burgeis). The dominant class in capitalist society, having ownership (*property, worker ownership) of the primary means of production in industry, the economy, the financial sphere, and transport. The modern b. also owns the land (landed bourgeoisie) and what is contained in the soil below the surface. The b. accumulates wealth and, consequently, the power to exploit the wage labor of the workers and employees.
There are different levels of b.: upper, middle, and petty. The largest numerically is the level of small entrepreneurs and merchants. The upper level, multimillionaires and billionaires, is few in number but possesses enormous business-financial power, and the power of the State is frequently subordinated to its interests: it controls the domestic and foreign policy of the State, imposing its will on the whole of society. On the international level, the upper b. of the different countries controls the multi-national corporations and multi-national banks, which divide the world into zones of influence.
In its time, the b. has played a progressive historical role (the English Revolution, the great French Revolution, the War for Independence of the United States, the reforms of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries). Today, however, only the petty and to some degree the middle b. are capable of operating from democratic and progressive positions. The upper b. is now accelerating the process of computer and information technology, the development of new technologies and, in general, globalization (*). Nevertheless, it acts as an obstacle on the road to the humanization of social life, distorting the direction of individual and collective liberty, while preaching ideas of violence, elitism and discrimination.
N.H. actively promotes measures for society to control the b. through the introduction of proportional taxation on property and wealth and through the implementation of anti-monopolistic legislation.
BUREAUCRACY
(French; bureaucratie). The level of professional functionaries who serve the State and, in consequence, are direct participants in the administration of society. In principle, the State cannot function without such an apparatus. In general, the corporation of bureaucrats and administrators focuses not on organizing social prosperity but on defending the interests of the dominant groups, first and foremost their own, while acting as if they were attending to the social interests of all citizens.
The b. is opposed to real democracy, placing in its stead the power of the employees of the government apparatus (cabinet departments and ministries, other government offices, etc.) and bureaucrats (officials and administrators). In today’s world, power cannot exist without the b., since it holds the necessary information, administrative experience, and legal instruments. Bureaucrats identify civil society with the State or with the corporation for which they work. 
The principal danger posed by the b. consists in the monopoly that bureaucrats hold on ideology, the media, culture, and technology, and in their aspiration to manipulate society in favor of the interests of the dominant groups, parties, or sectors. 
The b. has a hierarchical structure and, with the exception of upper-level bureaucrats, belongs to the middle class. Administration is a crucial political function, and so everywhere the political bureaucracy plays a principal role, often imposing its will on governments. The b. contributes to the alienation of the State from civil society by imposing itself between them. The b. is responsible for interpreting the functions of power. In principle, it is exempt from any moral orientation and places the State, the department or ministry, the corporation above everything else, subjecting society to its formal power and its own professional will. In some cases, bureaucrats in public administration play the role of a new political class, which actually participates in the administration of the State, property, production, and social relations.
The primary instrument in the struggle against b. is the development of direct democracy, control of power by the people, participation by citizens in all spheres and levels of administration, and the development of “glasnost” (transparency and public communication of bureaucratic activities by the broadcast media). 
C
CAPITALISM
Nineteenth and twentieth-century Sociology applies this term to the socioeconomic system whose motivating force is the accumulation of capital.
Different schools of sociology give different interpretations to the content and historical role of this economic system. Positivist sociologists find such regimes not only in modern times but in antiquity and the Middle Ages as well. Marxists see in c. a “socioeconomic formation,” a necessary and inevitable stage in universal historical evolution. Sociologists of the economic neo-liberal school consider the capitalist system the goal and final stage of world history. All of these perspectives suffer from an economic reductionism, viewing the crisis of contemporary society as limited to the crisis of specific socioeconomic systems. The socioeconomic regime is part of a far more complex social structure that comprises the concrete historical sociocultural system of a given time.
The economic base of c. is the private ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of wage labor. The principal classes are the bourgeoisie (*) and the proletariat (the working class), although over time both have undergone radical changes in composition.
N.H. strongly condemns the amoral and exploitative character of this system. Humanists support the interests of workers who are struggling against the direction of present-day c. Contemporary c. is responsible for generating growing unemployment and marginalizing wide sectors of society across vast regions of the world.
CASTE
(L. castus, pure, chaste). Social and religious class in despotic societies of the ancient Orient and pre-Columbian America (priests, warriors, farmers, artisans, etc.). In general, castes are divided into higher and lower levels. The position of each human being is determined by heredity, passed on from parents to children, with all mobility between levels prohibited.
Remnants of the c. system still exist in some states in India, Japan, and some other Asian countries. The government of India has granted members of the lower castes opportunities for access to educational institutions, employment, and land in order to support their integration into society and to erase the remnants of the c. system.
CENTERS FOR HUMANIST COMMUNICATION
Humanist meeting centers in communities and neighborhoods which serve as gathering places for activities of grassroots organizations and various action fronts (*). Before such a center is opened, usually there is at least a modest local publication to announce community events, disseminate proposals, etc. 
CENTERS OF CULTURES 
Humanist organizations targeted to coordinate actions in defense of ethnic and cultural minorities in a given country. Such organizations work principally with immigrants and refugees helping them to defend their interests, providing legal and medical advice, working with appropriate governmental and private organizations, and publicizing the needs and demands of such groups in order to inform national and international public opinion regarding violations of their human rights. Such centers frequently work in cooperation with Humanist Clubs (*) in these immigrants’ countries of origin, from where they have been forced to emigrate.
CENTRISM
A specific political or ideological current, more or less equidistant from the “extremes” or more radicalized positions. As a rule, c. prefers the path of compromise, reduction in conflict, pacification, appeasement. With some frequency c. is accused of sacrificing principles, being too soft, or cowardice. In reality, this current always plays an important role, occupying a central space between movements of the “right” and “left”. Within any given party or movement there may exist centrist or moderate groups located between opposing flanks or wings. In most cases, traditional orientations of non-confrontation and dialogue are part of c., though in some instances c. can play a reactionary role.
CHARITY
(L. caritas). For some philosophical and religious currents c. is synonymous with “compassion”. Distinguished from tolerance (*).
A moral quality involving the practice of an active love directed toward all beings in need, especially human beings. Includes experiencing the pain of the other as one’s own pain, and the intention to offer appropriate help and cooperation. It is part of the ethical foundation of all universal religions. C. permits the overcoming of tribal, state, and class hostility and intolerance. It requires moving beyond the habit of dividing human beings into “us” and “them,” and is a characteristic proper to the humanist personality.
Various activities of humanitarianism (*) are also inspired by feelings of c.
CHAUVINISM
A radical, extremist form of nationalism, characteristic of powers seeking to justify before public opinion wars of occupation, conquest, plunder, as well as “ethnic cleansing” and other such crimes. C. proclaims the superiority of the victor over the vanquished, the strong over the weak, the exploiter over the exploited, etc. More often than not, c. displays a racist face, proclaiming the superiority of one race over others. This phenomenon’s name is owed to Nicholas Chovin, a sergeant in the First Empire’s Napoleonic army at the beginning of the nineteenth century.
Contemporary humanism unmasks and condemns c. as an anti-humanist ideology and practice that  values nation and race above the human being, incites one group against another, and glorifies violence as a method for resolving conflicts.
CHOICE 
(OFr ‘choix.’, meaning ‘choice’) [Option: L. optionem: liberty or faculty to choose]. 1) Related to the human capacity to make free decisions with knowledge of the circumstances, the goals for action and appropriate means for achieving them. Reflects the degree of freedom or liberty of human beings and of the society to which they belong. Accordingly, it determines the authenticity or falseness of an action. N.H. contributes to the development of practical life habits that allow making and implementing choices among options in a conscious manner, independent of external pressures. 2) System of political and social laws introduced by the Humanist Party in a number of countries (plebiscitary c., optional military service, women’s reproductive c.; sexual c., etc.). 3) Right to a craft or trade. 
CHRISTIAN DEMOCRACY
Ideological and political movement of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It arose at the seat of Catholicism, stemming from Pope Leo XIII’s famous 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum (although at the beginning of the twentieth century the ecclesiastical hierarchy preferred to use the term “Christian Socialism” or social-Christianity). 
Only in the course of the struggle against fascism, especially during and after the Second World War, did the Holy See put its seal of approval on official use of the term “c.d.”, allowing its supporters to unite politically and form Christian Democrat parties in many countries of Europe and Latin America, and subsequently in some countries of Africa and Asia. In the 1950s these parties affiliated in the Christian Democrat International. These parties came to power in many countries including Germany, Italy, Chile, Costa Rica, Panama, Venezuela, and other countries of both Europe and the Americas. The collapse of the Christian Democrat party in Italy in the early 1990s seriously accentuated the crisis in the Christian Democratic movement. The theoretical basis of c.d. rests on the social doctrine of the Catholic Church and on ecumenicalism, which allows the c.d. movement to extend its influence into those sectors of the population that adhere to Protestantism in its various manifestations. The philosophical work of the French neo-Thomist philosopher Jacques Maritain, especially his doctrine of integral humanism (*Christian Humanism, have exerted great influence on the political concepts of c.d.

CHRISTIAN HUMANISM
A form of philosophical humanism (*). The following exposition of C.H. is excerpted from the section “Christian Humanism” in the book On Being Human: Interpretations of Humanism from the Renaissance to the Present by Salvatore Puledda: 
“The reinterpretation of Christianity as a humanism developed in the first half of this century as part of a vast and wide-ranging process, which began in the nineteenth century and continues even today, of revising Christian doctrines to adapt them to the modern world – a world toward which the Catholic Church has held since the Counter Reformation a position of clear rejection if not outright condemnation. It is commonly thought that the Church begins to change its attitude following the Rerum Novarum encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (1891)... With this encyclical the Church adopted a social doctrine that could be set against liberalism and socialism... authorizing the formation of mass-scale Christian Democratic or Christian Socialist parties... and presented itself as the bearer of a vision, a faith, and a moral system able to answer to the most profound needs of the modern person. 
It was out of this attempt to redefine and reintroduce Christian values (appropriately updated for the modern world) that “Christian Humanism” emerged, a current whose first important proponent is often considered to be the French thinker Jacques Maritain (1882-1973).
Maritain was first a follower of Henri Bergson and then espoused the ideas of revolutionary socialism. Dissatisfied with both philosophies, in 1906 he converted to Catholicism. He was one of the most notable exponents of what was called “neo-Thomism” – that current of modern Catholic thought that could be traced directly back to Saint Thomas Aquinas and through him to Aristotle, whose philosophy Aquinas had attempted to reconcile with Christian dogmas. 
Maritain, whose position was radically opposed to the general tendency of modern thought, took a great leap backward, as it were, past the Renaissance, to reconnect with the philosophical thought of the Middle Ages. This was necessary, he believed, because it was within the humanism of the Renaissance that he identified the seeds that had grown into the crisis, indeed the breakdown, of modern society – a crisis of which Nazism and Stalinism were the most terrible expressions. Maritain did not of course explicitly propose to reestablish the values of the Middle Ages and the Christian world view associated with that time; his objective was to reestablish, after all the difficulties experienced in the Middle Ages, the continuation of Christianity’s historical evolution, which, in Maritain’s view, had been interrupted and blocked by modern secular and lay thought. 
In his 1936 book Integral Humanism: Temporal and Spiritual Problems of a New Christendom, Maritain examines the evolution of modern thought from the crisis of medieval Christianity to the bourgeois individualism of the nineteenth century and the totalitarianism of the twentieth. In this evolution he sees the tragedy of “anthropocentric humanism” (as he calls it), which has taken shape since the Renaissance. This humanism, which has led to a progressive de-Christianization of the West, is, according to Maritain, a metaphysics of “freedom without grace.”...
These are the stages of this progressive decay:
As regards man, one can note that in the beginnings of the modern age, with Descartes first and then with Rousseau and Kant, rationalism had raised up a proud and splendid image of the personality of man, inviolable, jealous of his immanence and his autonomy and, last of all, good in essence. (Integral, 28).
But this rationalist pride, this arrogance, which first eliminated all traditional and transcendent values and then, with idealism, absorbed into itself even objective reality, bore within it the seeds of its own destruction. First Darwin and then Freud dealt mortal blows to the optimistic vision of perpetual progress of anthropocentric humanism. With Darwin (1809–1882), humanity discovered that no biological disjuncture exists between itself and the ape. Even more, no real metaphysical discontinuity exists between humanity and the ape – that is, there is no radical difference of essence, no true qualitative leap. With Freud (1856–1939), humankind discovered that its deepest motivations are actually dictated by “a radically sexual libido and an instinct for death” (Integral, 29). At the end of this destructive dialectical process, Maritain concluded, the doors had been opened to the modern totalitarianisms of fascism and Stalinism: 
After all the dissociations and dualisms in the age of anthropocentric humanism... we are now witnessing a dispersion, a final decomposition. This does not prevent man from claiming sovereignty more than ever. But this claim is no longer made for the individual person, for he no longer knows where to find himself, he sees himself only as torn apart from society and fragmentized. Individual man is ripe for abdication … in favor of collective man, in favor of that great historic image of humanity which for Hegel, who gave us the theology of it, consisted in the State with its perfect juridical structure, and which for Marx will consist in Communist society with its immanent dynamism (Integral, 30).
Against an anthropocentric humanism that he describes in this way, Maritain sets a c. h., which he defines as “integral” or “theocentric.” He says:
We are thus led to distinguish two kinds of humanism: a truly Christian or theocentric humanism (*); and an anthropocentric humanism, for which the spirit of the Renaissance and that of the Reformation are primarily responsible...
The first kind of humanism recognizes that God is the center of man; it implies the Christian conception of man, sinner and redeemed, and the Christian conception of grace and freedom... The second kind... believes that man himself is the center of man, and therefore of all things. It implies a naturalistic conception of man and of freedom... [O]ne understands [why] anthropocentric humanism merits the name of inhuman humanism, and that its dialectic must be regarded as the tragedy of humanism (Integral, 27–28). 
To theocentric humanism understood in this way Maritain entrusts the task of constructing a “new Christianity” that will be able to return modern secular society to the values and spirit of the Gospel. Maritain’s Christian interpretation of humanism was enthusiastically embraced by certain segments of the Church as well as by various lay groups. It inspired a number of Catholic movements committed to social action and political life and thus turned out to be an effective ideological weapon, especially against Marxism. But this interpretation also received witheringly effective criticism from nonconfessional philosophical spheres. The first difficulty to be pointed out was that the rationalist tendency that had appeared in post-Renaissance philosophy and that Maritain had denounced in Descartes, Kant, and Hegel could in fact be traced to the thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas himself. This tendency, which had led to the crisis and eventual defeat of Reason, was not the product of Renaissance humanism but of Thomism and late Scholasticism; the rationalism of the Cartesian philosophy that lies at the foundation of modern thought is much more closely connected to Saint Thomas than to the Neoplatonism and mystical Hermeticism of the Renaissance. The roots of modern philosophy’s “arrogance of Reason” should be sought instead, these critics pointed out, in the attempt by Thomism to construct an intellectualist and abstract form of theology. In their view, Maritain had carried out a massive work of mystification and camouflage, almost a game of philosophical prestidigitation, attributing to the Renaissance the historical responsibility that in actuality belonged to late-medieval thought. In the second place, the crisis of values, the existential vacuum that had appeared in European thought with Darwin, Nietzsche, and Freud, was not, argued Maritain’s critics, a consequence of Renaissance humanism, but ―on the contrary― derived from the persistence of medieval Christian ideas within modern society. The tendency toward dualism and dogmatism, the sense of guilt, the rejection of the body and sexuality, the devaluation of women, the fear of death and Hell ― all these things are the remnants of medieval Christianity, which long after the Renaissance continue to exert a powerful influence on Western thought. In fact, critics argued, it was these tendencies, strongly reaffirmed in the Reformation and the Counter Reformation, that have determined the sociocultural environment in which modern thought took shape. The schizophrenia of the present-day world (a schizophrenia upon which Maritain insisted) derived, these critics argued, from the simultaneous coexistence of both human and anti-human values. The “destructive dialectic” of the West could best be explained, then, as a painful and frustrated attempt to free itself from the conflict between these warring values.” (On Being Human, 61-69).
CIVIL WAR
(German werra: quarrel). Armed struggle between factions or groups within the same country that breaks out in crisis as the result of irreconcilable conflicts: political, social, inter-ethnic, interfaith, etc. This is the cruelest and most abhorrent form of war, and imposes the greatest sacrifices on defenseless groups within the population: women, children, the elderly, the disabled. c.w. is also disastrous ecologically because of the extent of the destruction it generates.
C.W. is a consequence of divisions in society that form opposing sides, and the attempt to resolve serious contradictions by means of violence imposed by armed minorities on all of society. In many cases it is difficult to distinguish c.w. from revolution when the latter is carried out in the form of an armed struggle and accompanied by mass terror. C.W. is bloody and leads to great loss of life. Frequently it is provoked by foreign intervention in the internal affairs of another country.
At the present time there are civil wars in Cambodia, the Sudan, Iraq, Somalia, and Tajikistan.
Humanists take a position against civil wars and in favor of the resolution of internal conflicts in each country by means of negotiations and compromises that acknowledge the legitimate interests of all contending parties and thus avoid the shedding of blood and public catastrophe.
CLASS
More or less large groups of people distinguished among themselves by their relationship to the means of production: (some possess it: bourgeoisie, landowners, bankers, etc.; others have nothing except the strength of their labor: employees, laborers, agricultural workers, etc.) by the different positions they hold in the system of division of labor (some organize and manage, others produce and follow orders); by their different forms of income (investment income, land rent, salary) and by the differing amounts of their wealth and income (wealthy, middle income, poor); by their different forms of interaction with power and the State (dominant classes and exploited classes). Classes are also differentiated by their level of education and culture, although these differences are secondary.
Society is divided not only into classes but also into different levels or strata, and groups. In today’s world, the working class, agricultural workers, and the middle strata are, for now, the most numerous. The upper bourgeoisie and the landowners are the wealthiest. People are not always capable of properly evaluating their social status, tending to overestimate it. Thus, many of the poor or working class consider themselves “middle class”.
Marxists regarded the working c. as the most revolutionary and progressive. The history of the international workers movement is rich in fiery revolutionary battles and great strikes. Today, the class struggle has moved beyond the old forms of radicalism and taken on a character of more or less peaceful struggle. The ideas of social harmony and compromise prevail over the idea of revolution and open class confrontation.
New modes of distribution of property and power as well as changes in social status and standard of living are the principal objectives of the relationship between classes at the present moment.
COALITION
1) Political or military alliance of two or more states against a common enemy (e.g., the Triple Entente of the First World War; the anti-Hitler alliance or c. of the Second World War). 2) Agreement for common action among parties and public figures.
The politics of c. produces advantages for each participant, is frequently based on compromise and mutual concessions, but can also have serious disadvantages if one power seeks to dominate the alliance.
A c. can be an official union of several individuals, political groups, or states against others in order to achieve a common objective. C. members maintain their autonomy and act based on the coincidence of their interests. A c. is formed on the basis of mutual compromise and has a temporary character. With the achievement of the objective or a change of circumstances, the c. ceases to exist or collapses. In other cases, the development of the c. can lead to the organic fusion of its members.
A c. of states can have an economic, political, or military character, and the union may vary in scope: bilateral, subregional, regional, or international. Thus, the United Nations, was born as a c. of states struggling against fascism during the Second World War. The OAS (Organization of American States) was formed as a c. to avert the danger of extra-continental aggression.
COLD WAR
Military and ideological confrontation between the USSR along with its satellites on one side, and the Western bloc led by the United States, on the other. The c.w. lasted from the end of the Second World War until the annulment of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the USSR. The c.w. with its arms race was considered by both sides a preparation for a possible third world war, and it involved continuous actions taken to weaken the position of the other side, most of them initiated in the Third World. The c.w. was manifested in the militarization of the economy and politics; in psychological warfare and diplomatic pressure; in continual local conflicts and wars such as the Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956, of Czechoslovakia in 1968, of Afghanistan in 1979; in the Cuban missile crisis in 1961; in the US interventions in Central America; in the Anglo-French intervention in Egypt in 1956, etc.
The c.w. ultimately overwhelmed the economy of the USSR and contributed to its collapse, but also weakened the economy of the United States and accelerated the moral crisis of Western society, aggravating the world environmental crisis and provoking other global disasters.
In the mid-1990s, we are experiencing a resurgence of certain political and psychological aspects of the c.w. in the regional conflicts in the Balkans, the Far East, and some zones of the European Common Market. All of this demands a renewed intensity on the part of the anti-war movement. Humanists condemn the mentality of the c.w., as well as the wars disguised as “local conflicts.”
COLLECTIVISM
(From collective: L. collectivum). Pertaining to any association or group of individuals. A doctrine, social system, and political movement, whose ideals are the holding of goods and services in common and which seeks to transfer to the State the control of the distribution of wealth. 
This is a highly contradictory movement, which contributed to the rise of the socialist, communist, and anarchist movements as well as to a number of nationalist movements. It starts by opposing the social to the individual, giving priority to the collective. Framing things through such a dilemma presents difficulties, because society cannot be reduced to a biological organism or species, nor the human being to an animal. Historically, c. represented a reaction against an exacerbated individualism. Historical experience has shown, however, the theoretical and practical inconsistency of the postulates of both c. and individualism, demonstrating their limitations and negative consequences when either pole of this dilemma is chosen to the exclusion of the other. In reality, the interests of the human being as a personality are not and can never be antagonistic to the necessities of social progress. The integral development of the person, of each person’s capabilities, is an inalienable condition of the evolution of society. If, on the contrary, the human being is reduced to the condition of being merely a cog in a collective machine, ultimately this will lead to the death of the civilization.
C. proceeds from moral principles and feelings of solidarity among people in their work, their community life, their political struggle, and their cultural pursuits. It is antithetical to individualism and selfishness. The traditions of c. largely determine the actions of the person toward society, toward other persons, and orient social conduct, contributing to the formation of certain humanist values (mutual aid, mutual respect, solidarity). In some cases the acceptance of the priority of collective and more broadly viewed social interests (including those of the state) can end up crushing the freedom and existential interests and needs of the individual. Such a characteristic is typical of totalitarian societies. In principle, the traditions of healthy c. are the true foundation of human coexistence and of the humanization of personal and social life. There is no humanism without c., although not every manifestation of c. has a genuinely humanist character. 
N.H. views the essence of real c. as a conscious and sincere solidarity among free persons and the organizations that express their vital interests.
COLONIALISM
(From colony: L. coloniam). A doctrine, that tends to legitimize the political and economic domination of a territory or nation, by the government of a foreign state. This is the term normally applied to the process initiated in the fifteenth century with the European conquest, settlement, and exploitation of territories in the Americas, the Orient, and Africa. Colonial activities originated with Spain, Portugal, England, France, and the Netherlands. From 1880 to the beginning of the twentieth century, the search for new markets and raw materials provoked the resurgence of c. and the partition of Africa among the great European powers, especially England and France (*Neo-colonialism and Imperialism).
COMMUNISM
Social system in which property is the common possession of all the people in accordance with the principle: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need.” During a large part of the nineteenth century c. was synonymous with socialism, but following “The Communist Manifesto” of 1848 and other works by Karl Marx and Friederich Engels, these two terms gradually diverged. In Marx’s theory, socialism (*) represents a stage that will be succeeded by the communist society. Marxism (*) interpreted as Marxism-Leninism (*) posits a strong distinction between socialist and communist parties.
COMMUNITY FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
A N.H. social and cultural organization founded by Silo (*Siloism), emerging in Argentina and Chile during the period of military dictatorships. Initial organization began in the 1970s, although the founding documents were published on January 8, 1981. Outspoken criticism of violence, discrimination, and authoritarianism by this organization earned it frequent persecution. Simply for belonging to it, members were dismissed from their jobs, jailed, or exiled. The institution will continue to remember the assassination of some of its militants at the hands of paramilitary gangs, among them the nefarious “Triple A” (Argentine Anticommunist Association). Following numerous incidents of harassment and detention, its founder was the target of several assassination attempts, among them one on August 12, 1981. Many participants and sympathizers of this organization were exiled to countries in Europe, where they continued their activities. Persecution of N.H. organizations has continued, but now that the social context has changed, they can no longer be falsely accused of “guerrilla tactics” or “subversion” as they were in decades past. Today, the most reactionary sectors of the right and religious fundamentalists of various kinds limit themselves to defamatory rhetoric, attempts to manipulate the communications media and to censor and remove from circulation the writings, declarations, and documents of this movement (*Centers for Humanist Communication; World Center for Humanist Studies; Humanist Centers of Cultures; Humanist Associations and Clubs; Humanist Forum; Humanist International; Humanist Movement).
COMPANY–SOCIETY 
In “Company and Society: Foundations of a Humanist Economy” (“Empresa y Sociedad: Bases de una Economía Humanista”), and in diverse articles and seminars, José L. Montero de Burgos explains the humanist position, which is opposed to the concept of ownership (*) of things. Ownership of things (in this case, the company) has given power (*) over people. Inverting this, the power of the people should give ownership of access to the company income, and under no circumstances should such power be exercised over people. But where does this power originate? Power is accorded by the risk assumed by capital, as well as by labor; therefore neither can be the company’s sole owner; rather, power over it must be held on the basis of who is responsible for its management, for making the decisions.
The power is linked to “the entrepreneur who puts up the money,” to the company owner, or, in the absence of such, to the property owner. A more recent trend is for this power to be transferred to a team of executives. But if this team of executives does not satisfy Capital with the rate of return produced, it runs the serious risk that Capital will replace it with another team more capable of attaining the objective, which is solely to make a profit. In any case, power remains with Capital. Moreover, given that the modern company is conceived dynamically, its growth and its capacity to compete are linked to financial resources, which it cannot always raise on its own. The current trend in the evolution of power ― only incidentally held by the technical management ― is to shift to the financial power, to the power of money, since the future of the company depends on it. A bank can ruin a prosperous company by denying it credit. And it can do it, because it is not accountable to anyone for the decision. Here we have what may be termed, using an astronomical metaphor, the “great attractor” of power. The growing power of money is linked to the constant loss of power of labor. In general, workers have pressured in the direction of improving their wages and working conditions, and company owners in the direction of reverting benefits back to the company, for its expansion and/or to strengthen it, or to allocate benefits to . But today, in this confrontation, workers are giving increasingly more importance to job security; technology multiplies productivity and fewer and fewer workers are needed. In addition, the constant changes in the marketplace demand rapid adaptation, such that owners continue to press for the elimination of obstacles to firing or laying-off workers. On the other hand, industrial and commercial reorganization downsizes many companies that end up in bankruptcy, leaving their workers jobless. The monstrous growth of speculative activity is also exerting influence. Speculative activities produce no benefits for society. They are possible because of capital’s exclusive power in the companies. It is already known that speculation consists of buying assets (stocks, companies, land, currency, products) to be later sold at a higher price, and the benefit is produced by the difference between the purchase and sale price, but without the goods in question undergoing any change in the process that is useful to society. Only its price is transformed. When the object of speculation is the national currency, we see the State itself making use of a fund that belongs to all citizens, so that speculators can distribute it among themselves.
If it is accepted that things cannot be sources of power over people, then corporate power, as it is conceived today, loses its foundations. Therefore another basis of power must be found that allows the free creation of enterprises. This is congruent with Part I of the Humanist Statement (*), in which power is based on risk ― in this case, the entrepreneurial risk assumed by the members of the company. We may then inquire about these risks:
The investors run a risk. They can lose everything ― or, at least, a part of the capital invested. Therefore they have the right to participate in decisions, the right to manage the company, because of this human situation of risk ― not because capital gives them power. Otherwise, if the investment were not at risk of being lost, its contributor would lack grounds for claiming any power of management. Their real risk gives grounds for their power.
The workers run a risk. If the company fails, they lose their jobs. And this risk cannot be downplayed. When workers lose their jobs, they lose their employment stability. They must look for new employment. They also lose their financial stability, since unemployment insurance, where it exists, neither equals their former income nor guarantees it indefinitely. They lose their social stability because, under such circumstances, their social relationships deteriorate. They lose their moral stability because they cease to do work that is useful to society and that justifies their earnings. Their own human dignity compels them to not be social parasites; and if they accept this situation passively, the risk of moral degradation that goes with being unemployed becomes a reality. Therefore, workers lose if the company fails. Workers also assume entrepreneurial risk, and therefore have a right of self-management, because of their own human situation, and without any need to buy company shares to justify their power. They, like capital, run economic risk, and thus have a right to self-management, to control their own human situation without any need to buy shares to justify their power.
The foregoing discussion is not without significance from the conceptual point of view. It represents a “turning upside down” of the current rationale of ownership, which says: “Ownership (of things), hence power (over people).” If power is based on risk, the above is inverted and now becomes: “Power, hence ownership.” That is to say: power (linked to entrepreneurial risk), hence ownership of things (i.e., access to ownership of the company’s profits, and not access to power over people).
In today’s world there are three entrepreneurial alternatives: 1) Capitalism, based on private enterprise, in which the ideological structure is nourished by present-day neo-liberalism. It requires a market economy, of which work forms a part, and favors accumulations of capital, which for the most part end up flowing into the hands of the few: the rich. The union system is free to organize. 2) Socialism, based on state ownership of the means of production. It borrows its ideological structure from Marxism; it favors a planned economy, controlled by the state apparatus; it eliminates the market for labor, replacing it with bureaucratic measures; and it allows accumulation of capital by only one entity: the State. In theory, implementing this proposal is a first step toward the development of self-management in business enterprise, which is congruent with the principles of socialism. There is a single union, controlled by the state apparatus. 3) Cooperativism, which favors cooperation in enterprise and is equally suited to capitalist and socialist environments, but lacks its own socioeconomic ideology. It offers no satisfactory solution to the situation of workers who do not enjoy co-ownership, and does not ordinarily provide effective ways to accumulate capital; such enterprises have to rely on “soft” credit, dependent indirectly on the State and in practice provided by banking or non-banking institutions connected to the official apparatus. It does not have its own system of unionism.
Another recent alternative is social democracy, a compromise between socialist and capitalist postures. But the existing social democracies are not applicable to the developing countries because they require stable unionization; nor are they humanly acceptable, requiring as they do the existence of a powerful social class that accumulates capital.
If we contemplate the social problem from a biological perspective, it seems logical to assume that the appropriation of resources by human beings must be coherent with nature, and also with their own specific conditions. All living beings acquire resources to carry out their vital functions through appropriations of two types: one type might be called “private” or individual, and the second are forms “in common,” such as might be observed in ants. Even within a single biological community, both types can coexist. But nature has also developed, in addition to these two kinds of appropriation, what Montero de Burgos calls “generic appropriation,” under which all resources are potentially available to any life form and form of appropriation, private or common, and in which resources are thus subordinated to a higher level of appropriation, and open, therefore, to a redistribution of these resources that permits the continuity of life. Humankind, for its part, has rationalized both forms of appropriation, converting them into private or common property, respectively. But it has yet to develop generic property, which encompasses both forms, giving flexibility to them and, of course, removing from them the kind of permanence that each of the two previously discussed modes now possesses. In short, the resources of the planet are neither the private property of those who have access to them nor the common property of humankind, but rather generic property. That is: all human beings ought to have ownership of all things. A paradigmatic example of generic property is air, which is not of course the private property of anyone, but neither is it the common property of humanity. All living beings who need it must have access to air, and human beings cannot appropriate something that does not belong to them exclusively, but rather is open to each and every member of the species, and to each and every living being by virtue of their need to breathe. Air is the generic property of all living beings. Let us see now to what property type that very specialized form of property we call the human body corresponds. Of course, it could well be affirmed that the human body is not the common property of humanity, much less of the State. The initial subjective tendency is to designate it the private property of the subject of that body. But in reality, and in accordance with the notion of generic property, I am not the owner of my body, although for obvious reasons of emotional attachment I have the right to decide all matters concerning my body or, to put it another way, I have the right to manage my body, at least in principle. To clarify this point, let us suppose that I come upon a person who is injured and thus incapable of taking care of himself. If there is no one else, this wounded person requires that my body assist him in surviving that situation. By reason of need, the wounded person activates the principle of generic property on his own behalf, and assumes the right of management of my body. Of course, I can refuse to let my body be of assistance, but in that case I am “stealing” something, denying the person what is theirs. On the other hand, if I decide to help, taking the person to a hospital for example, once the person is there, all needs satisfied, I recover the right to manage my body. Thus, the human body is but another resource of generic property of human beings, although one over which the subject of that body has priority. In reality, it is a property shared with the persons whom the activity of my body affects (e.g. my family), although normally their management is minor. To be able to resolve this same hypothetical problem in the case of private property, we would need to introduce some moral or legal obligation that is separate from the concept of ownership. Generic property, on the other hand, has the virtue that in and of itself resolves satisfactorily the hypothetical case we have been considering. 
Certainly, Nature does not assign access to resources by the same rational process as in the currently prevailing rules used by human beings: ownership, hence power; quite the contrary, in Nature: power, hence ownership. That power, in levels inferior to the human species, is physical strength in its broadest sense. Strength, hence ownership, is the instrument that Nature constantly and continually uses in the struggle for life. That strength or power is what maintains appropriation, which declines as that strength declines. In the case of humankind, that strength has to be not natural but human strength, and the dialectic becomes: human power, hence ownership. What this would mean is: a) Need, hence ownership, so that every human need attains satisfaction; b) work, hence ownership, so that work is the normal way by which human beings gain access to resources; c) risk, hence ownership, so that the one who runs the risk will have not only the power necessary to overcome any difficulties that arise but also sufficient stimulus to incur the risk, if that is what society needs. In the relation company-society, this proposal is coherent with a way of understanding power that, as the source of resources, is linked to the human value of economic risk.
CONFORMITY
(From conform: L. conformo). 1) Characteristic feature in social behavior of uncritical or blind acceptance of the existing order and the dominant ideology, values, and norms. 2) Psychological trait of individuals who subordinate themselves to group pressure, adapting to the opinions of the majority. Inability to form a position of one’s own or to make independent decisions.
The social behavior of c. has great importance for the State bureaucracy (*) because, of course, c. reinforces its power, paving the way for manipulation. 
For N.H., an appropriate formation of the personality implies the overcoming of c., education for learning to choose for oneself beyond the prejudices that prevail in contemporary society.
CONSENSUS
(From consent: L. consentio, to be in agreement). Unanimous acceptance by all those who make up a corporation or group. A contract formed by agreement of all parties. This coincidence of opinions regarding a problem of mutual interest allows the undertaking of common action.
A certain level of c. of opinion and actions is necessary to any form of social relations. In the broadest sense, c. represents the degree of harmony and conscious solidarity, the overcoming of conflicts, differences, and enmity. C. is also a way of achieving objectives; it reflects compromise, reaching agreement, a desire for mutual understanding, and a minimizing of contradictions among the parties.
In positivist sociology, c. was interpreted as solidarity conceived of rationally. 
The principle of c. or unanimity is widely used in parliamentary activities as well as diplomatic relations. Achieving the principle of c. renders moot the procedure of voting, which imposes the will of the majority and disregards the point of view of the minority. In this sense, the attainment of c. reinforces human solidarity, because it respects the experience and legitimate interests of all parties, and not merely one part of society.
There is no complete and absolute c., just as there is no way of assimilating and identifying all of the interests in play. Any given c. is relative and frequently short-lived. C. by formal majority can abuse the interests of the minority.
The principle of c. is a method to avoid voting, allowing full and exhaustive discussion in order to resolve disagreements and thus to ensure a spirit of cooperation within a group. There is no social process that does not include different forms and degrees of c. The richer and more consistent the degree of c. that is achieved, the more harmonious the social development will be. In today’s world, a humanist orientation may well be the healthiest form of social c.
CONSERVATISM
(From conserve: L. conservator, to keep, or preserve an object, state or situation). Political doctrine that favors maintaining and continuing the existing regime, fetishizing tradition and the past, rejecting any change in economic and social relations. Defense of existing structures, including reactionary and archaic forms. As a rule, this position corresponds to the controlling elite, which does not want to lose its power, wealth, or the privileges it has conquered. Conservatives frequently act under the banner of defending law and order. Historically, conservatives and liberals have contended for power over long periods, although liberals have also frequently resorted to conservative positions when other forces threatened their control.
During the times of the bourgeois revolutions, c. came into being as an aristocratic and at times clerical movement to preserve their feudal privileges, expressing the interests of the great landowners and their clients. For these reasons, since its beginnings it has opposed liberalism, defending the traditions, privileges, and properties of the church, especially the Catholic Church, but later the Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, and other churches as well. C. was an unrelenting enemy of movements for independence in North America, Latin America, and Greece. Following the French Revolution, c. opposed the revolutions in Spain, Portugal, and Naples, as well as the movement to liberate and unify Italy (the Risorgimento). The political history of Europe and America in the nineteenth century was plagued by struggles between conservatives and liberals. In the twentieth century, especially the second half, this antagonism has weakened as the opponents have gradually assimilated each others’ values and ideas and the classical conservative movement has disappeared from the political scene of most American and European states.
CONSUMERISM
(From consume: L. consumere, to use up, destroy). The spending of things that are destroyed with use. We often hear the expression “consumer society,” indicating the phenomenon taking place in advanced industrial societies in which the primary needs of most of the population are satisfied and intense advertising promotes ever-newer consumer products that incite continual spending. This is a very pronounced characteristic that demonstrates the inability of society to be mobilized by values and other intangibles that promote the creation of goods related to the development of the personality and culture. C. is leading society down a blind alley toward demographic and ecological disaster. At the root of this orientation are the traditions of hedonism and eudaemonism (from the Greek eudaimon: pursuit of pleasure, wealth, things). C., the enemy of any form of spirituality, places the highest value not on the human being but on money, things, luxury, the satisfaction of whims, fashion, etc. 
The ruling elite issues propaganda through all possible forms of media to promote and implant the cult of c., striving to enmesh people in the market’s cobweb, with loans, the games of the stock-market, debasing and lowering the level of their interests and needs until these become completely objectified. Of course, everyone wants to live in abundance and have all the things and products they need, but people’s true interests are immeasurably broader and higher than simple c., than the enslavement to things.
Unfortunately, c. has won continues to win over the will of enormous masses of people. Opposing this dangerous tendency is difficult but necessary. N.H. sees the struggle against c. as an important task: the human being is not a consumer but a creator. (*alienation).
COOPERATION
(From L. co, with and operacio, action). 1) Relationships formed in the process of joint activity, which stimulates and multiplies the results of common actions. C. presupposes shared interests and objectives and recognition of suitable means for achieving them in practical activity. In this sense it forms an essential part of the social and political activity of N.H. C. includes the interchange of experience and taking personal initiative by co-participants in a joint action. 2) Forms of collective production and group or collective ownership.
The social movement known as cooperativism uses a method of economic action through which people with common interests form an enterprise in which everyone shares equally in management and profits. The idea of converting this method of action into a social system (as a complex web of cooperatives for the production, distribution, and consumption of goods) experienced a boom in the second half of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth centuries. Its influence was especially felt in the Anglo-Saxon countries, in small industry and agriculture, and to a lesser extent in the service sector. Projects to transform the whole of society on the basis of cooperative ownership (cooperative socialism) were distorted by certain practices, through which many of these organizations (which required credit and certain tax exemptions) were regulated, in such a way that they wound up being reorganized into conventional corporations. In other cases, State regulation transformed them into simple appendages of the political regime. Meanwhile, the general direction of scientific and technological development has tended to decrease the efficacy of this kind of system for management and distribution of profits. Even so, cooperative activity is highly developed in a number of countries, and there are cases of very efficient cooperatives of great complexity (for example, the Mondragón cooperative in Spain). In today’s world, we should not underestimate the importance of cooperatives in social life, and in keeping with these new times there is an ongoing revaluation of this model, adapted to the application of new technologies. 
CORPORATIVISM
Ideological current that regards the corporation (an association of persons belonging to a profession, or form of activity) as the basis of society, and the corporate regime as the ideal system.
The corporative system of organization of society was imposed in its most explicit and definitive form in fascist Italy, the Portugal of Salazar, and Brazil under Vargas (Estado Novo, 1937–1945). In this system, corporations of interests (industrialists, merchants, bankers, farmers, etc.) had official representation in legislative bodies at the expense of the parliamentary representation proper to democracies. In turn, ideological and political control over the corporations tended to turn them into instruments of totalitarian power. 
N.H. sees in c. a danger to the dignity and liberties of the human person, because this system attempts to substitute human rights for corporative rights, dissolving people into the corporation as if it were a superhuman entity. 
COSMOPOLITANISM
(From Gr. kosmos, world, and polites, a citizen). Ideological current that regards the human being as a citizen of the world. C. emerged during the French Revolution of 1789, in part as a reaction to the formation of the nation State and, subsequently, to the predatory Napoleonic wars. It was, in effect, a position critical of the official chauvinism (*) of the times.
In Russia (from 1936-37 until Perestroika), c. was considered an attitude opposed to the interests of the State. The accusation that one was a sympathizer of c. became a pretext for the cruelest kind of political repression and a mask that hid the anti-Semitism of the USSR’s official policy. Defenders of human rights were declared to be cosmopolitans, and the UN charter a subversive document. Humanism has always expressed, and continues to express in N.H., its support for the idea of overcoming barriers and borders of any type between human beings, supporting the idea of a world that is simultaneously one and diverse.
C. is opposed to patriotism and nationalism. C. is frequently confused with internationalism (*), the difference between them being that the former tends to minimize national traditions and values in favor of certain worldwide projects, while c. seeks the road towards their harmony and combination. In large measure, internationalism reflects the interests of the worldwide bourgeoisie; c. in contrast begins by giving priority to the unity of the interests of the oppressed on a world scale, opposing imperialism (*) and the dictates of the superpowers.
In today’s conditions, c. must be oriented toward attaining an international consensus for the resolution of global problems: hunger, health care, disarmament, ecology, and demographics.
CRITIQUE CRITICISM 
(From Gr. kritike discern, judge). Method of analysis and evaluation of reality, of social and individual activity, that makes it possible to establish correspondence or divorce between intentions and actions; promises and their fulfillment; words and deeds; theory and practice.
The individual’s ability to pass judgment with critical spirit on the environment wherein he acts, and to subject his own experience and conduct to critical analysis is an indispensable condition for the formation of the personality and is an essential element of education. The degree to which the critical and self-critical attitudes are prevalent in society is an indicator of its vitality or decrepitude, its capacity or incapacity to perfect and develop itself. Criticism is the starting point for all innovation and forms part of the driving force for development and scientific-technical, artistic and social progress.
The critical method facilitates the comprehension of errors committed and how to move beyond them; helping to understand the essence of the crisis in the development of the personality and society.
This method should not be made an absolute, however, since taking it to extremes allows shifting the responsibility for one’s own errors onto others and onto society as a whole. On the other hand, turning self-criticism into an absolute can destroy a person’s dignity by steeping them in guilt.
N.H. places the highest value on the practice of c., in personal daily life as well as in sociopolitical, artistic, and theoretical activity, considering it one of the pillars of liberty. In today’s mass society, c. expressed in the communications media is of particular importance.
D
DEMAGOGUERY
(From Gr. demagogós; dêmos, people, and ago, to lead). Method of agitation of the citizenry, using false promises, distorting facts to reach sinister ends. Obviously, N.H. condemns the use of d. as a procedure of social mobilization. 
DEMOCRACY
(Gr. demokratia, from demos, the people, and kratein, to rule). Political doctrine that is favorable to the intervention of the people in the government. A model of the State that recognizes the people as the only source of power, and guarantees the election of national, regional or local administrative bodies by popular vote, establishing public control of the management of the state.
The pillars of d. are: representation, separation of powers and respect for the rights of minorities. When any or all of these fail, we find ourselves outside real d. and have fallen into the hands of formal d. Different combinations have been attempted in order to avoid this problem, from the representative d. adopted by the West to the “directed” d. of some Asian countries in the 1960s. It has also been claimed that some forms of corporativism, in opposition to the liberal democracies, are the ideal and “natural” exponents of d. Lastly, in some bureaucratic dictatorships, the term “popular d.” has been used to denote the exercise of real d. In reality, such an exercise of real d. begins in the social base, and it is from there that the power of the people must emanate. It is from municipalities and towns, whence the principle of real, plebiscitary and direct d. ― a new political practice ― must be generated. Direct d. presupposes the personal participation of the citizenry in all decisions that concern the life of the community. 
Indirect d. functions through representatives elected by the citizens, to whom the latter delegate their powers for a certain period. d. has developed and continues to develop historically as a form of organization of the State, its contents are improved and elaborated, and its structure becomes deeper and more complex as citizens acquire more egalitarian rights. 
In the modern democratic State, the separation of powers (legislative, executive, judicial, law enforcement, etc.) is obligatory; suffrage is universal by direct, secret ballot, with monitoring of elections controlled by the people. The multi-party system is used. There is freedom of expression. The state is secular and there is separation of church and state. 
The basis of d. is rooted in the existence of a strong and broadly developed civil society that limits the State and controls its functioning. Even with all these characteristics, contemporary d. in practice possesses only a formal character, because it does not extend to the realm of production. Social wealth is concentrated in the hands of ever fewer, who through their wealth exercise a powerful and growing influence on crucial matters, international as well as national, and there is no system of checks and balances or true oversight of their economic power and their control of information and the media. This has led to the current crisis of modern d. that is manifested in the growing political apathy and low voter turn-out, rising terrorism and criminality, and the increasingly evident bureaucratization of the State. All of these factors are manifestations of the growing alienation that is undermining the very foundations of d. If we bear in mind that an absolute majority of the population of the world does not even enjoy these somewhat formal blessings of modern d., the picture appears even bleaker. Notwithstanding these shortcomings, in recent decades the scope of d. has broadened considerably on a world scale, with the end of colonialism and global condemnation of racism and fascism.
In the sphere of production, the scope of d. has been reduced due to changes in technology, the size and nature of businesses, and the gradual decline of unions and cooperative movements. Widespread urbanization with the concentration of an increasing percentage of the population into megalopolises has reduced the scope of d. at the local level. At the same time, d. has been extended as a consequence of the increase in type and number of groups of people united by particular interests (artistic, sports, religious, educational, environmental, cultural, etc.). With the development of the information society and advanced communications technology, the possibilities for the further development of d. are now greater than ever. Regional, continental, and global integration and the development of supranational entities have extended d. at the international level, reinforcing the federalist movement in various forms. The development of nongovernmental organizations at the international level has also helped strengthen democratic principles.
N.H. supports the process of democratization at all levels, but stresses the need for the development of d. particularly at the grassroots level, supporting the publication of neighborhood and community newspapers, the formation of local radio and TV stations, the development of computer networks for local communication, etc. Humanists are convinced that the fate of d. depends on the formation of the personality of citizens in the spirit of d., on their integral and harmonious development, on the creation of conditions favoring the fulfillment and improvement of their creative capacities, and success in raising the level of general and civic culture. It is also necessary to reinforce and encourage any new growth of democratic culture in the sphere of production and to apply and make use of every democratic advance at all levels of political life.
DEMONSTRATION EFFECT
Used in N.H. to indicate a social event capable of acting as an example or model in places both near by and far removed. In the latter case, ever more rapid and numerous means of communication contribute to shrinking distances, and thus the phenomenon of the d.e. is becoming more frequent. In addition, the similarity of structural situations within a system now becoming global, favors instances of the d.e. being “imported” and “exported” with greater ease. The importance of this phenomenon is that it shows the possibility of incorporating an event or pattern of action into a wider sphere than that of its origin. This is the case of a “weak” influence, which follows the reverse path of a “strong” influence. A strong influence is something directly imposed on cultures or social groups, which are thus made increasingly dependent. The phenomenon of reciprocal influences between social groups or environments that are far removed may be observed today in various spheres of activity. We should bear in mind that no social or cultural formation remains passive or inert, but always acts as a small or large-scale d.e., and is modified as it arrives in new ambits. The ongoing series of d.e.s that cultural diversity can generate clearly enriches the present process of planetarization (*).
DEPENDENCY
(From depending, L. dependere, to be subordinated to a person or thing). Subjugation, subordination. A system of power relationships imposed by one entity on another (a strong power on a weak one, a metropolis on a colony, etc.). A system of economic, political, sociocultural, or psychological subordination of one person, group, State, or people to another person, group, State. As a rule, the weaker entity is in a relation of d. on the stronger.
D. can have a natural or an artificial (imposed) historical origin; an example of the former is parent and child; of the latter, metropolis and colony, developed and developing State. D. is the result of violence and the domination of one by another.
The problem of d. is fundamental in the life of Latin American states, where the struggle for true economic and political independence and nation-state sovereignty has continued for centuries.
In the patriarchal family, d. is manifested in the relationship of superiority of the man over the woman, the elder over the younger, etc.
Today, although relations of d. of weaker countries on the major powers have no legal validity and are even condemned morally and legally by the world community, they continue to exist in practice. Notwithstanding the fact that all UN member states are recognized as independent, in reality significant financial, economic, and military control (and in some areas even administrative control) continues to be exercised by former metropolis.
N.H. strives to overcome d. and to strengthen sovereignty through good-neighbor policies, realizing the equality of all peoples, and the observation of universally recognized international norms and standards. While struggling for equal rights, freedom, and solidarity, N.H. speaks out against all forms of d. in relations between human beings, peoples, and nations.
DESPOTISM
(From despot: Gr. despotes, a master, lord). Absolute and arbitrary authority. A social and political regime that emerged in the ancient Orient and later in pre-Columbian America. It is based on the centralized redistribution of the socioeconomic wealth produced by agrarian communities and craft guilds, and appropriated by the State. Despotic systems also depend on the practice of pillaging and enslaving neighboring peoples. Thus, the despotic empire cannot survive without continual territorial expansion. The social basis of this system is the caste system, which reproduces d., enchaining each human being to a particular caste and ensuring social immobility. In spiritual matters, d. is linked to the deification of the person of the despot, which is linked to the balance and cycles of natural phenomena, with the idea that human history reproduces the movement of nature (the succession of day and night, seasons, the ebb and flow of the tides, etc.).
This phenomenon can also be found in the Middle Ages (the Mongol Empire) and in recent times (the empires of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, who manifested significant despotic traits, especially in their systems of forced labor and their absolute personal power).
A despotic style of rule and administration is still practiced today in some states of Asia and Africa, where the arbitrariness of the leaders and the violence displayed toward their subjects, along with a total disregard for life and human dignity, are the rules of state organization. Examples of this are the states of Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.
DESTRUCTURING
Fragmentation or disintegration of a structure (*), in which the tendency of the process that gave it origin is discontinued. In a closed system, the disarticulation of both a structure and its environment is correlated in a way that does not allow the new surpassing the old (*)
DEHUMANIZATION
Process resulting in a reduction of human freedom. D. in interpersonal relations is characterized by the denial of the free subjectivity of others, as a consequence reducing them to objects. A dehumanizing way of looking at others strips them of the freedom which is their essence, and instead emphasizes secondary characteristics that become converted into substantive ones (gender, race, national origin, occupation, etc.). Such a dehumanizing “look,” driven by the intention of naturalizing the other, tends to differentiate rather than complement. There is also a historical naturalism under which human processes are interpreted in terms of supposed determinisms, which seek to be consecrated by the science (*) of the moment. For example, Geopolitics, Social Darwinism (*), and in large measure orthodox Marxism-Leninism (*) all embody such dehumanizing determinisms.
Throughout the long period of the Middle Ages during which the Church held enormous religious, political, and economic power, the question of whether women had souls was a subject of serious debate. A similar thing took place with the indigenous peoples of the Americas during the period of the European conquest, and it was concluded that the original inhabitants were “natural,” i.e., not strictly speaking human beings. In more recent times, and perhaps as a remnant of such ideas, people have continued to reduce the human personality simply to functions such as the activities or social situations in which people find themselves, always with an emphasis on the relationships of subordination or dependency. N.H. recommends care in the use of designations that might imply a dehumanizing reduction of the person: “patient” in relation to doctor; “adolescent” as signifying a person who is incomplete; “taxpayers” which defines citizens solely in terms of their financial support of the State, etc. 
D. as a social process corresponds to anti-humanist moments (*humanist moment) of history in which a collective alienation (*) pervades all human activities.
DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
Those countries of America, Asia, Oceania, and Europe notable for their high per capita gross national product, average life expectancy, low infant mortality, high average level of education (approximately fourteen years of instruction per employed person), high labor productivity and great wealth. These countries enjoy ownership of the majority of the world’s inventions, patents and scientific discoveries; investment in scientific research, as well as high levels of spending on computer technology for the structure of accumulation; wide distribution of durable goods and paid services in the structure of family consumption. Corporations predominate in the socioeconomic structure of the d.c., especially the huge multinational corporations that control the markets. This group is not homogeneous. In some instances, alongside the most advanced nations we find less developed ones, for example Greece. 
In 1960 the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development was founded with headquarters in Paris. This is an intergovernmental organization of twenty-four member states, mostly European, which coordinates economic cooperation.
Since 1975 there have been annual meetings of the heads of the governments of the seven wealthiest states: France, the United States, England, Germany, Japan, Italy and Canada (since 1977 the representative of the European Common Market has attended and, since 1995, with certain restrictions, the president of Russia). Since 1996, Asian-European meetings have been held by the leaders of fifteen Western European states and ten Asian states, such as Japan, China, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. 
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Group of countries where traditional societies predominate, or that are making the transition from preindustrial to industrial and postindustrial economies. Most of these countries are in Africa, Latin America and Asia, in the southern hemisphere, where 70% of the world population live, and only 30% of world income is concentrated. This attests to the injustice of international economic relations, the socioeconomic backwardness in social relations and the low technology level of society in these countries. The responsibility for this backwardness lies, not only on the transnational capital, that exploits these countries, but also on their ruling elites, which slow down development and block the process of modernization of society. It is also important to recognize that worker productivity in d.c. is low due to the illiteracy of a large part of their adult populations, low level of worker training, old technology, and absence or underdevelopment of their own scientific base. The states of Africa, Latin America and Asia continue their efforts to cooperate on regional matters, and at the international level to accelerate their development both collectively and through dialogue with the “North”.
The seventh conference of the leaders of the States and Governments of the nonaligned nations (1983) approved a declaration of collective support for the internal strengthening and progress of developing countries, as well as a program of actions for economic cooperation.
The Committee for Economic Cooperation between developing nations operates within the framework of the UN Conference on Trade and Development, founded in 1964. Since 1977, during sessions of the UN General Assembly, the Group of 77, created in 1964 by the nations of Africa, Latin America and Asia, has held meetings of their ministers of foreign affairs.
In 1996, Japan hosted a gathering of ten Latin American and Asian countries (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Mexico, Malaysia, Thailand, Hong Kong, South Korea and Japan) to examine problems in the development of economic relations between Asia and Latin America.
DICTATORSHIP
(From L. dictaturam, temporary power of the dictator, named by the Roman Senate). Absolute power; a regime that is the product of armed violence and that practices terror, arbitrariness and direct violence as the principal method of state administration; power based on direct violence, unrestrained by law.
This political model, which originated in ancient Greece and Rome, was present in the Middle Ages and again in modern times to the present. The USSR and other states known as socialist officially proclaimed themselves “dictatorships of the proletariat,” but were in practice dictatorial oligarchic regimes under the control of the nomenclatura (leadership) of the Communist Party, which held absolute power.
In several countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, military dictatorships seized power, using anti-communism as a pretext for implanting oligarchic regimes, repressing social movement and using terror to destroy democratic organizations. Most of these dictatorships were expunged by the subsequent rise of democracy.
N.H. condemns, from ethical, juridical and political points of view, all forms of d. for their assaults on human dignity and security; their violations of human rights; their cult of violence and practice of terror; and for placing group and often corporative interests above the human being. 
DIGNITY
(L. dignitatem, moral excellence). 1) Moral value, recognition of the value of every human being as a personality for itself and for the society to which it belongs; 2) Honorary position, employment and situation of authority. 
D. is a form of self-awareness and control of one’s own personality that allows human beings to understand their responsibility toward themselves and society, and allows the latter to recognize in practice the rights of the human personality and formulate requirements from it. 
N.H. affirms the d. of the personality as a high ethical value in interpersonal relations, in day-to-day practical activity, and in sociopolitical action. In so doing, humanism elevates the human person and helps struggle against the humiliation of citizens in daily life and in the sociopolitical life of today’s society.
DIPLOMACY
(Gk. diploma, document). The science and art of inter-state relations; diplomatic corps and career; system of state institutions charged with undertaking negotiations with other states, and with international, regional and sub-regional governmental organizations. 
This term also encompasses the entire range of methods and procedures of interstate negotiations for the purpose of reaching bilateral or multilateral commitments and agreements among nations.
DISCRIMINATION
(L. discriminare, to separate, differentiate). Designates a form of treating persons, organizations and states as inferior due to factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, age, culture, ideology, etc. A premeditated depriving or curtailing of rights and privileges. One form of political d. is the restriction of a person’s or group’s right to vote or to be elected to public office.
Any explicit or concealed act of differentiation or segregation of an individual or human group that entails the negation of their intentionality and freedom is d. Such d. is always accompanied by affirming a contrast with such people based on special attributes, virtues, or values that the parties exercising d. claim for themselves. Such a procedure is correlated with an objectifying “look” (a sensibility or an ideology) vis à vis human reality.
N.H. condemns d. in all its manifestations and urges its public unmasking in every instance. 
DOGMATISM
(From dogma: L. dogma, the basic tenet of a doctrine). Mode of thinking that accepts certain opinions, doctrines and norms as unconditional postulates or principles, valid under any circumstance and accepted without criticism or rational judgment. It closes off the path to acquiring new knowledge and introducing innovations. It is characteristic of a narrow religious consciousness that upholds traditionalism and conservatism. The struggle against d. facilitates the free development of science and the spread of knowledge concerning nature and society.
D. has always been and continues to be an obstacle to spiritual and social progress, ultimately leading to the objectification of the culture, to its isolation and destructuring (*).
Humanism developed historically in the resolute struggle against medieval d., introducing and putting into practice momentous cultural innovations. The universalist, open and creative spirit of N.H. carries forward in today’s world the struggle against all d., which artificially limits the creative capacities of human beings. 
E
ECOLOGY
We are indebted to Lamarck and Treviranus for the basis and name of the new science that after 1802 came to be called Biology. What was formerly referred to as Natural History was reformulated by Haeckel in 1869 when it began to form part of Biology under the name of e. This branch of knowledge studies the relationship between organisms and the environment in which they live. Today, e. studies the adaptations of species related to their need for energy, food and reproduction. As an academic discipline, e. is divided into plant, animal and human e. In general terms, e. is concerned with the adaptation of species and the environmental factors affecting them (soil, climate, other species, etc.).
One of the fundamental themes of e. is ecosystems (the ensemble of living and non-living beings which are interrelated within and linked to the same environment). Ecosystems are thermodynamically open systems which receive energy from outside and transmit it to neighboring ecosystems. The study of ecosystems is based on systems theory and cybernetics. The ecosystem includes a body of biotic (species) and abiotic elements which are in a state of constant interaction. 
Today, interest in e. has spread beyond the cloisters of academia, reaching large sectors of the population. The excesses of companies that pollute have been duly documented. They have and continue to perpetrate serious imbalances that threaten existing flora and fauna, dumping toxic wastes and non-biodegradable residues, manipulating nuclear power plants as sources of energy, and unleashing environmental contamination and acid rain. To this must be added the growth of the mega-cities, the damage to the productivity of farmland irrationally over-treated with pesticides and chemical fertilizers, the desertification of vast areas, etc. All of these factors constitute a serious focus of concern for those interested in protecting the flora, fauna and climate in a balanced environment that will ensure human survival. The practice of calling attention to the growing ecological difficulties that societies are today experiencing, which has been generically termed environmentalism (*), signifies an important advance in the increasing consciousness of the people regarding one of the most critical problems of these times. Even if, among the teachers and leaders of environmentalism, there is not a single, homogeneous interpretation of the deterioration of the environment or the methods to be followed to overcome this dangerous situation, a collective sensibility has begun to emerge that has led to the passage of increasing amounts of legislation against anti-environmental activities. Of course, these dangerous activities will not be fully resolved until they come to be understood as crimes against humanity. Moreover, although we can advance in that direction, we need to understand that the inhuman system in which we live today carries within its own development the seeds of its own decomposition and that of everything it takes possession of. The need for a radical change in the structure of power and in the organization of societies becomes evident in the face of the growing ecological disaster.
ECONOMY
(Gr. oikonomia, management of a household). System of relations of production, distribution and services, and of the related enterprises ranging from family businesses to multi-national corporations. The corresponding branch of science that studies these relationships and the economic system in general is termed economics. It is customary to speak of both private or domestic e. and public e. to highlight the extent of economic activity; of rural or urban e. to indicate the surroundings in which the productive operations are carried out; of mixed e. to refer to an intermediate economic system between a liberal e. (which implies the absence of State intervention) and a planned e. (with maximum State intervention). We also speak of economies of scale in which the earnings of a company are increased through a reduction in the unit cost of production achieved through increasing size; of external e. which is income not realized through a company’s own efforts but as the result of a favorable economic environment or events. We also speak of rudimentary, underground, and prosperous e., according to the interpretative framework used to measure productivity.
N.H. proposes an economic model in which in every concrete set of circumstances the relations of production, exchange and consumption are regulated by worker ownership (*) and by the interests of the majority of the population. This proposal encourages the humanization of the e., starting from the instrumental conception of economic factors at the service of the human being. The humanization of the e. advocated by N.H. diverges radically from all economistic models that rest on interpretative reductions that portray the individual, society and political reality as mere epiphenomena or as simple reflections of prevailing economic or macroeconomic conditions. The central ideas of the project of humanizing the e. are outlined in the “Statement of New Humanism” (*Humanist Statement).
EDUCATION
(L. educatio, the act of developing the physical, intellectual and moral faculties). System for transmitting and extending knowledge, skills and norms of conduct and social communication that includes corresponding theories (pedagogical science) and educational institutions. It is divided into pre-school, elementary, intermediate, technical school, university, adult and special e. (for the deaf, blind, etc.), distance e., self study and other branches. There are differences between state, municipal private e., and e. programs offered by associations.
E. is the individual’s preparation for culture, for work, for the practice of science, ethics, art, etc. Because it contributes to the formation of each person’s ideology, culture, morality and orientation toward life and work, e. is the most important and traditional source of socialization. 
It is customary to speak of e. in at least two different senses. One refers to the transmission of information and knowledge from educator to student, and here the new information technologies tend to progressively replace the educator’s work. There is another sense in which e. is conceived as a preparation, a training of the student for the world they live in. This “world” refers as much to intangibles such as values and human relations, as it does to physical things. In this second sense, e. seeks to enable different modes of comprehension, points of view, different perspectives for understanding the realities of material and cultural objects as well as those of one’s interiority. An e. that is increasingly limited to the transmission of objectal data, is an important factor of the “emptying out” of the subjectivity and meaning in human actions. This type of e. demands profound reforms. Clearly, the problem of e. is one of the most pressing in the contemporary world.
Massive e. through the use of the new electronic technologies opens up a vast field of possibilities for the development of collective knowledge. It should be noted, however, that the dissemination of knowledge (however neutral or scientific it claims to be), carries with it the dominant ideology, this being most clearly observable in the field of the human sciences (philosophy, history, psychology, sociology, law, economics, etc.). Moreover, this has happened and happens, whatever the method of e., independently of the technology it uses.
In Humanize the Earth Silo writes: 
1. … to educate is basically to train new generations in the exercise of a non-naive vision of reality, so that their look takes in a world not as a supposedly objective reality in itself, but rather as the object of transformation to which human beings apply their action. But I am not speaking now of information about the world; I am speaking, rather, of the intellectual exercise of a particular un-prejudiced vision toward landscapes and of an attentive practice toward one’s own look. A basic education should strive for the exercise of coherent thought. This does not, in this case, refer to knowledge per se, but to the person’s contact with their own registers of thinking. 
2. Second, education should make use of the incentive of emotional comprehension and development; thus, the exercise of dramatics on the one hand and self-expression on the other, in addition to expertise in managing harmony and rhythm, should be considered in planning an integral education. But the object of such an education is not to instrument procedures that seek to produce artistic talents, the intention is rather that individuals make emotional contact with themselves and others, without the alterations and disorientations that are induced by an education of separateness and inhibition.
3. Third, education should involve a practice that will call into harmonic play all of the person’s corporal resources, and this discipline more closely resembles a form of gymnastics performed artfully than it does a sport, which does not form the person integrally, but in a one-sided fashion. What is entailed here is to allow the person to make contact with their body and to govern it with ease and assurance. Thus, although sports would not have to be regarded as formative activity, their practice would be useful were it based on above-mentioned discipline. 
4. Thus far I have spoken of education from the point of view of activities formative of human beings in their human landscape, without speaking of information as it relates to knowledge, to the incorporation of data through study and through practice as a form of study.
ELECTION
1. Process of electing; appointment to a position or office through a process of voting; essential democratic process for establishing an institution, filling a public office, or forming bodies that hold powers delegated by each citizen or member of the association. There are different kinds of electoral systems; for example, proportional representation in which the candidate in an electoral area who obtains an absolute or relative majority of votes wins the election. Elections can be general, or limited to one part of the electorate; by secret ballot or open election, or by acclamation; direct or indirect. In monitoring elections it is important for official representatives of all parties or groups presenting candidates as well as neutral observers to take part.
2) Decision made in front of two or more options. The possibility of e. reveals the degree of liberty (*) in human actions. For N.H., all e. is always in front of a set of conditions; that’s why we should speak of liberty in a particular situation rather than in abstract terms. The act of eluding or postponing an e. is also an e. 
ELECTORAL SYSTEM
(From Gr. syn, with, together, and histanai, to set). One of the components of the official and legitimate mechanism for the realization of democracy, for the participation of the citizens in governing through the institution of elections and suffrage. It involves the management of the State, municipalities, public associations and organizations, and the election of their officials and functionaries, as well as the monitoring of their activities.
Elections can be direct or indirect; voting can be secret or open. There are different methods for the scrutiny of the ballots and for the distribution of seats in the parliament (in both majority and proportional systems).
To legitimize their power, authoritarian regimes replace genuine elections with elections by acclamation, fraudulent plebiscites and other subterfuges. This is how Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Nasser, Pinochet, Suharto, Mao Ze dong, Saddam Hussein and other dictators have proceeded.
Furthermore, electronic technology applied to the electoral system is beginning to make possible not only an acceleration in counting ballots, but is also putting the citizen in immediate contact with legislative initiatives or executive decrees, allowing them to exert pressure through direct expression of opinion (through computer networks), in a quasi-plebiscitary way. This possibility of instantaneous relationship between initiatives and accords, or discords, creates completely new conditions of interaction. Of course, we should not confuse this new technology with opinion polls, which are subject to manipulation by the State or by the company gathering, processing and delivering the results obtained. 
N.H. proposes a complement to the electoral system. This should consist of a body of laws of political responsibility that contribute to popular control over the performance of government officials. Legislation for political prosecution, the divestment of privileges of office, removal from office and other measures, must be clear for their immediate application. Such a system is important, not only to control irregularities, but also to reduce the margin of betrayal of the voters, which is frequently expressed as politicians’ non-fulfillment of their election promises. Using the pretext of waiting for future elections to be held to determine whether the citizens are in agreement or not with their conduct in office, the people’s decision is postponed in matters that can be of special urgency. Today, given the acceleration of societal events, such dilatoriness is totally disproportionate and demands a profound revision. Until now, the betrayal of the voters has been the favorite method used by leaders who take refuge in the conclusion of their mandate in order to ― only then ― verify whether the measures they have applied meet with the people’s acceptance or rejection. 
ELITE
The most select, distinguished layer of informal leaders that stand out in each social group or corporation, and that develops and transmits ethical, aesthetic values, etc., and norms of social conduct within their group. 
Various theories give different definitions of this phenomenon, its nature, social status and role in society, from biological interpretations that see no essential difference between natural and social elites, to mechanistic, systematological and culturalogical interpretations.
EMANCIPATION
(From L. emancipare,, to deliver from guardianship or slavery). Process and goal of liberation from a condition of subjugation. Recovery of liberty, sovereignty, autonomy and independence.
In social relations this is a question of achieving the e. of oppressed groups or social strata (servants, slaves, women, homosexuals, ethnic or religious minorities, etc.).
In international relations, e. is a question of liberation of colonies and oppressed nations, of proclaiming and making real their independence and equality of rights with respect to other states. Different forms of e. can be distinguished: spiritual, cultural, political, economic, etc.
There are violent and non-violent forms of e. Humanists opt for non-violent forms. The principal objective of the activities of N.H. is the search for the full range of possibilities for eliminating all factors of oppression so that human beings can develop their freedom, their creative qualities and strengths. 
EMPIRICAL HUMANISM
Any humanism that is put into practice without historical or philosophical premises. E.H. is the clearest, most commonplace example of the exercise of the humanist attitude (*).
ENLIGHTENMENT, THE
(From L. lumen, light). Illumination of the understanding with the light of the intellect. In world history, this name, the Age of E. or Century of Light was given to the eighteenth century. The beginnings of this current of thought, which gives priority to scientific knowledge and human reason, were marked by the works of Benedict Spinoza, René Descartes, John Locke, Isaac Newton, Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, and other thinkers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. 
While these elaborators of universal systems can be considered the precursors of the E., the encyclopaedists gave priority to empirical and historical knowledge, and the symbol of this period is Encyclopaedism, which managed to imprint the seal of enlightenment on global society and to place scientific knowledge, rationalism and empiricism as the driving forces of social progress. According to the thinkers of the E., the ideas of good, justice and human solidarity, reinforced by scientific knowledge, would succeed in changing qualitatively both the human being and all of society, contributing to the humanization of life.
Diderot introduced the idea of the unity of goodness and beauty. Voltaire wielded his critical scalpel against the conservative institution of the Church. Montesquieu established the principle of the separation of powers. Condillac founded the sensualist school, highlighting the role of analysis in scientific knowledge. Rousseau elaborated the doctrine of the “social contract” Schiller proclaimed his romantic humanism. Goethe placed special attention on the fusion of the natural and social dimensions in each human being.
The extension of encyclopaedic scientific knowledge, the intertwining of religious and atheistic approaches in the analysis of the phenomena of life, the aspiration to harmony and prosperity, the consolidation of the principles of justice and solidarity, paved the way for the inception of modern times. This new social order turned out to be neither as harmonious nor as humanistic as the thinkers of the E. had dreamed it would be, but it nevertheless signified an enormous step forward in the development of civilization.
The principal historical merit of the Age of E. and the Renaissance as well consists of the renewal of humanism as a social ideology, a way of life and an ethical base. All of this has had lasting significance for world civilization.
ENVIRONMENT
Term generally used to designate an integrated structure (*) of living systems. 
ENVIRONMENTALISM
Extension and generalization of ecological concepts, transferring them into the realm of social reality. Emerging in the 1960s from movements advocating the protection of nature and the environment, e. involves an awareness of the disconnection or rupture between human beings and their natural environment, a rupture caused by an industrial civilization that contaminates, destroys, or exhausts non-renewable resources, and threatens the very survival of the species. E. declares the urgent need for forms of development that are in balance with nature, based on utilizing renewable and non-polluting energy sources. Implementing e. will only be possible through a maximum decentralization of the centers of decision-making and the application of measures for self-governance (*) that allow each person to feel fully responsible for their future.
EQUALITY
(From L. aequalitatem) Principle that recognizes in all citizens the capacity or possibility for the same rights.
Human beings cannot be equal, because each one is a distinct person unique among its kind, unrepeatable in history, irreplaceable. However, in economic activity the worker and the manager are fully replaceable in their technological functions, social roles, etc. This alienation (*) of the human being creates the illusion of universal e.
Egalitarianism arises from such a foundation. Historically, two fundamental conceptions of egalitarianism have developed: e. of possibilities and e. of results. Very important here is the problem of the relationship between the contribution and the remuneration of the individual, between abilities and needs, as well as mechanisms for the redistribution of income. The social-democratic approach attempts to establish and bring about various forms of compromise between these two conceptions of egalitarianism.
Communists affirm the e. of persons with respect to the ownership of the means of production, rejecting private property as the cause of alienation and exploitation.
Conservatives reject the e. of results as a violation of the principles of freedom and human nature, as a deplorable practice that undermines the effective functioning of the social system.
N.H. acknowledges the social e. of citizens before the law and nations with respect to their international rights as established in the charter of the United Nations, but does not accept egalitarianism as a social and political doctrine. At the same time, N.H. condemns the neo-conservative orientation that seeks to preserve the privileges of both the aristocracy of money and a tiny group of states at the expense of those social groups in greatest need and of developing countries. 
EVOLUTION
(From L. evolutionem: action and effect of evolving). The gradual and natural self-development of systems – social and organic – excluding abrupt or sudden transformations, especially artificial interventions, in the course of the natural process.
E. comprises an accumulation of changes that proceed toward growing complexity through a process extending over a more or less prolonged period of time.
In biological science the doctrine of e. attempts to explain natural phenomena as successive transformations of a single primary, material reality subjected to perpetual movement, by virtue of which it passes from simple and homogeneous to compound and heterogeneous. This presents serious theoretical problems, though, because certain important cosmologies (and their derived biological positions) have attempted to prove that from an initial state everything continues being gradually transformed until the energy and order are dissipated. In recent years, however, following the study of dissipative structures (due especially to the work of Ilya Prigogine), the concept of e. has been radically modified, altering not only the old conceptions but current ones as well still based on a simple entropic principle. In light of these conceptual changes, a fundamental revision is required, not only in the idea of e., but also, for example, in the field of the social sciences, in the idea of revolution (*), which implies a rupture or discontinuity in an evolutionary social process.
EXISTENTIALISM
(From LL. existentia). One of the most influential philosophical and cultural systems; a particular current of humanist thought that has as its objective the analysis and description of the meaning and contradictions of human life. From the point of view of e., the individual is not a mechanical part of a single totality (generation, class, social body), but an entity integral and complete in itself.
In the philosophy of e. there are numerous tendencies, among them religious and atheist. A common problematic unites them, but each has its own approach to understanding life. In the religious, primacy is granted to the relation of humankind to God. The atheist branch considers the individual as the only God. These conceptions, however, influence each other reciprocally, exhibiting the same concern for the suffering of human beings, proclaiming the same ethical principles, and experiencing the same disillusionment regarding the absurdity and meaninglessness of modern life. The same spirit of pessimism and even despair characterizes all the tendencies of the existentialist movement.
Sören Kierkegaard (1813-1855), Danish philosopher and Protestant theologian, was one of the precursors of existentialist doctrine; he analyzed in great depth and detail such features of human existence as sorrow, fear, love, guilt, good and evil, death, consciousness, dread, etc. The permanent sense of dread that an individual experiences is a consequence of the feeling of abandonment in anticipation of inevitable death. Sincere faith is the only thing that allows the individual to live life consciously. Nicholas Berdyaev (1874-1948), a Russian Orthodox philosopher, developed the line of thought of Kierkegaard further and founded what was termed “New Christianity.” According to Berdyaev, the existence of the individual is founded in freedom, while the meaning of life is constituted “in the birth of God in the individual and of the individual in God.” Only the individual exists, whereas everything else is simply there but does not exist because it has no consciousness of its existence, but merely adapts to objective conditions. In this form of e. three factors intersect: freedom, divine predestination, and the responsibility and personal energy of a being who knows how to think, feel and produce. The individual must be always in a state of renewal, i.e., become ever more human.
Karl Jaspers (1883-1969) understood this problem in his own way, attempting to separate the “temporal axis” of history and to focus attention on certain constants in life (sickness, death, suffering) that determine the principal meaning of existence. According to Jaspers, every being must seek its individuality in its present life. 
In Spanish philosophy and literature Miguel de Unamuno (1864-1936) developed existentialist ideas. He attributed special significance to the idea of Quixotism, according to which the human being undertakes a permanent struggle (as did Don Quixote) for an unreal ideal. Every concrete existence is made up of collisions between the ordinary and the sublime, between pragmatism and spiritual revelation.
For many existentialists, Friederich Nietzsche (1844-1900) represents another source of this doctrine, apart from Kierkegaard.
Just as Marxists made use of the dialectical method of Hegel, more recent existentialists have employed the rigorous phenomenological method of Husserl in their descriptions.
Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) and Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) are other thinkers who have contributed in important ways to the development of e. José Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955) can also be considered part of this movement, even though his ratio-vitalist line of thought departs in many respects from a number of the basic assumptions of e.
Independently of the diversity that characterizes the existentialist focus on the circumstances of human life, this conception is notable for its sensitivity toward all problems of human existence, as well as for its confidence in the personal, creative powers of human beings. The credo of many existentialists: “Existence means being human; human being means existence,” corresponds fully with the conception of N.H.
EXISTENTIALIST HUMANISM
A form of philosophical humanism (*).
Immediately after the Second World War, the French cultural panorama was dominated by the figure of Sartre and existentialism (*), the current of thought he helped spread through his work as a philosopher and novelist and through his engagement or politico-cultural commitment. Sartre’s philosophical formation took place in Germany in the 1930s, and was especially influenced by the phenomenological school of Husserl and Heidegger. In the postwar political climate and in his confrontation with Marxism and Christian Humanism, Sartre set out to extend the ethical-political aspects of his existentialism, redefining it as a humanist doctrine based on commitment and the acceptance of historical responsibilities, active in the denunciation of all forms of oppression and alienation. It was with this intent that in 1946 Sartre wrote Existentialism (L’Existentialisme est un humanisme), an essay consisting of a slightly modified version of the lecture he had given on the same topic at the Club Maintenant in Paris. 
Sartre presented and defended the thesis that existentialism is a humanism as follows: 
“Many people are going to be surprised to hear us speaking of humanism on this occasion. We shall try to see in what sense it [existentialism] is to be understood as such. In any case, what can be said from the very beginning is that by existentialism we mean a doctrine that makes human life possible and, in addition, declares that every truth and every action implies a human setting and a human subjectivity... Subjectivity of the individual is indeed our point of departure, and this for strictly philosophic reason... There can be no other truth to take off from than this: I think; therefore, I exist. There we have the absolute truth of consciousness becoming aware of itself. Every theory that takes man out of the moment in which he becomes aware of himself is, at its very beginning, a theory that confounds truth, for outside the Cartesian cogito, all views are only probable, and a doctrine of probability that is not bound to a truth dissolves into thin air. In order to describe the probable, you must have a firm hold on the true. Therefore, before there can be any truth whatsoever, there must be an absolute truth; and this one is simple and easily arrived at; it’s on everyone’s doorstep; it’s a matter of grasping it directly. 
Moreover, this theory is the only one that gives dignity to man, the only one that does not make of him “an object.” 
But unlike what occurs in Cartesian philosophy, for Sartre the cogito ― “I think” ― retransmits directly back to the world, to others; the consciousness in its intentionality is always consciousness of something. Sartre continues:
“... thus, the man who becomes aware of himself through the cogito also perceives all others, and he perceives them as the condition of his own existence. He realizes that he can not be anything... unless others recognize him as such. In order to get any truth about myself, I must have contact with another person. The other is indispensable to my own existence, as well as to my knowledge about myself. This being so, in discovering my inner being I discover the other person at the same time, like a freedom placed in front of me which thinks and wills only for or against me. Hence, let us at once announce the discovery of a world which we shall call inter-subjectivity; this is the world in which man decides what he is and what others are.
Sartre next goes on to give the definition of the human being from the point of view of existentialism. In Sartre’s view, all existentialists of whatever stripe, Christian or atheist, including Heidegger, concur in this: in the human being, existence precedes essence. To clarify this, Sartre gives the following example: 
“Let us consider some object that is manufactured, for example, a book or a paper-cutter: here is an object which has been made by an artisan whose inspiration came from a concept. He referred to the concept of what a paper-cutter is and likewise to a known method of production, which is part of the concept, something which is, by and large, a routine. Thus, the paper-cutter is at once an object produced in a certain way and, on the other hand, one having a specific use... Therefore, let us say that, for the paper-cutter, essence – that is, the ensemble of both the production routines and the properties which enable it to be both produced and defined – precedes existence.
In the Christian religion, Sartre continues, within which European thought has been formed:
“when we conceive God as the Creator, He is generally thought of as a superior sort of artisan... Thus, the concept of man in the mind of God is comparable to the concept of paper-cutter in the mind of the manufacturer, and, following certain techniques and a conception, God produces man, just as the artisan, following a definition and a technique, makes a paper-cutter.... In the eighteenth century, the atheism of the philosophes discarded the idea of God, but not the notion that essence precedes existence.
Following this line of thought, Sartre says that man: 
“... has a human nature; this human nature, which is the concept of the human, is found in all men, which means that each man is a particular example of a universal concept, man.... [B]ut atheistic existentialism, which I represent, is more coherent. It states that if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that this being is man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality. What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be.” (Existentialism, 18)
Sartre goes on to clarify this thought still further: 
“Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism. It is also what is called subjectivity, the name we are labeled with when charges are brought against us. But what do we mean by this, if not that man has a greater dignity than a stone or table? For we mean that man first exists, that is, that man first of all is the being who hurls himself toward a future and who is conscious of imagining himself as being in the future. Man is at the start a plan which is aware of itself;... nothing exists prior to this plan;... man will be what he will have planned to be.” (Existentialism, 18–19)
Thus, for Sartre, the task is to deduce coherently all possible consequences of the non-existence of God. First, the human being does not have a fixed or unchanging essence; the human essence is constructed upon existence, first as plan or project and then as actions. Human beings are free to be whatever they want to be, but in this process of self-formation they have no moral rules to guide them. 
Recalling one of the thinkers who inspired existentialism, Sartre notes: 
Dostoyevsky said, “If God didn’t exist, everything would be possible.” That is the very starting point of existentialism.... [I]f God does not exist, we find no values or commands to turn to that legitimize our conduct. So, in the bright realm of values, we have no excuse behind us, nor justification before us. We are alone, with no excuses. That is the idea I try to convey when I say that man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet, in other respects free; because, once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does... Man, with no support and no aid, is condemned every moment to invent man...
“….When we say that man chooses his own self, we mean that every one of us does likewise; but we also mean that in making this choice we make a choice for all men. In fact, in creating the man that we want to be, there is not a single one of our acts which does not at the same time create an image of man as we think he ought to be. To choose to be this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without being good for all.
It is on this foundation that Sartre constructs a social ethics of freedom: 
“…When, in all honesty, I’ve recognized that man is a being in whom existence precedes essence, that he is a free being who, in various circumstances, can want only his freedom, I have at the same time recognized that I can want only the freedom of others. 
Sartre’s ethics is not based on the thing chosen but rather on the honesty or “authenticity” of the choice. He also says that action is not necessarily gratuitous, absurd, or without foundation. In fact, even though no sweeping and definitive morality exists, even though every individual is free to construct their own morality within the situation they live, by choosing among the various possibilities that present themselves, it is nonetheless possible for the individual to make moral judgments. Such moral judgments are based on the recognition of freedom (one’s own and that of others) and of dishonesty or bad faith. Let us see how Sartre explains this: 
“…One can judge...that certain choices are based on error and others on truth. If we have defined man’s situation as a free choice, with no excuses and no recourse, every man who takes refuge behind the excuse of his passions, every man who sets up a determinism, is a dishonest man, is in “bad faith” But suppose someone says to me, “What if I want to act in bad faith?”; I’ll answer, “There’s no reason for you not to be, but I’m saying that that’s what you are, and that the strictly coherent attitude is that of honesty.” I can bring moral judgment to bear.
Let us now consider in what sense for Sartre existentialism can be said to be a humanism: 
“…Man is constantly outside of himself; in projecting himself, in losing himself outside of himself, he makes for man’s existing; and, on the other hand, it is by pursuing transcendent goals that he is able to exist; man, being this state of passing-beyond, is at the heart, at the center of this passing-beyond. There is no universe other than a human universe, the universe of human subjectivity. This connection between transcendency, as a constituent element of man (not in the sense that God is transcendent, but in the sense of passing beyond), and inter-subjectivity (in the sense that man is not closed in on himself but is always present in a human universe) is what we call existentialist humanism. Humanism, because we remind man that there is no law-maker other than himself, and that in his forlornness he will decide by himself; and because we point out that man will fulfill himself as man, not in turning toward himself, but in seeking outside of himself a goal which is just this liberation, just this particular fulfillment.
Sartre admitted that the antithesis between absolute freedom and equally absolute bad faith had been suggested to him by the climate of the war, in no other alternative seemed possible except that between being “for” and being “against.” After the war the true experience arrived ― that of society ― that is, the experience of a complex reality, without clear antitheses or simple alternatives, where there existed an ambiguous relationship between the given situation and initiative, between choice and conditioning. In an interview by the New Left Review in 1969, Sartre goes as far as giving the following definition of freedom: “Freedom” is that small movement which makes of a totally conditioned social being, a person who does not limit himself to re-exteriorizing in its totality, the conditioning he has undergone.”
Notwithstanding this reductive definition of freedom, Sartre does not renounce certain fundamental themes of his prior philosophy. Freedom continues to be the center of his problematic. In 1974, six years before his death, in the discussions published under the title On a raison de se révolter: discusions (To Rebel is Just) Sartre reaffirms that human beings can be alienated and objectified precisely because they are free, because they are not things, not even things that are particularly complex. Human beings never wholly coincide with their factors of conditioning; were this so, it would in fact be impossible to even speak of their conditionings. A robot could never be oppressed. Alienations lead back to freedom.
EXTERNAL LANDSCAPE
Configuration of reality corresponding to the perception of the external senses as filtered through the contents of the consciousness. Because the consciousness is an active structure and not merely a passive reflection of “external” reality, the latter appears as a structured “landscape,” and not as a sum of perceptions nor as an isolated structure of the perceptions of the external senses. The e.l. is experienced in the “outward” position of the consciousness, which has as its reference the peripheral, tactile-cenesthetic register (*internal landscape).
F
FAITH
(From L. fides, faith). A belief (*) that is not based on rational argument. Acceptance of or agreement with words or statements based on the authority or reputation of their source; confidence, assurance that a thing is true. F. is a characteristic of individual and social consciousness.
The psychological state of a subject, expressed in ideas and images, that serves as motivation and orientation in practical activity is also regarded as f.
Different theories of f. can be identified: emotional ones (which interpret f. as an emotion), sensual-intellectual ones (f. as a phenomenon of the intellect), and voluntarist ones (f. as an attribute of the will). Religious f. is a special sphere of f.
N.H. distinguishes between fanatical f. (which is expressed destructively), naive f. (which can endanger a person’s vital interests), and f. that serves to open up the future and advance constructive goals in life.
FAMILY
(From L. familiam, immediate kinship; household and servants). Group of individuals who share some common domestic or nuclear condition.
In botany and zoology the term f. designates a taxonomic group constituted by several natural genera that possess a large number of common characteristics. In mathematics f. refers to a set whose elements are grouped.
For census purposes, the f. (household) is a complex unity of economic and social nature. In general, this designation refers to a group of persons who live together in the same residence and share meals. The single-person f. is constituted by a citizen who lives alone; the large f. consists of four or more children under 18 years of age or older disabled children unable to work. These categories vary according to the legislation of each country, depending on the degree of family protection and security provided and refers, among other cases, to single mothers with minor-age children.
The f. plays a decisive role in the formation and socialization of the personality. It is a historical institution subject to change, and its specific characteristics vary from culture to culture.
In recent years the f. has undergone vertiginous changes due, in large part, to urban overcrowding. Large families have had to reduce their size due to the spatial limitations of land for residential housing. The growing incorporation of women into the working world outside the home has also had an effect. In general, as the standard of living of populations rises, f. size tends to shrink and, inversely, in poor countries explosive growth in family size can be observed. Currently, new structures are emerging that replace parts of the traditional f., for example, in the care and supervision of children in day-care centers. Adoption as well as advances in artificial insemination introduce variants in the concept of the traditional f., bonded by consanguinity. Another case is that of families formed by homosexual parents and adopted children.
N.H. warns of the urgent need to lower the birthrate, improving the standard of living of families in poor countries; it supports legislative initiatives to protect the rights of mothers and children and encourages the creation of interfamily associations capable of providing a complete preschool education.
FASCISM
Nationalistic, authoritarian, anti-communist political concept, the enemy of liberal democracy. Takes its name from the Roman allegory of state authority: a bundle of rods bound around an ax (fascio). This political ideology and organization were created in Italy in 1919 by Benito Mussolini. It claimed to be neither capitalist nor socialist, but advocated a corporativist State. It was the model for Germany (Nazism), Spain (Falangism)and Japan in that period. The British Fascist Union was founded in the United Kingdom, and the Croix de Feu in France. Together with national socialism (*), f. constitutes the most radical anti-humanist movement. F. denies human rights and leads to the degradation of the personality.
F. aspired to establish a new order (*) – the millennial fascist State – through war, and in this endeavor it was principally responsible for unleashing the Second World War, which by official count cost more than fifty million human lives. 
The fascist regime is tyrannical, dictatorial and rigidly hierarchical. Its principle is “the leader is always right,” and the duty of each person is unconditional obedience to the leader. It is a totalitarian regime, which rejects democracy and establishes the monopoly of the fascist party, concentrating in its hands all economic, political and ideological power. The fascist system is militaristic par excellence and converts all inhabitants of a country into soldiers who carry out the will of the leader. For f., the nation state stands above everything. It is a repressive regime that allows no opposition, no dissent. 
The fascist ideology is eclectic and contradictory. It groups together mutually exclusive ideas, mixing elements of socialism, nationalism, paganism, elitism, egalitarianism and militarism. It posits violence (*) as the absolute method for social and political control.
F. promoted the model of rapid social mobilization to carry out a "national objective.” Since f. utilized subversion and violence as its principal methods of political action, in addition to clandestine forms of organization, its parties have been declared illegal since the Second World War. This has obliged fascists to create neo-fascist organizations, which deny their fascist origins while using fascist methods and ideas, modernizing and disguising them in the form of xenophobic nationalist movements. These groups have gained strength especially in Italy, Germany, France and Austria.
N.H. considers that the threat of fascism demands the urgent implementation of reforms to resolve the problems of unemployed youth, bankrupt small businesses, jobless professionals and public employees, impoverished retired workers, and other marginal groups. In order to avoid the rise of inter-ethnic and inter-religious conflicts in the current process of European and American regional integration, it is necessary to bear in mind the problem of national identity and of ethnic and cultural minorities; it is important to provide economic and social assistance to less developed countries in order to lessen the stimulus for migrations toward more developed areas. These measures can reduce the social base of neofascist movements and extend the reach of democracy.
FEMINISM
 (*Women’s issues”)
FEUDALISM
(From LL. feudum, fief). Based on the territorial grant a vassal received from a lord in exchange for military service. The origin of this institution in the Roman Empire, in the form of a “colonato,” [system of Roman colonization using tenant farmers] was the embryonic form of the fief, and f. existed in Europe from the end of the Carolingian era to the close of the Middle Ages. Marxists overextended the content of this term, considering it as a universal socioeconomic formation that, according to them, predominated throughout the world from the collapse of slavery until the advent of capitalism (from the fifth to the eighteenth centuries). Contemporary historiography does not recognize the existence of the feudal regime in the Iberian-American world, with the exception of some parts of Catalonia, Navarra and Aragon, where it was imposed by Frankish kings in the Hispanic territory. The socioeconomic base of the feudal regime was the glebe, which disappeared in the Iberian peninsula towards the thirteenth century. Relationships of vassalage extended only to the nobility and high clergy. Outside of these relations were the peasant serfs and the third estate (the inhabitants of villages and cities, free persons organized in corporations or guilds of artisans and merchants). The feudal regime was characterized by endless warfare between fiefdoms that brought ruin to vast territories. The feudal states were very fragile and short-lived. Fiefdoms frequently passed from one lord to another, provoking the breakup of kingdoms, duchies and principalities. The Catholic Church played a centripetal role in this period, seeking to exert moral authority and at times supreme political authority. In this role, the Church assembled the nobility from different countries, organizing crusades against the infidels. 
F. generated a cultural movement that, just as in the social realm, was characterized by a very strict hierarch. Spiritual life was governed by Scholasticism and subordinated to the Catholic Church. There were uprisings against this rule by many currents of oppressed peasants and artisans, which were branded as heretical by the official Church and cruelly repressed through the crusades.
The existence of f. in the Orient is unconfirmed by the historical documentation, and may be considered a modernist revision of the historical process, a manifestation of Eurocentrism. Marx and the western Marxists attempted to interpret the social phenomena of the Orient in terms of the so-called “Asiatic mode of production.” Heterodox Soviet Orientalists employed the term “primary formation,” which encompassed relations proper to barbarism, slavery and feudalism; in other words, the extra-economic coercion necessary for the violent appropriation of surplus product and its subsequent redistribution in favor of the privileged castes and “classes” (estates). But this interpretation of the historical process of the majority world population also errs in the direction of economic reductionism and underestimation of the cultural specificity and diversity of world history.
Humanism from its emergence spoke out against the reduction of human life to the priority of one or another isolated factor, in favor of the recognition of the integrity of human beings in all their manifestations, and in support of the essential unity and cultural diversity of the human race. For this reason, N.H. does not accept a priori universal models that disregard the cultural specificity of diverse peoples, and at the same time rejects the positivist focus that impedes the analysis of the convergent aspects of different cultures.
N.H. considers that there is no such thing as “laws written in stone” to whose effects people are obliged to blindly submit. We human beings, make our own history in correspondence with the circumstances of the times; we are free to choose between various models or variants, and we have personal responsibility for our actions. F. was one of these historical variants, stemming in large measure from the choice of the European peoples in favor of Western Christianity, which predetermined the particularities of feudal society in Western Europe.
FRATERNITY
(From Gr. phratria, and from it LL. fraternitas, a brotherhood). Term for the brotherly love that unites all members of the human family. Such love is the tendency of human beings to join in solidarity with others on the basis of shared human dignity.
Among the ancient Greeks the concept of phratria was understood to refer to a part of the tribe that had its own sacrifices and rituals. During the Middle Ages f. came to mean the special form of address or treatment accorded to kings and emperors and the upper hierarchy of the Church, and the term is still used in this sense by the clergy.
During the French Revolution, the motto of f., along with liberty and equality, became a principle of social organization of the Republic. The sovereignty previously embodied in the monarch passed on to the people, who demanded special treatment with corresponding rituals as the embodiment of f.
Over time, the use of this term has gradually been replaced by the term solidarity (*), and in this progressive reduction ― which reflects the current tendency toward individualism ― people have begun to use the term reciprocity in the sense of a minimal condition of human relations. Nonetheless, N.H. considers f., to be expressions of the universal love that binds all human beings together. In this sense, f. is extended not only to the members of one tribe, class, caste or other social group, but to all human beings, independent of their race, social condition, religion, or any other difference.
G
GAME
(From OE. gamenian, to play) Recreational activity without utilitarian purpose that gives human beings physiological satisfaction from childhood on and that develops skills by modeling behavior in unfamiliar situations. Even in animal species, g(s). allow the transmission of experience to take place from the adults of a species to the young, and individual learning in groups. Human beings establish conventional rules that regulate these recreational actions. G(s). contribute to the development of the personality and the formation of habits, abilities and skills, making it a possible form of teaching. G. are of immeasurable heuristic importance.
In industrial society, betting g.(s) called gambling are converted into a leisure industry for profit, leading many small business owners and salaried workers to financial ruin, and destroying their personality. This recreational activity is thus transformed into a social vice.
GANDHISM
Doctrine and social movement whose founder and leader was the Indian thinker and political figure Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, better known as Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948). In 1893 he organized the Indians of South Africa in a campaign of passive resistance against discriminatory legislation. In 1919 he undertook to organize in India, then a British colony, a mass movement against colonialism, using non-cooperation and a boycott of British merchandise. He used fasting and civil disobedience as political instruments, rejecting violence on principle.
In the philosophical and social doctrine of Mahatma Gandhi, which is quite heterogeneous, we observe both progressive elements and patriarchal social forms, since rendered outmoded by the historical process.
GENERATIONS
As social production develops, the human horizon expands, but the mere existence of social objects does not guarantee the continuity of this process. For N.H., continuity is a function of the interaction among human g. which transforms them in the process of production. These g., which promote continuity and development, are dynamic structures – they are social time in motion – without which a society would fall back into a state of nature and lose its condition of historical society, as occurred in the destructuring (*) of the ancient empires.
Wars have been decisive factors in the “naturalization” of societies by destroying continuity through the violent decimation of the younger generation. Within a single temporal horizon, in a single historical moment (*), those who are contemporaries coincide, coexist, but do so from landscapes of formation (*) that are specific to each generation by virtue of its difference in age from other g. This fact marks the enormous distance in perspective separating the g., which, though they occupy the same historical stage, do so from different situational and experiential “levels.” It also happens that in every historical time there coexist g. of different temporal levels, with different retentions (memories) and protensions (or future plans), and which, therefore, form different situations. The bodies and behavior of children and the elderly reveal, for the active g., the presence of something they come from and toward which they are headed, and, in turn, for the young and old extremes of that triple relation, temporal circumstances that are also extreme. But this never remains fixed, because as the active g. grow old and the oldest g. die, children are gradually transformed and begin to occupy active, central positions. And new births continually reconstitute society. When, as an abstraction, one “detains” this incessant flow, it is possible to speak of a “historical moment” in which all the members occupying the same social stage can be considered contemporaries, living in a single time (in the sense of datability). But these members observe a non-homogeneous coetaneousness (with respect to their internal temporality and experience). The g. most contiguous to the active g. strive to occupy the central activity (the social present), in accordance with their particular interests, establishing a dialectic relationship with the g. in power in which we can observe the new surpassing the old (*).
The topic of the g. has been treated by a number of authors, among whom Dromel, Lorenz, Petersen, Wechssler, Pinder, Drerup, Mannheimand, of course, Ortega y Gasset stand out. 
GLOBAL PROBLEM
(*planetarization) 
Refers to the complex of problems currently affecting all inhabitants of the Earth. Of interest to all peoples, and their solution demands coordinated action by all the world’s states and international organizations.
Among these problems priority needs to be given to the protection of the environment on a global level; effective guarantees of human rights in all spheres; guarantees for the free development of all cultures with equality of rights for all states and nations; guarantees of peace and disarmament; the prevention of nuclear war and local conflicts; balancing the growth of population and the resources of food, energy and raw materials necessary to sustain that growth; appropriate use of the resources of the world’s oceans and outer space; and the elimination of poverty and overcoming of underdevelopment.
These diverse global problems share a common nature in that they are the result of social progress, of the secular struggles in the course of the development of humankind, and their solution cannot be other than joint and systemic, a product of effective international cooperation by all states, institutions, organizations and movements.
Solving these problems calls for the formation of a mentality that is systemic and global, capable of counteracting and moving beyond national and group egoism, while manifesting respect for cultural diversity, national sovereignty and human rights – above all the right to a decent life. 

GOLDEN RULE
A moral principle found among a wide diversity of peoples, which expresses the humanist attitude (*). Following are examples of the various ways it has been expressed. Rabbi Hillel: “What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to your neighbor.” Plato: “May I always do to others that which I would want them to do to me.” Confucius: “Do not do to another what you would not want others to do to you.” Jainist maxim: “Man must try to treat all creatures as he would want them to treat him.” In Christianity: “All those things that you would want men to do unto you, do also unto them.” Among the Sikhs: “Treat others as you would have them treat you.” Herodotus recorded the existence of the G.R. among various peoples of the ancient world. 
For N.H., the G.R. constitutes the ethical basis of every personal and social action.
GRASSROOTS SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Organizations that arise through the initiative of residents and neighbors of communities, ghettos and poor neighborhoods of larger cities, towns, other residential areas and universities. Their creation is due to common interests, to a coinciding of people’s intentions, sympathies and preferences. They are informal organizations, and do not have a closed character, permanent activities, or fixed bylaws. They are open to all residents. 
Unlike the organizations of political parties, they do not function in the electoral process, but do at times issue moral assessments on political issues that affect the life of the neighborhoods, and they can work in defense of human rights, always emphasizing the right to life and the free expression of ideas and opinions.
When circumstances permit, these grassroots organizations sometimes publish neighborhood or campus newspapers that reflect local life. They focus on neighborhood issues and problems, protection of the environment, humanitarian questions, and artistic life. In this project people learn numerous skills and forms of expression. 
Such organizations form the foundation of civil society, and they cooperate in the establishment and development of the democratic system in their respective countries and in international cooperation based on equality and mutual respect.
N.H. respects the sovereignty of these organizations, takes part in their activities, and supports them in all senses. Often it helps establish coordination between different community organizations of the base. 
H
HIERARCHY
(LL. hierarchia; Gr. hierarchia). Order or rank of persons or things; each of the nuclei or groupings that make up any ranking system.
In information science, h. is understood as the priority given to any element, datum, or instruction of a program, prior to carrying out any computational process

HISTORICAL HUMANISM
In the Western academic world it is customary to label as “humanism” the process of cultural transformation that, beginning in Italy, especially Florence, between the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth centuries and ended in the Renaissance with its expansion throughout Europe. This current appeared linked to the humanae litterae (texts referring to things human) in contraposition to the divinae litterae (with the accent on things divine). And this is one of the reasons why its representatives are called “humanists.” Following that interpretation, humanism in its origins is a literary phenomenon, with a clear tendency to consider anew the contributions of Greco-Latin culture, which had been smothered by the medieval Christian vision. It should be noted that the rise of this phenomenon was not due simply to the endogenous modification of economic, social, and political factors in Western society, but that it received transformative influences from other environments and civilizations. Extensive contact with Jewish and Arabic cultures, trade with cultures of the Orient, and a broadening of the geographic horizon all formed part of a context that gave incentive to a concern for things generically human and discoveries of things human.
HISTORICAL HUMANISM, development of
Only one hundred years after Petrarch (1304-1374), knowledge of the classics was ten times greater than it had been during the entire previous thousand years. Petrarch searched through ancient codices, trying to correct a distorted memory, and in so doing initiated both a movement to reconstruct the past and a new point of view that included the flow of history, which had been blocked by the “immobilism” of the epoch. Another early humanist, Manetti, in his work De dignitate et excellentia hominis (“On the Dignity of Man”), revindicated the human being from the “contemptu mundi” or scorn for the world preached by the monk Lothar of Segni (later to became Pope Innocent III).  Subsequently, Lorenzo Valla in his De voluptate (“On Pleasure”) attacked the ethical concept of pain, an idea of central importance in the society in his time. Thus, at the same time the economy and the structures of society were undergoing transformation, humanists were creating a consciousness of this process, generating a cascade of productions which gradually gave shape to a movement that spread beyond the cultural ambit and ultimately called into question the structures of power in the hands of the Church and the Monarchy. It is well known that many of the themes implanted by the humanists continued to develop, eventually giving inspiration to the encyclopaedists and revolutionaries of the eighteenth century. However, following the American and French Revolutions, the humanist attitude (*) began to wane, and finally sank from sight. By then, critical idealism, absolute idealism, and romanticism, which in turn inspired absolutist political philosophies, had abandoned humankind as the central value, converting the human being into an epiphenomenon of other powers.

HISTORICAL HUMANISM, conditions of
From the temporal and physical points of view, the medieval pre-humanist European world was a closed environment which tended to deny the importance of the contacts with other cultures that did in fact take place. History, from the medieval point of view, is the history of sin and redemption; knowledge of other civilizations not illuminated by the grace of God holds little interest. The future simply prepares one for the Apocalypse and God’s Judgment. In the Ptolomeic conception, the Earth stands motionless at the center of the Universe. Everything is surrounded by the fixed stars, and the planetary spheres revolve under the influence of angelic powers. Above everything is the Empyrean, the throne of God, immobile motor that moves all. Social organization corresponds to the same vision: a hierarchical, hereditary structure differentiates nobles from serfs. At the vertex of the pyramid stand the Pope and the Emperor, at times allied, at others locked in fierce struggle for hierarchical pre-eminence. The medieval economic regime, at least until the eleventh century, is a closed economic system based on the consumption of products at the place where they are produced. The circulation of money is scarce. Trade and commerce are slow and difficult. Europe is a landlocked continental power with the sea lanes in the hands of the Byzantines and Arabs. But the journeys of Marco Polo and his contact with the cultures and technology of the Orient; the teaching centers of Spain from which new and rediscovered knowledge is being disseminated by Jewish, Arab, and Christian teachers; the search for new trade routes to circumvent the obstacle of Byzantine-Moslem conflict; the formation of a merchant sector of rapidly growing vigor; the growth of a bourgeois citizenry that is becoming ever more powerful; and the development of more efficient political institutions such as the Italian principalities – all these developments gradually mark a profound change in the social atmosphere, and that change allows the development of the humanist attitude (*). It should be noted that the development of this new attitude had to undergo numerous advances and setbacks until it penetrated the general consciousness.

HISTORICAL MOMENT
Every social situation finds itself in a determined h.m. wherein diverse generations coexist. An h.m. is differentiated from another when a rupturist generation disputes the power of the generation that holds it. Given a rupture, the conditions are present in the new h.m. for processing a new stage of greater breadth, or for the simple mechanics of the generational dialectic to continue. The h.m. appears as the minimal system (*) of a structure (*) configured by the generations(*) that coexist, in relationship with the structure of their corresponding sociocultural (*landscape) environment (*). Grasping this minimal system is necessary for the comprehension of a historical process. In other words: the coexisting generations and their surrounding landscape are the dynamic structures of the minimal system called h.m.

HISTORIOLOGY
Science of historical interpretation. H. establishes the prior conditions within which all interpretation of the temporal event takes place. It therefore deals with a prior construction that is necessary in order to reach the “events themselves.” One of the most important points is that of comprehending the “interference” that the observer carries out on the studied object. In h. the notion of temporality and of landscape of formation (*) is reviewed, which the historian bases himself on in order to form the perspective from which he observes or describes. One of the problems of h. arises when it is comprehended that the description of the historian’s landscape is also made from a perspective. However, this meta-landscape makes it possible to establish comparisons among homogenized elements, insofar as it makes them belong to one same category, which is not presumptive, but has been fixed beforehand.
HUMAN BEING
The h.b.’s reference of the h.b., in-situation, is the body itself. It is in the body that the relationship between the human being’s subjective moment and objectivity takes place, and it is through the body that the h.b. can understand himself as “interiority” or “exteriority,” depending on the direction he gives to his intention, his “look.” Before the h.b. is everything that is not himself, everything that does not respond to his intentions. Thus, the world in general and other human bodies ― which the h.b.’s body of the has access to, and whose action it likewise registers ― set down the conditions within which the h.b. is constituted. These conditionings also appear as future possibilities, and in future relation with the body itself. In this way, the present situation may be comprehended as modifiable in the future. The world is experienced as external to the body, but the body is also seen as part of the world, since it acts in the latter and receives its. Corporality is also something that changes and is, in this sense, a temporal configuration, a living history launched toward action, toward future possibility. For human consciousness, then, the body becomes the prosthesis of intention, responding to intention in a temporal sense and in a spatial sense; temporally, to the extent that it can actualize in the future what is possible for intention; spatially, as representation and image of intention.
In this becoming, objects are extensions of corporal possibilities, and other bodies appear as multiplications of those possibilities insofar as they are governed by intentions recognized as being similar to those that govern one’s own body. But why would the h.b. need to transform the world and to transform himself? Because of his situation of finiteness and temporo-spatial deficiency, and that he registers, according to various conditionings, as pain (physical) and suffering (mental). In this way, overcoming pain is not simply an animal response, but a temporal configuration in which the future has primacy, and that is converted into a fundamental impulse in life, even though life may not be faced by an emergency at a given moment. Thus, apart from the immediate, reflex and natural response, the deferred response and the and construction to avoid pain are impelled by the suffering in the face of danger, and are re-presented as future possibilities, or as actualities in which pain is present in other human beings. The overcoming of pain, then, appears, then, as a basic project that guides the action. It is this intention that has made the communication possible between diverse bodies and intentions in what we call the “social constitution." The social constitution is as historical as human life, is configuring of human life. Its transformation is continuous, but in a different way from that of nature. In Nature, changes do not come about thanks to intentions. Nature appears as a “resource” for overcoming pain and suffering, and as a “danger” for the human constitution; hence, Nature’s destiny itself is to be humanized, intentionalized. And the body, insofar as nature, insofar as danger and limitation, bears the same project: to be intentionally transformed, not solely in terms of position but also in motor availability; not solely in exteriority but in interiority; not solely in confrontation, but in adaptation. 
In a public talk on May 23, 1991, Silo presented his most general ideas on the h.b. in the following way: 
... When I observe myself, not from a physiological point of view but from an existential one, I find myself here, in a world that is given, neither constructed nor chosen by me. I find that I am in situation with, immersed in phenomena that, beginning with my own body, are inescapable. The body is at once the fundamental constituent of my existence and, at the same time, a phenomenon homogeneous with the natural world, in which it acts and on which the world acts. But the nature of my body has important differences for me from other phenomena, which are: 1) I have an immediate register of my body; 2) I have a register, mediated by my body, of external phenomena; and 3) some of my body’s operations are accessible to my immediate intention. It happens, however, that the world appears not simply as a conglomeration of natural objects, it appears as an articulation of other human beings and of objects, signs and codes that they have produced or modified. The intention that I am aware of in myself appears as a fundamental element in the interpretation of the behavior of others and, just as I constitute the social world by comprehending intentions, so too am I constituted by it. Of course, this refers to intentions that are manifested in corporal action. It is by virtue of the corporal expressions of the other, or by perceiving the situation in which the other appears, that I am able to comprehend the meanings of the other, the intention of the other. Furthermore, natural or human objects appear as either pleasurable or painful to me, and so I try to place myself in relation to them, modifying my situation. In this way, I am not closed to the world of the natural and other human beings; rather, precisely what characterizes me is opening. My consciousness has been configured intersubjectively in that it uses codes of reasoning, emotional models, patterns or plans of action that I register as “mine,” but that I also recognize in others. And, of course, my body is open to the world insofar as I both perceive it and act upon it...”
The natural world, as distinct from the human, appears to me as without intention. Certainly I can imagine that stones, plant sand the stars possess intention, but I find no way to achieve effective dialogue with them. Even those animals in which at times I glimpse the spark of intelligence appear basically impenetrable to me, and changing only slowly from within their natures. I see insect societies that are totally structured, higher mammals that employ rudimentary technology but still only replicate such codes in a slow process of genetic change, as if each was always the first representative of its respective species. And when I observe the benefits of those plants and animals that have been modified and domesticated by the h.b., I see human intention opening its way and humanizing the world.
To define the h.b. in terms of its sociability seems inadequate, because this does not distinguish the h.b. from many other species. Nor is human capacity for work a distinguishing characteristic when compared to that of more powerful animals. Not even language defines the essence of what is human, for we know of numerous animals that make use of various codes and forms of communication. Each new h.b., in contrast, encounters a world that is modified by others, and it is in its being constituted by that world of intentions that I discover that person’s capacity for accumulation and incorporation into the temporal – that is, I discover not simply a social dimension, but each person’s historical-social dimension. 
With these things in mind, a definition of the h.b. can be attempted as follows: Human beings are historical beings, whose mode of social action transforms their own nature. If I accept this definition, I will also have to accept that the human being is capable of intentionally transforming its physical constitution. And indeed this is taking place. This process began with the use of instruments which, placed before the body as external “prostheses,” allowed human beings to extend the reach of their hands and their senses and to increase both their capacity for and the quality of their work. Although not endowed by nature to function in aerial or aquatic environments, they have nonetheless created means to move through these media, and have even begun to emigrate from their natural environment, the planet Earth. Today, moreover, they have begun to penetrate their bodies, replacing organs; intervening in their brain chemistry; conceiving in vitro; and even manipulating their genes. 
If by the idea “nature” one has meant to signify something permanent and unchanging, then today this idea has been rendered seriously inadequate even when applied to what is most object-like about the h.b., that is, the body. In light of this, it is clear in regard to any “natural morality,” “natural law,” or “natural institutions,” that nothing in this field exists through nature, but on the contrary, everything is socio-historical…
And after denying this so-called “human nature,” he concludes with a brief discussion on the “passivity” of the consciousness:
Hand in hand with the idea of human nature goes another prevalent conception which asserts the passivity of the consciousness. This ideology has regarded the h.b. as an entity that functions primarily in response to stimuli from the natural world. What began as crude sensualism has gradually been displaced by historicist currents that, at their core, have preserved the same conception of a passive consciousness. And even when they have privileged the consciousness’s activity in and transformation of the world over interpretation of its activities, they still have conceived of its activity as resulting from conditions external to the consciousness... 
Today, those old prejudices concerning human nature and the passivity of consciousness are once again being asserted, transformed into neo-evolutionary theories embodying such views as natural selection determined through the struggle for the survival of the fittest. In the version currently in fashion, now transplanted into the human world, this sort of zoological conception attempts to go beyond former dialectics of race or class by asserting a dialectic in which it is supposed that all social activity regulates itself automatically according to “natural” economic laws. Thus, once again, the concrete h.b. is submerged and objectified… 
We have noted those conceptions that, in order to explain the h.b., have begun from theoretical generalities and maintained the existence of a human nature and a passive consciousness. We maintain, quite the opposite, the need to start from human particularity; that the h.b. is a socio-historical and non-natural phenomenon, and that human consciousness is active in transforming the world in accordance with its intention. We view human life as always taking place in situation, and the human body as an immediately perceived natural object, also immediately subject to numerous dictates of the person’s intentionality. 
The following questions therefore arise: 1) How is it that the consciousness is active, i.e., how is it that it can operate intentionally on the body and, through the body, transform the world? 2) How is it that the human being is constituted as a socio-historical being, that is, both socially and historically? These questions must be answered starting from concrete existence, so as not to fall again into theoretical generalities from which a dubious system of interpretation might be derived – which could then go on even to deny it was an interpretation. 
Answering the first question will require apprehending through immediate evidence how human intention acts upon the body. In answering the second, one must begin from evidence of the temporality and intersubjectivity of the h.b., rather than beginning from some supposed general laws of history and society. 
Silo develops precisely these two themes in his Contributions to Thought. The intention acting over the body through the image constitutes the nucleus of the explanations of his Psychology of the Image. Subsequently, he will tackle the problem of temporality in his Historiological Discussions. 
HUMAN LANDSCAPE
Configuration of human reality based on the perception of the-other, of society and of objects produced with intentional meaning. The h.l. is not simple objectal perception, but an unveiling of meanings and intentions in which the human being recognizes himself. 
HUMANISM
1) Practice and/or theory of New Humanism (*). 2) Every position that supports the values defined by the humanist attitude (*). 3) Any activity that is in practice committed to the values defined by the humanist attitude. 4) Any doctrine that proclaims the solidarity and freedom of choice of the human being can be designated “a” h. 
HUMANIST CLUBS
Informal, decentralized, nonpartisan organizations that promote both development of and open discourse regarding the proposals of N.H. in specific fields corresponding to the interests of their members. The first such club was founded in Moscow on May 27, 1991. H.c. typically adhere to the Statement of the Humanist Movement (*) and frequently establish active relations with other h.c..
HUMANIST ATTITUDE
The h.a. existed long before words such as “humanism,” “humanist,” and others like them had been coined. The following positions are common to humanists of all cultures: 1) placement of the human being as the central value and concern; 2) affirmation of the equality of all human beings; 3) recognition of personal and cultural diversity; 4) a tendency to develop knowledge beyond conventional wisdom or that imposed as absolute truth; 5) affirmation of the freedom of ideas and beliefs; and 6) repudiation of violence.
Beyond any theoretical definition, the h.a. can be understood as a “sensibility,” a way of approaching the human world in which the intentionality and freedom of others are acknowledged and in which one assumes a commitment to non-violent struggle against discrimination and violence (*humanist moment).
HUMANIST FORUM
Open forum of N.H. in which organizations and individuals participate to exchange contributions and experiences based on their interests, generally formalized in the following areas: 1) health; 2) education; 3) human rights; 4) anti-discrimination; 5) ethnicities and cultures; 6) science and technology; 7) ecology; 8) art and popular expression; 9) religiosity; 10) grassroots groups of the social base; 11) political parties; 12) alternative movements; 13) alternative economies.
Convened by The Community for Human Development (*), the first h.f. took place in Moscow on October 7-8, 1993; the second in Mexico City on January 7-9, 1994; and the third in Santiago, Chile on January 7-8, 1995.
HUMANIST INTERNATIONAL
Convergence of various national humanist parties into an organization without authority concerning the tactics of each individual member. The First H.I. was held in Florence, Italy on January 7, 1989. On that occasion the Doctrinal Theses (*), Declaration of Principles, Bases of Political Action and Bylaws were approved. In addition, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights approved by the United Nations in 1948 was adopted. The Second H.I. was held in Moscow on October 8, 1993, at which time the Humanist Statement (*Humanist Statement) was presented as the ideological basis of International Humanism.
HUMANIST MANIFESTO I 
Published in 1933 and signed by thirty-four well-known authors, among them John Dewey. Written with a strong naturalist tone. In this as in the later Humanist Manifesto II, there is great emphasis on personal freedom and maintaining a democratic political regime. 
HUMANIST MANIFESTO II
Published in 1974 and signed by numerous authors and others, among them B.F. Skinner, Jacques Monod and Andrei Sakharov. The author, Corliss Lamont, serves as nexus between Manifestos I and II. This second manifesto has a strong social-liberal tone. It highlights the need for economic and environmental planning that does not impinge on personal liberties, among them in particular the rights to suicide, abortion and the practice of euthanasia.
HUMANIST MOMENT
Historical situation in which a younger generation struggles against the generation in power in order to modify the dominant anti-humanist framework. Such a period is often identified with social revolution. A h.m. acquires full significance if it inaugurates a stage in which successive generations can adapt and further develop the founding proposals of this process. Frequently, however, the h.m. is canceled by the very generation that came to power with the intention of producing a change of schema or system. It may also happen that the generation that initiates the h.m. will fail in its project. Some have wished to see in the social consciousness (*) of certain cultures the presence of humanist moments represented by a person or group of persons who have attempted to institutionalize this h.m. from a position of power (whether political, religious, cultural, etc.) in an elitist way, “from the top down.” One of the more notable historical examples of this was Akhenaton in ancient Egypt. When he attempted to impose his reforms, there was an immediate reaction from the generation being displaced. All of the structural changes he had initiated were dismantled, which brought about, among other new circumstances, the exodus of certain peoples, who in their departure from the lands of Egypt carried with them the values of that h.m. In other cultures about which current knowledge is not extensive, this phenomenon can still be observed. For example, in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, the Toltec governor of the city of Tula, Topiltzín, has been credited with the implanting of the humanist attitude (*) called “toltecayotl.” A similar thing took place with Kukulkán, the ruler of Chichen-Itzá and founder of the city of Mayapán. Similarly, with Netzahualcóyotl in Texcoco we observe the opening of a new h.m. In pre-Colombian South America, a similar tendency appears in the Inca ruler Cuzi Yupanqui, who was given the name Pachacutéc, “reformer,” and in Tupac Yupanqui. The cases multiply as the information on cultures increases and, of course, as the linear historical account of the nineteenth century is challenged. 
So, too, has the influence of the great religious reformers and cultural heroes been interpreted as the opening of a h.m., which continued forward in a new stage and even at times a new civilization, but which have eventually come to an end, deviating from and annulling the initial direction. 
With the configuration of the single, closed global civilization (*planetarization) that is now taking shape, it is no longer possible for a new h.m. to be inaugurated from the top down, of the summit of political, economic or cultural power. Rather, we believe a new h.m. will emerge as a consequence of the increasing disorder in today’s closed system, and that it will be protagonized by the social base, which, as it suffers the general destructuring (*),will have the possibility, driven by its immediate needs, of promoting the growth of small autonomous organizations. These specific actions today are in a position to convert themselves into a demonstration effect (*), thanks to the shrinking of space that is offered by technological development  and, in particular, the growth of communications. The worldwide synchronization of protest of a small generational stratum in the 1960s and early 1970s was a symptom of this type of phenomena. Another case is that of the social upheavals, capable of synchronization between geographical points far removed from one another.
HUMANIST MOVEMENT
Refers to the people who participate in the proposals of New Humanism (*). These proposals are outlined in broad terms in the Statement of the H.M. (*Humanist Statement). The H.M. is not itself an institution, though it has given rise to a wide range of groups and organizations. The H.M. does not seek to establish a hegemony of the many existing humanist and humanitarian movements (*humanitarianism), and clearly differentiates itself from all of them. It establishes close working relationships with all progressive groups on the basis of criteria of non-discrimination, reciprocity and the convergence of diversity.
HUMANIST PSYCHOLOGY
As Fernand-Lucien Mueller has written, “The influence of Husserlian phenomenology and the philosophy of Heidegger, which is derived from it, has been substantial in the psychological sciences; it is an influence both direct and distinct, of which we can briefly give no more than a glimpse. Phenomenology has given the lie in a most singular fashion to the promoters of the “new” psychology, who have sought to relegate philosophy to the museum of antiquities.” 
Many authors belong to the current of h.p. Almost all have been influenced by F. Brentano and by Husserl’s phenomenological method. The works of Jaspers, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre and Binswanger are universally known. Frankl’s “Third School of Vienna” may be placed in this movement as well as a current of psychiatry. There are also methods of psychological work such as those formulated by L. Ammann in his system of Self Liberation. Many works of h.p. are oriented toward social psychology.
HUMANIST STATEMENT or STATEMENT OF NEW HUMANISM
Presented at the second Humanist International (*) and the first Humanist Forum (*) on October 7–8, 1993 in Moscow, this statement constitutes the basis of the ideas of New Humanism (*). It is divided into an introduction and six sections: 1) Global Capital 2) Real Democracy and Formal Democracy; 3) The Humanist Position; 4) From Naive Humanism to Conscious Humanism; 5) The Anti-Humanist Camp; and 6) Humanist Action Fronts.
The complete text of the Humanist Statement follows:
Humanists are women and men of this century, of this time. They recognize the achievements of humanism throughout history, and find inspiration in the contributions of many cultures, not only those that today occupy center stage. They are also men and women who recognize that this century and this millennium are drawing to a close, and their project is a new world. Humanists feel that their history is very long and that their future will be even longer. As optimists who believe in freedom and social progress, they fix their gaze on the future, while striving to overcome the general crisis of today.
Humanists are internationalists, aspiring to a universal human nation. While understanding the world they live in as a single whole, humanists act in their immediate surroundings. Humanists seek not a uniform world but a world of multiplicity: diverse in ethnicity, languages and customs; diverse in local and regional autonomy; diverse in ideas and aspirations; diverse in beliefs, whether atheist or religious; diverse in occupations and in creativity.
Humanists do not want masters, they have no fondness for authority figures or bosses. Nor do they see themselves as representatives or bosses of anyone else. Humanists want neither a centralized State nor a Para-state in its place. Humanists want neither a police state nor armed gangs as the alternative. 
But a wall has arisen between humanist aspirations and the realities of today’s world. The time has come to tear down that wall. To do this, all humanists of the world must unite. 
I. Global Capital
This is the great universal truth: Money is everything. Money is government, money is law, money is power. Money is basically sustenance, but more than this it is art, it is philosophy, it is religion. Nothing is done without money, nothing is possible without money. There are no personal relationships without money, there is no intimacy without money. Even peaceful solitude depends on money.
But our relationship with this “universal truth” is contradictory. Most people do not like this state of affairs. And so we find ourselves subject to the tyranny of money—a tyranny that is not abstract, for it has a name, representatives, agents and well-established procedures.
Today, we are no longer dealing with feudal economies, national industries, or even regional interests. Today, the question is how the surviving economic forms will accommodate to the new dictates of international finance capital. Nothing escapes, as capital worldwide continues to concentrate in ever fewer hands—until even the nation state depends for its survival on credit and loans. All must beg for investment and provide guarantees that give the banking system the ultimate say in decisions. The time is fast approaching when even companies themselves, when every rural area as well as every city, will all be the undisputed property of the banking system. The time of the para-state is coming, a time in which the old order will be swept away. 
At the same time, the traditional bonds of solidarity that once joined people together are fast dissolving. We are witnessing the disintegration of the social fabric, and in its place find millions of isolated human beings living disconnected lives, indifferent to each other despite their common suffering. Big capital dominates not only our objectivity, through its control of the means of production, but also our subjectivity, through its control of the means of communication and information.
Under these conditions, those who control capital have the power and technology to do as they please with both our material and our human resources. They deplete irreplaceable natural resources and act with growing disregard for the human being. It has enough technology to do this. And just as they have drained everything from companies, industries and whole governments, so have they deprived even science of its meaning—reducing it to technologies used to generate poverty, destruction and unemployment. 
Humanists do not overstate their case when they contend that the world is now technologically capable of swiftly resolving the problems in employment, food, health care, housing and education that exist today across vast regions of the planet. If this possibility is not being realized, it is simply because it is prevented by the monstrous speculation of big capital.
By now big capital has exhausted the stage of market economies, and has begun to discipline society to accept the chaos it has itself produced. Yet in the presence of this growing irrationality, it is not the voices of reason that we hear raised in dialectical opposition. Rather, it is the darkest forms of racism, fundamentalism and fanaticism that are on the rise. And if groups and whole regions are increasingly guided by this new irrationalism, then the space for constructive action by progressive forces will diminish day by day.
On the other hand, millions of working people have already come to recognize that the centralized state is as much a sham as capitalist democracy. And just as working people are standing up against corrupt union bosses, more than ever citizens are questioning their governments and political parties. But it is necessary to give a constructive orientation to these phenomena, which will otherwise stagnate and remain nothing more than spontaneous protests that lead nowhere. For something new to happen, a dialogue about the fundamental factors of our economy must begin in the heart of the community. 
For humanists, labor and capital are the principal factors in economic production, while speculation and usury are extraneous. In the present economic circumstances, humanists struggle to totally transform the absurd relationship that has existed between these factors. Until now we have been told that capital receives the profits while workers receive wages, an inequity that has always been justified by the “risk” that capital assumes in investing—as though working people do not risk both their present and their future amid the uncertainties of unemployment and economic crisis.
Another factor in play is management and decision-making in the operation of each company. Earnings not set aside for reinvestment in the enterprise, not used for expansion or diversification, are increasingly diverted into financial speculation, as are profits not used to create new sources of work. 
The struggle of working people must therefore be to require maximum productive return from capital. But this cannot happen unless management and directorships are cooperatively shared. How else will it be possible to avoid massive layoffs, business closures, and even the loss of entire industries? For the greatest harm comes from under-investment, fraudulent bankruptcies, forced acquisition of debt and capital flight—not from profits realized through increased productivity. And if some persist in calling for workers to take possession of the means of production following nineteenth-century teachings, they will have to seriously consider the recent failures of real socialism.
As for the argument that treating capital the same way work is treated will only speed its flight to more advantageous areas, it must be pointed out that this cannot go on much longer because the irrationality of the present economic system is leading to saturation and crisis worldwide. Moreover, this argument, apart from embracing a radical immorality, ignores the historical process in which capital is steadily being transferred to the banking system. As a result, employers and business people are being reduced to the status of employees, stripped of decision-making power in a lengthening chain of command in which they maintain only the appearance of autonomy. And as the recession continues to deepen, these same business people will begin to consider these points more seriously. 
Humanists feel the need to act not only on employment issues, but also politically to prevent the State from being solely an instrument of international capital, to ensure a just relationship among the factors of production, and to restore to society its stolen autonomy.
II. Real Democracy Versus Formal Democracy
The edifice of democracy has fallen into ruin as its foundations—the separation of powers, representative government, and respect for minorities—have been eroded. 
The theoretical separation of powers has become nonsense. Even a cursory examination of the practices surrounding the origin and composition of the different powers reveals the intimate relationships that link them to each other. And things could hardly be otherwise, for they all form part of one same system. In nation after nation we see one branch gaining supremacy over the others, functions being usurped, corruption and irregularities surfacing—all corresponding to the changing global economic and political situation of each country. 
As for representative government, since the extension of universal suffrage people have believed that only a single act is involved when they elect their representative and their representative carries out the mandate received. But as time has passed, people have come to see clearly that there are in fact two acts: a first in which the many elect the few, and a second in which those few betray the many, representing interests foreign to the mandate they received. And this corruption is fed within the political parties, now reduced to little more than a handful of leaders who are totally out of touch with the needs of the people. Through the party machinery, powerful interests finance candidates and then dictate the policies they must follow. This state of affairs reveals a profound crisis in the contemporary conception and implementation of representative democracy. 
Humanists struggle to transform the practice of representative government, giving the highest priority to consulting the people directly through referenda, plebiscites, and direct election of candidates. However, in many countries there are still laws that subordinate independent candidates to political parties, or rather to political maneuvering and financial restrictions that prevent them from even reaching the ballot and the free expression of the will of the people. 
Every constitution or law that prevents the full possibility of every citizen to elect and to be elected makes a mockery of real democracy, which is above all such legal restrictions. And in order for there to be true equality of opportunity, during elections the news media must be placed at the service of the people, providing all candidates with exactly the same opportunities to communicate with the people. 
To address the problem that elected officials regularly fail to carry out their campaign promises, there is also a need to enact laws of political responsibility that will subject such officials to censure, revocation of powers, recall from office and loss of immunity. The current alternative, under which parties or individuals who do not fulfill their campaign promises risk defeat in future elections, in practice does not hinder in the least the politicians’ second act—betraying the people they represent.
As for directly consulting the people on the most urgent issues, every day the possibilities to do so increase through the use of technology. This does not mean simply giving greater importance to easily manipulated opinion polls and surveys. What it does mean is to facilitate real participation and direct voting by means of today’s advanced computational and communications technologies.
In real democracy, all minorities must be provided with the protections that correspond to their right to representation, as well as all measures needed to advance in practice their full inclusion, participation and development. 
Today, minorities the world over who are the targets of xenophobia and discrimination make anguished pleas for recognition. It is the responsibility of humanists everywhere to bring this issue to the fore, leading the struggle to overcome such neo-fascism, whether overt or covert. In short, to struggle for the rights of minorities is to struggle for the rights of all human beings. 
Under the coercion of centralized states—today no more than the unfeeling instruments of big capital—many countries with diverse populations subject entire provinces, regions, or autonomous groups to this same kind of discrimination. This must end through the adoption of federal forms of organization, through which real political power will return to the hands of these historical and cultural entities.
In sum, to give highest priority to the issues of capital and labor, real democracy, and decentralization of the apparatus of the State, is to set the political struggle on the path toward creating a new kind of society—a flexible society constantly changing in harmony with the changing needs of the people, who are now suffocated more each day by their dependence on an inhuman system. 
III. The Humanist Position
Humanist action does not draw its inspiration from imaginative theories about God, nature, society, or history. Rather, it begins with life’s necessities, which consist most elementally of avoiding pain and moving toward pleasure. Yet human life entails the additional need to foresee future necessities, based on past experience and the intention to improve the present situation. 
Human experience is not simply the product of natural physiological accumulation or selection, as happens in all species. It is social experience and personal experience directed toward overcoming pain in the present and avoiding it in the future. Human work, accumulated in the productions of society, is passed on and transformed from one generation to the next in a continuous struggle to improve the existing or natural conditions, even those of the human body itself. Human beings must therefore be defined as historical beings whose mode of social behavior is capable of transforming both the world and their own nature. 
Each time that individuals or human groups violently impose themselves on others, they succeed in detaining history, turning their victims into “natural” objects. Nature does not have intentions, and thus to negate the freedom and intentions of others is to convert them into natural objects without intentions, objects to be used. 
Human progress in its slow ascent now needs to transform both nature and society, eliminating the violent animal appropriation of some human beings by others. When this happens, we will pass from pre-history into a fully human history. In the meantime, we can begin with no other central value than the human being, fully realized and completely free. Humanists therefore declare, “Nothing above the human being, and no human being beneath any other.” 
If God, the State, money, or any other entity is placed as the central value, this subordinates the human being and creates the condition for the subsequent control or sacrifice of other human beings. Humanists have this point very clear. Whether atheists or religious, humanists do not start with their atheism or their faith as the basis for their view of the world and their actions. They start with the human being and the immediate needs of human beings. And if, in their struggle for a better world, they believe they discover an intention that moves history in a progressive direction, they place this faith or this discovery at the service of the human being. 
Humanists address the fundamental problem: to know if one wants to live, and to decide under what conditions. 
All forms of violence—physical, economic, racial, religious, sexual, ideological and others—that have been used to block human progress are repugnant to humanists. For humanists, every form of discrimination, whether subtle or overt, is something to be denounced. 
Humanists are not violent, but above all they are not cowards, and because their actions have meaning they are unafraid of facing violence. Humanists connect their personal lives with the life of society. They do not pose such false dichotomies as viewing their own lives as separate from the lives of those around them, and herein lies their coherence. 
These issues, then, mark a clear dividing line between humanism and anti-humanism: humanism puts labor before big capital, real democracy before formal democracy, decentralization before centralization, anti-discrimination before discrimination, freedom before oppression, and meaning in life before resignation, complicity and the absurd. Because humanism is based on freedom of choice, it offers the only valid ethic of the present time. And because humanism believes in intention and freedom, it distinguishes between error and bad faith, between one who is mistaken and one who is a traitor. 
IV. From Naive Humanism to Conscious Humanism
It is at the base of society, in the places where people work and where they live, that humanism must convert what are now only simple isolated protests into a conscious force oriented toward transforming the economic structures. 
The struggles of spirited activists in labor unions and progressive political parties will become more coherent as they transform the leadership of these entities, giving their organizations a new orientation that, above short-range grievances, gives the highest priority to the basic proposals advocated by humanism. 
Vast numbers of students and teachers, already sensitive to injustice, are becoming conscious of their will to change as the general crisis touches them. And certainly, members of the press in contact with so much daily tragedy are today in favorable positions to act in a humanist direction, as are those intellectuals whose creations are at odds with the standards promoted by this inhuman system.
In the face of so much human suffering, many positions and organizations today encourage people to unselfishly help the dispossessed and those who suffer discrimination. Associations, volunteer groups and large numbers of individuals are on occasion moved to make positive contributions. Without doubt, one of their contributions is to generate denunciations of these wrongs. However, such groups do not focus their actions on transforming the underlying structures that give rise to the problems. Their approaches are more closely related to humanitarianism than to conscious humanism, although among these efforts are many conscientious protests and actions that can be extended and deepened.

V. The Anti-Humanist Camp
As the people continue to be suffocated by the forces of big capital, incoherent proposals arise that gain strength by exploiting people’s discontent, focusing it on various scapegoats. At the root of all such neo-fascism is a profound negation of human values. Similarly, there are certain deviant environmental currents that view nature as more important than human beings. No longer do they preach that an environmental catastrophe is a disaster because it endangers humanity—instead to them the only problem is that human beings have damaged nature. 
According to certain of these theories, the human being is somehow contaminated, and thus contaminates nature. It would have been better, they contend, had medicine never succeeded in its fight against disease or in prolonging human life. “Earth first!” some cry hysterically, recalling Nazi slogans. It is but a short step from this position to begin discriminating against cultures seen to contaminate or against “impure” foreigners. These currents of thought may be considered anti-humanist because at bottom they hold the human being in contempt, and in keeping with the nihilistic and suicidal tendencies so fashionable today, their mentors reflect this self-hatred.
There is, however, a significant segment of society made up of perceptive people who consider themselves environmentalists because they understand the gravity of the abuses that environmentalism exposes and condemns. And if this environmentalism attains the humanist character that corresponds, it will direct the struggle against those who are actually generating the catastrophes—big capital and its chain of destructive industries and businesses, so closely intertwined with the military-industrial complex. 
Before worrying about seals they will concern themselves with overcoming hunger, overcrowding, infant mortality, disease and the lack of even minimal standards of housing and sanitation in many parts of the world. They will focus on the unemployment, exploitation, racism, discrimination and intolerance in a world that is so technologically advanced, yet still generates serious environmental imbalances in the name of ever more irrational growth. 
One need not look far to see how the right wing functions as a political instrument of anti-humanism. Dishonesty and bad faith reach such extremes that some exponents periodically present themselves as representatives of “humanism.” Take, for example, those cunning clerics who claim to theorize on the basis of a ridiculous “theocentric humanism.” These people, who invented religious wars and inquisitions, who put to death the very founders of western humanism, are now attempting to appropriate the virtues of their victims. They have recently gone so far as to “forgive the errors” of those historical humanists, and so brazen is their semantic banditry that these representatives of anti-humanism even try to cloak themselves with the term “humanist.”
It would of course be impossible to list the full range of resources, tools, instruments, forms and expressions that anti-humanism has at its disposal. But having shed light on some of their more deceptive practices should help unsuspecting humanists and those newly realizing they are humanists as they re-think their ideas and the significance of their social practice. 

VI. Humanist Action Fronts 
With the intention of becoming a broad-based social movement,  the vital force of humanism is organizing action fronts in the workplace, neighborhoods, unions and among social action, political, environmental and cultural organizations. Such collective action makes it possible for varied progressive forces, groups and individuals to have greater presence and influence, without losing their own identities or special characteristics. The objective of this movement is to promote a union of forces increasingly able to influence broad strata of the population, orienting the current social transformation. 
Humanists are neither naive nor enamored of declarations that belong to more romantic eras and in this sense they do not view their proposals as the most advanced expression of social consciousness or think of their organization in an unquestioning way. Nor do they claim to represent the majority. They simply act according to their best judgment, focusing on the changes they believe are most suitable and possible for these times in which they happen to live. 
HUMANIST, Related Words
The word “umanista,” which designated a specific type of scholar, came into use in Italy in 1538. Concerning this point we refer the reader to the observations of Augusto Campana in his 1946 article, “The Origin of the Word ‘Humanist’”. The first humanists would not have recognized themselves by that name, which entered common usage only much later. Related words such as “humanistische” (humanistic), according to studies by Walter Rüegg, came into use in 1784, and “humanismus” (humanism) became common following the works of Niethammer in 1808. It is not until the middle of the last century that we find the term “humanism” circulating in almost all languages. We are speaking, then, of recent designations and interpretations of phenomena that were experienced by their protagonists quite differently than the way they have since been interpreted in the historiology and cultural history of the previous century.
HUMANIST
1) In a broad sense, any person who manifests a humanist attitude (*). 2) In a more restricted sense, any person who participates in the activity of the Humanist Movement (*). 
HUMANITARIANISM
Practical activity aimed at solving specific problems of individuals and human groups. H. does not attempt to modify the structures of power, but frequently contributes to shaping a style of life that is very valuable from the point of view of commitment with the most pressing needs of the human being. Any action characterized by solidarity (*) is, to greater or lesser degree, an example of h. (*Altruism, Philanthropy).
HUMANITY
(from L. humanitas: human genre) Sensitivity, compassion for the misfortunes of our fellow humans; benignancy, gentleness, affability. 
In a broad sense, h. encompasses all generations of Homo sapiens, past and present. The history of h. thus spans approximately 200,000 to 300,000 years, but neo-anthropoids appeared some 60,000 years ago in Africa and 40,000 years ago on the Arabian peninsula. In a narrow sense, h. includes all the present generations, i.e., approximately 6,400,000,000 persons, who now inhabit our Earth.
The notion of h. arose 7,000 to 9,000 years ago, simultaneously in the ancient civilizations of Europe, Asia and Africa, and was manifested in the world religions. However, only since the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries does the present concept of h., as the entirety of all human beings inhabiting the terrestrial globe, become converted into the patrimony of science and the practice of international relations. However, only since the Second World War, with the creation of the United Nations , which proclaims the priority of human rights, has the practice of discrimination against different human groups been officially condemned by the international community, though it has yet to be eradicated.
I
IDEALISM
Platonism and neo-Platonism are frequently referred to as idealist philosophies, but given that, from the perspective of the theory of universals these philosophers are considered “realist” because of their claim that ideas are “real,” the application of the term i. to these currents of thought is questionable. It is preferable, therefore, to speak in philosophical terms of modern i. as related to gnoseology and metaphysics. In general, these philosophers take as the starting point for their reflection, not the surrounding (“external”) world but the “I,” or the “consciousness;“ and precisely because the “I” produces ideas and representations, with which the term i. becomes justified. From the gnoseological point of view, the basic question is: “How can things be known?” And from the metaphysical point of view, “to be” means “to be given in the consciousness.” I. thus turns out to be a way of understanding “being.” This does not, however, mean that i. tries to reduce being or reality to the consciousness or to the subject.
The term i. is also often used in connection with ideals, and hence it is usual to designate as “idealist” anyone who presumes that human actions should be ruled by ideals (whether attainable or not). In this way, the term i. becomes endowed with ethical and/or political connotations. In this sense, the attitude of i. is frequently contraposed to that of realism, understanding the latter posture as placing the highest importance on the “realities,” “facts,” perceived without taking into account the perspective from which they are considered.
I. is also understood as a particular focus on social life, that denies the decisive role of economic and technological factors, explaining all events or facts in terms of the subjective characteristics of populations. In this way, idealists reject the influence of patterns or regularities in the development of civilization. Regarding the latter focus, the humanist school considers the enormous power of the subjective factor, just as it places high value on concepts and myths in people’s lives, but also sees in these formations of the consciousness, the action of the conditions of social life.
A crude division has frequently been established between i. and materialism (*), when in fact there are exponents from both systems who share important points of intersection. At the non-academic level of information, there is considerable confusion around terms such as “idealism” and “subjectivism,” “materialism” and “objectivism.” Different ideological currents have systematically modified the scope and meanings of these words, with the intention of discrediting contrary positions; but this has ended up invalidating all sides. Today, to accuse someone of being “idealistic” or “materialistic” is of no great consequence, nor does either term have much pejorative meaning. Outside specialized circles, these words have simply lost their precise meanings.
IMMIGRATION
(from L. im, into, variant of in, and migrare, to move). Act of arriving in a country in order to take up residence in it. This step is taken for objectives that may be personal (reuniting a family), economic (seeking work, decent wages, etc.), or political (fleeing political persecution, to save one’s life, seeking personal dignity, the right to write and publish works, engage in artistic or journalistic activity, etc.).
The majority of immigrants seek refuge from civil wars, genocide, religious persecution, “ethnic cleansing,” etc.
I. is divided into legal i., in which immigrants enter a country having fulfilled all the legal requirements established by law; and illegal i., in which immigrants are undocumented and violate the requirements for entry.
Currently, the extent of migration from the impoverished South to the rich North is of enormous dimension, reflecting the dynamics of the world labor market, since those who immigrate, especially illegally, earn unconscionably low wages. In Europe and the United States, immigrants also suffer the consequences of discrimination.
I. has economic, social, political, religious and psychological consequences; it leads to increases in social tension and reactions of racism, xenophobia and fascism, which are exploited by the ruling oligarchies to take the offensive against social programs and entitlements, civil liberties, etc.
Humanist politics emphasizes a concern for human rights, including the rights of immigrants, that is important in order to accomplish the task of humanizing social development and to diminish the negative aspects of the processes of regional integration, which is stimulating major migrations.
IMPERIALISM
The policies of a State that tends to place foreign populations and states under its political, economic, or military control. In this sense, political annexation is the clearest case of i.
Around 1880 there began a period of uninterrupted acquisition of colonies in Africa by certain European powers, and in the Orient by Japan. This stage can be categorized as neo-colonialism (*). Due to their later unification or industrialization, Germany, Italy and Japan did not succeed in obtaining colonies until the beginning of the twentieth century, and in addition to their neo-colonial behavior, they threw themselves into wars of conquest and annexation, thus setting in motion contemporary i. At the end of the Second World War, superpowers with global ambitions emerged, giving further impetus to the imperialist practice of annexation, military intervention, and political and economic domination, as exemplified by the capitalist imperialism of the United States and by Stalinist social-imperialism. Today, North American i. continues to advance, even though, in its internal political structure, the United States still maintains the form of a federal republic and formal democracy, which prevents it being labeled an “empire” in a structural sense. In reality, after the fifteenth century, what have been called “empires” have been in fact metropolitan structures which developed more or less extensive colonial activities. (*Colonialism). 
INDIVIDUALISM
(from L. individuus, individual, indivisible). A moral position that places the highest absolute priority on the personal, private interest over interpersonal, collective, or social interest. The positive aspect of this orientation consists in the affirmation of individual liberty. The negative aspect is apparent in its selfishness and disregard for the interests of others. I. takes as absolute the biological dimension of the human being, at the expense of the spiritual or social; it overlooks or undervalues the difference between the concepts of “individual” and “personality.” However, the opposition between personal interest and social interest is not in fact insoluble because these interests coincide in what is essential, because social interest can only be realized through the activities of concrete human beings and not through the actions of supra-human entities.
In philosophy, the development of i. follows a line that runs from Protagoras to Hedonism and Epicureanism. During the Renaissance, i. for the most part played a progressive role, expressing the aspiration for the liberation of the human being from feudal chains. Individualist extremism [or: Extreme individualism] found an echo in the anarchist doctrines of Stirner and Bakunin.
INITIATIVE
(from L. initiare, to begin). Manifestation of the social activity of human beings when they take it upon themselves to make a decision that involves their personal participation in some sphere of social life.
In its moral aspect, i. is characterized by the predisposition of a person who voluntarily assumes a greater degree of responsibility than required in the habitual functioning of their environment. I. highlights the predominance of the inclination toward innovative conduct in the individual’s psychosocial structure, the presence of a certain predisposition to leadership.
This genre of behavior shows the degree to which a society has created the premises necessary for the human being’s liberty, and whether it will sustain the social dynamism needed for continued development, or instead will stagnate, thus showing that said society is approaching the limits of collapse.
Humanism strives to cultivate this valuable social quality in the greatest possible number of people, and to create the indispensable psychological, social and political postulates necessary for its development.
INTERNAL LANDSCAPE
Configuration of reality that corresponds with the perception of the internal senses, weighted by memory data of and the intentional posture of the consciousness, which varies according to the state of sleep, vigil, emotions, interest, etc. From the psychosocial point of view, the study of a society’s i.l. permits the comprehension of that society’s basic system of tensions in a given situation, and the configuration of images articulated as beliefs and as myths. The i.l. is experienced in the “inward” posture of the consciousness having the peripheral tactile-cenesthetic register as reference (*External landscape). 
INNOVATION
Action and effect of changing or altering things and ideas or images, introducing something new.
Process of introducing new products and technologies into the economic system, which significantly change their capacity and improve quality. This process has several phases: technical invention, small-scale testing, and general introduction and use based on general recognition of its economic results and the existence of demand.
I. not only brings about technological changes, but leads to changes in economic and social structure. Innovations mark the beginning of the processes of modernization of society and create the premises for resolving the crises of a given moment.
INTENTION
A complex concept that reflects the unity and interaction of the various processes that predetermine a given practical behavior of the human being. I. comprises a chain of events: 1) a decision [or: judgment], either intuitive or rational, of some desire as an aspiration toward an objective; 2) a formulation for oneself and others of the meaning of this objective; 3) a choice of means for its attainment; 4) practical action for its realization. In this way we can conceive an i. as the determining basis, force and energy of any creative activity of the human being, including the creation of one’s own life. Without i. there is no existence.
More rigorously, i. has been defined since Brentano as the fundamental characteristic of consciousness. Since the establishment and development of Husserl’s phenomenological method and the contribution of the existentialist currents of thought (*existentialism), intentionality has emerged as what is substantive in all human phenomena.
INTERNATIONALISM
I. and the various internationalist doctrines recognize important distinctions amongst themselves, involving on occasion positions irreconcilably opposed, as in the case of the concepts of internationalist imperialism (globalization) and internationalist N.H. (*planetarization). 
Since Antiquity, empires have sacrificed local and regional realities on the altar of i. In the West, the Germanic Holy Roman Empire opposed the remnants of feudalism with a broader concept, which could be characterized as having an “internationalist” orientation. Later, and especially following the American and French Revolutions, the idea of the nation state took shape based on a defined territory, a single language and a certain cultural homogeneity, while subjugating the local realities of the State’s internal regions and towns. Subsequently, a number of socialist movements based their i. on the cooperation of the proletariat, independent of national identity.
N.H. is internationalist, on condition that cultural and regional diversity are respected. It establishes its i. specifically on the “convergence of diversity toward a universal human nation.” N.H. encourages the creation of regional federations as well as a world confederation based on a system of real democracy. 
I. is a position opposed to nationalism (*). It emphasizes a determining reality greater than that of the nation state, a reality in which societies will begin to experience and comprehend the current existence of an oppressive global system that needs to be changed. As imperialist i. advances and progressively eliminates the nation state, inequality , discrimination and exploitation will increase, but we will also see in the concentration of imperialist power the growth of disorder that will lead to generalized chaos. In this emergency, internationalists will identify their interests with those of all humanity, which is suffering the effects of this single, globalized system.
J
JESUITISM
Doctrine, system and religious, political and social principles of the Jesuits or attributed to them; practice of dissemblance as a system of life. 
The Society of Jesus, a religious order founded by Ignatius of Loyola in 1534 as an instrument of the Counter Reformation, was suppressed by Pope Clement XIV in 1773 (though it continued its activity thanks to the approval of the emperors of Russia and China within their respective territories). In 1814 it was reestablished by Pious VII, and received encouragement from the Holy Alliance. The Jesuits played a very important role in public education and in clandestine political activity. Many times they combined the missionary work of the Church with secret missions of diplomacy and for the secret police of the Catholic powers. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries they have sought to present themselves before public opinion in Catholic countries as leaders in the struggle against modernism within Catholicism, and against Masonry outside of it. To conduct secret missions they have at times dressed as laymen and pretended to be partisans of their enemies in order to infiltrate their ranks. This moral “flexibility” and their propensity for political careerism have provided grounds for the accusations of hypocrisy and duplicity that are made against the Jesuits. The literary character Tartuffe in Moliere’s comedy is the archetype of the hypocritically disguised perversity and corruption that is regarded as the personification of J.
The thesis, quite dubious from a moral perspective, that a noble end justifies the use of base and unworthy means, is commonly attributed to the Jesuits. However, this image of the Society of Jesus is one-sided and thus unjust, and due largely to tendentious propaganda from their adversaries that exploits certain of the Order’s procedures, customs and traditions that contradict conventionally-accepted norms in social communication, in the common conscience.
The names of the well-known Christian humanist from Brazil, Antonio de Viera, and the philosopher and scientist Teilhard de Chardin, who were both subjected to repression by the ecclesiastical hierarchy, attest to the high moral character of some members of this Order, in contrast to the generalized perception.
JUSTICE
(from L. justitia). 1) Ethical value that regulates the spiritual and social life of the human being; the social virtue par excellence. It is the foundation of law, reason and equity. J. expresses the equality of persons before moral law. J. designates one of the four cardinal virtues that gives to each what is their, or the set of all the virtues that constitute the goodness of whoever possesses them.
Since Aristotle, these distinctions have been made: commutative j., which regulates the equality or proportion that should exist between things when they are given or exchanged; distributive j., which establishes the proportion that should govern the distribution of rewards and punishments; legal j., which obliges the subject to obey the dispositions of their superior; and ordinary j. or common law, as opposed to special rights and privileges.
The content of j. varies in different cultures and historical periods. Different interpretations of j. are made by different ethnic and religious social groups within the same society. Many values regarded as just by the barbarians (Celts, Germans and Slavs) were declared unjust by the Roman and Byzantine empires. Several values of ancient Rome were condemned as pagan by the Romans after they adopted Christianity.
N.H. considers any act as just that allows human beings to realize their abilities in an integral way and to form their own personality, without harm to others. At the same time, it considers as unjust any action that annuls or restricts freedom of choice and other essential human rights. Any act that one wishes to carry out with others but that is done without respect for oneself is unjust.
2) A system formed historically by the juridical norms and institutions of a State or community of States. In this sense, the j. system defends the law. All legal activity is under the protection of the j. system. These juridical norms are mandatory in character and must be observed by all citizens under penalty of punishment for their infraction.
In modern democracies, all citizens have equal political and social rights, but human beings vary in age, gender, health, physical and intellectual vigor, etc. Therefore, any reasonably just society tries to compensate these differences in regard to social obligations, exempting certain groups from some obligations (children, the disabled, the sick) and establishing retirement and benefit systems (for the sick, the elderly, the handicapped) and systems of unemployment insurance, training and retraining for those who have lost or never had access to certain job opportunities. N.H. pays special attention to these problems, stating its opposition to privileges of race, class, religion, etc., and in favor of consideration of individual differences, regarding the compensation of deficiencies as socially just.
Given that j. as a system of state institutions frequently takes recourse to the use of violent methods, N.H. adopts a different attitude with respect to the different norms and decisions of the corresponding institutions. Thus, for example, humanists condemn capital punishment and demand its abolition. In social and ethnic conflicts, humanists express solidarity with the victims of oppression of all kinds and act in favor of freedom of conscience.
3) Judicial power, ministry or court that administers justice.
L
LANDSCAPE OF FORMATION
The individual’s emplacement at any moment in their life is effected through representations of past events and more-or-less possible future occurrences, such that, upon comparing them to phenomena in the present, they enable the individual to structure what is referred to as their “present situation.” However, it is impossible for this inevitable process of representation that is done before the unfolding events to make such events have, in and of themselves, the structure that the individual attributes to them. 
The term l. of f., refers to the events that each human being has lived through since birth, and in relation to an environment. However, the influence of a person’s l. of f. is not given merely by a biographically-formed temporo- intellectual perspective, and from which the individual observes the present; rather, it is a matter of a continual adjustment of situations based on one’s own experiences. In this sense, the l. of f. acts as a “backdrop” for one’s interpretations and actions, and as a constellation of beliefs and valuations that an individual or a generation lives (*Generations) by.
LAUGHTER
(ME. laughen; AS. hlehhan, hlihhan, to laugh). A uniquely human physiological and behavioral property. Movement of the mouth and other parts of the face that demonstrates the happiness of a person or group.
“Laughter” is the title of an essay on the meaning of comicity, published by Henri Bergson in 1899. It is a particularly interesting work because, aside from its aesthetic insightfulness, it establishes a cognitive function that is geared to real life, although opposed to the conceptual function. “Laughter” is of particular interest in this regard because, aside from its penetrating aesthetic insights, it shows how l. is grounded in a cognitive function adapted to real life yet opposed to the conceptual function. L. represents a reaction against the mechanicalness of the appearances that are mounted over a situation, that are not deeply incorporated, but rather simply accepted. When details of the disproportion in such appearances are thrown into sharp relief, a rupture is produced in the concealment of these defects. Such a rupture has a variety of consequences, one of them being laughter. This is particularly evident in literary satire. 
l. is an incisive instrument in politico-social struggle, allowing people to pillory the oppressor, ridicule them and win a moral victory over them.
In many of its publications and social activities, N.H. employs irony and satire to combat obscurantism and oppression, to defend human dignity and liberties. 
LAW
(ME. lawe, laghe; AS. lagu, law, that which is laid or fixed, from licgan). Obligatory or necessary rule, an act of sovereign authority. A necessary relationship between the phenomena of nature. L., unlike custom, tradition, or faith, is a juridical norm.
The set of all laws constitutes the system of juridical norms (*Legislation) and represents the province of the Law. 
In society, the laws express the will and interests of human beings, and regulate the social and personal activity of the citizens. The content of the laws depends on the cultural level of the society in question. L. as a juridical act, cannot change the geo-strategic power of a state, its cultural level, etc., although it contributes to the State’s development in one direction or another. As historical experience demonstrates, the wholesale violation of cultural and social norms by tyrannical and totalitarian regimes leads to catastrophes, not only on a national scale but on an international scale as well (e.g. the two world wars of the twentieth century).
LEADER
(ME. leder; a leader, from laedan, to lead). The director, chief, or head of a political party, parliamentary faction, social group, or other collectivity. The person or team that is ahead of the competition in a sporting event. This term has been extended to the political sphere and to the sociology of sports.
In social psychology it is observed that in each small group a natural or informal l. emerges whom others follow or imitate voluntarily, without any juridical procedure to formalize this quality and relationship.
The charismatic l. enjoys legitimacy, or better, emotional and rational recognition by other persons of his or her leadership. This legitimacy can be acquired and lost swiftly through accidental circumstances.
LEGISLATION
System of norms and rules that regulate the activity and conduct of the citizens and institutions of a state. Juridical order. Also understood as the science of laws.
L. is a product of civilization. It came into being with writing. At the dawn of civilization, l. was made sacred and presented before public opinion as divine revelation, the work of a cultural hero or wise king thought to be enlightened by a corresponding deity. In ancient Greece and Rome l. was conceived as an expression of the collective will of the citizens, who promulgated laws in the assembly of citizens of the republic or through the legislative body elected by them (the Senate, for example). In the Middle Ages, legislative functions were granted to deliberative bodies formed on a corporative principle by the prince, king, or emperor, who carried out the common will of the estates in the form of laws. In modern times the principle of separation of powers is observed, and legislative power is so constituted (in democratic systems this power is elective and exercised through representatives).
Currently, in addition to national l. there is an emergence of international standards established by the UN and regional standards approved by regional bodies, which are approved by national representative bodies or plebiscites carried out at the national level in states that make up the regional organization.
LEGITIMACY
(from L. legitimus, lawful). Quality of being genuine, authentic. Achieved through legitimation, the act of making legitimate; that is, verifying or validating the truth of a thing or the quality of a person or thing in conformity with the laws in effect.
It entails public recognition of some action, political figure, event, or procedure. This is frequently combined with legitimation or juridical validation of the authority or concrete act on the basis of the political constitution and existing law. L. instills trust in citizens and guarantees willing obedience and social and political harmony.
L. is linked to the emotional and intellectual spheres and also to the sphere of Law. An authority has power when it is based on law and enjoys the moral approval of the people and a recognition expressed through legal procedures, for example, the electoral process. When a legal authority loses its l., it is condemned to failure. In many states, power and official policy are not invested with l., which attests to a crisis in that society. A crisis of l. clears the way for profound social and political changes. The people are the protagonists of l. and not the State. The people’s feeling to this effect can be suppressed for a time, but no one has the power to deprive the people of their capacity to formulate for themselves their spiritual and moral attitude toward power.
LEGITIMISM
(from L. legitimus, according to the Law, and from Fr. légitimiste). Principle presented at the International Congress of European powers in Vienna in 1814-15 by French diplomat Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord to defend the objectives of the French Bourbon dynasty, which had been deposed in 1792 and restored in 1814–1815, and which was considered by the monarchist circles to be the legitimate government of France.
According to this principle, no territory claimed may be unless its legitimate owner abdicates as its ruler; possessions that have been plundered must be returned to their legitimate sovereign.
Following the July 1830 Revolution in France, the partisans of the Bourbons, who were deposed in the course of that revolution, proclaimed themselves as “legitimists,” in opposition to King Louis Philippe de Orléans (1830-1848). During the Second Republic (1848-1852), the legitimists joined with the Orleanists to form the “party of order,” which was monarchist and clerical.
Today the term “legitimist” refers to a supporter of a prince or a dynasty because of their belief that said prince or dynasty is legitimately called to occupy the throne.
LEISURE
(from L. licere, to be permitted). Entertainment or recreational pursuits, especially in works of invention or imagination which form and develop the human personality. Refers to time free from the activity of producing the material goods necessary for subsistence. L. excludes time used for work, transportation, personal hygiene, domestic chores and sleep. L. includes time spent to satisfy personal interests such as recreation and entertainment, sports, play, art, social communication, reading, tourism, crafts and other hobbies.
We distinguish active l., in which people engage in creative activities, developing their potential in multifaceted ways, from passive l., involving the consumption of cultural products created by others, though this second form also contributes to the formation and socialization of the personality. With the rise of leisure-time industries and so-called “mass culture,” however, cultural values are being replaced by various substitutes that dehumanize life, deform the personality, and lower the cultural level of society.
N.H. considers that it is necessary to increase the amount of l., and to fill this free time with creative activities, elevating the level of culture, free time, entertainment and recreation. The problem of the humanization of l. and the elevation of its content is one of the fundamental tasks facing current generations.
LIBERALISM
Political doctrine traceable to John Locke (1632-1704), one of its most important theorists. Locke writes: “The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of Nature for his rule... Freedom is not... ‘ liberty for every one to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied to any laws...’
In accordance with this, Locke establishes two rights: one, the right to one’s liberty, and the other, the right to penalize anyone who tries to injure one in violation of natural law. He goes on to explain that work is the origin of property. How far does the right to property extend? To the point where one can “enjoy” the use of it. 
The symbiosis between economic l. and Social Darwinism has been an important step in the justification of the concentration of economic and political power in the hands of those who are “fittest in the struggle for survival.” These few have been gifted by the laws of nature in comparison with the many who have not been so favored. And, logically, since it is important to respect “natural” laws, the perpetuation of inequalities between human beings is almost a moral obligation. As can be seen, l. in its radical posture constitutes a clear example of anti-humanism. Notwithstanding these limitations, during certain periods of history numerous advances in the struggle against the remnants of feudalism, clericalism, and monarchical absolutism can be credited to l.
L. has had numerous advocates, the most notable being: Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill, K. Popper, L. Von Mises, F. A. Hayek and, most recently, J. Rawls and R. Nozick (*Neo-liberalism). 
LIBERTY
Supreme and essential value of human existence.
In religious consciousness, l. is conceived as a spiritual gift that is bestowed upon human beings, allowing them to choose between good and evil, sin and virtue. Some theologians, such as Boehme and Berdyaev, derive the concept of liberty from the nothingness out of which God created the world. In existentialist philosophy (*Existentialism), l. and existence are regarded as closely related concepts. 
Partisans of determinism, i.e., the absolute priority of causes and laws for all phenomena, situate l. in a subordinate relation to necessity. In contrast, indeterminists place absolute value on l. and deny any dependence whatever of the human being on the laws of development of nature. 
In reality, l. and necessity are not mutually exclusive concepts. Starting with a rigidly deterministic framework for the universe, Spinoza defined l. as a conscious necessity, as a choice for the human being in such actions as do not infringe on natural laws and on the dependencies determined by nature, by the conditions of life and real possibilities. We cannot overcome the spontaneous forces of nature, such as an eclipse of the sun, the tides, earthquakes, etc., but they can be understood so that we can conduct ourselves in a reasonable and free manner within certain natural limits and, of course, these laws can be consciously used in practical activity to the benefit of humanity.
Contemporary conceptions of the universe involving principles of complementarity, uncertainty, irreversible time, etc., do not eliminate certain constants that establish rigid limits (the speed of light, absolute zero, the laws of thermodynamics, the arrow of time, etc.); but, at the same time, the horizon of l. and choice is being broadened considerably, especially in humanity’s venturing forth into the cosmos, achievements in computer technology and information science, the creation of materials with new properties, genetic manipulation and the production of new organisms, and similar advances. In the sociopolitical sphere and in the realm of artistic endeavor, the boundaries of free choice have been substantially expanded.
In periods of crisis, the space for free choice (and consequently the degree of personal responsibility for decisions made), is much greater than in periods of the stable development of society.
The l. of the human being always has specific contents and is manifested in different spheres. In the economic sphere, human beings can be free if they have access to some of the means of production or necessities of life such as land, housing, money. Human beings can be deprived of private property, but this occurs because such property remains in the hands of other owners. Yet the possibility today that the means and sources of production be worker-owned (*Worker ownership ) inaugurates a new stage in the field of economic freedom. In the political sphere, l. means the possession of all civil rights, shared administration, and the possibility for people to independently determine their own interests and actions. In the cultural sphere l. entails creative freedom and independence from the taste and will of others. In the spiritual realm, l. means the right to hold or not to hold socially accepted beliefs, and the opportunity to practice any faith or atheism without prohibition or coercion.
One’s l. cannot infringe on the l. of others, and this means that there must exist common rules of conduct, common responsibility, and symmetrical obligations and rights. Even anarchism (*), in declaring itself in favor of absolute l. of the individual and against authority, recognizes interdependence and solidarity as indispensable conditions for personal l., i.e., as a natural and normal self-limitation of l. The l. of human beings is first and foremost the capacity to determine for themselves and without external pressures their own conduct and decisions.
Moral l. is not the same as amorality or nihilism, although these categories also have to be regarded as manifestations of human l. Moral l. is a creative, innovative, personally independent attitude toward traditions, taboos, and punishments that are linked to moral coercion. 
L. is not synonymous with arbitrariness, which is, rather, a form of alienation since it is manifested in an anti-humanist manner in the coercion of the intentionality of others. Authentic human l. cannot be limited to a single individual, but inevitably implies the presence of l. in others as well. 
LOVE
(ME. love, luve). Affection that moves one to seek a real or imaginary good and to desire its possession. The word l. has very diverse meanings, but represents an inclination toward someone or something. The care with which one performs a task, delighting in it, is considered a form of love. On the other hand, it is also how we designate the passion of the sexes and the relationship with the beloved. 
As for self-l., it is regarded positively when interpreted as a desire to improve one’s own conduct, and negatively when it involves excessive regard for oneself. 
Humanists consider l. a fundamental psychological force that assures mutual aid and Solidarity (*) among human beings, beyond the normally established limits between social groups and states. 
M
MACHIAVELLIANISM
Political doctrine of the Italian writer Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), who advises the use of bad faith when necessary to advance the policies of a state. His position is known for the maxim, “the ends justify the means.” The carrying out of diplomacy through cunning, duplicity and treachery is also regarded as M. Insofar as it concerns itself only with the utility of results, M. is considered a form of pragmatism.
MANIPULATION
(from L. manipulus, to handle with the hand). Action and effect of deceiving or applying moral coercion. System of psychological pressure to apply duress to the behavior of others. The methodology of m. is quite varied and runs from exploitation of the most fundamental human necessities and most irrational fears to the creation of illusory expectations generated within a system without choices. The use of mass media (press, radio, TV, film, etc.) always has the character of m. when the people have no option to interact with them. At the present time, limitations on m. by the media are provided by rating systems, but this in turn is frequently manipulated in various ways. N.H. considers m. an inhumane practice that violates freedom of choice.
MARGINALIZED PEOPLE
(from L. margo, extremity and border of something). A term used in contemporary sociology to characterize a large social group made up of persons who have ceased to belong to the castes or estates of traditional society, but who have not yet become integrated into the classes or strata of modern society. They occupy an intermediate position, and maintain family, economic, social and cultural ties with the traditional groups of their origin.
”Marginal” is understood to mean those who are on the fringes of possession of rights that are commonly held by the rest of the population, and who suffer from social conditions of inferiority.
In sociology the concept “marginal strata” is at times identified with social parasitism. Such interpretation is incorrect; as a general rule, the marginal engage in productive activity, albeit occasional,, since they have no profession, economic means of their own, decent housing, etc. Neither can all residents of ghettos or slum areas be considered as “marginal strata”, because of the enormous social differentiation observed among them. Not only the marginalized live in those areas, but also laborers, employees, professionals, merchants with modest resources, including criminals engaged in illegal activity.
MARXISM-LENINISM
Marxism is considered as a theory whose initial formulation is owed to Karl Marx. The majority of the exponents of this current tend to form a doctrinary body known as M-L., which was articulated with the contributions of different authors. Thus, there would be a Marxism corresponding to the writings authored by Karl Marx, and a Marxist-Leninist or Marxist school that includes mainly the writings of the initial author, Engels, Lenin, and others. In N.H., this ideology is considered as a current, even though it may be analyzed in detail according to author or according to diverse critical positions (*Marxist humanism, Philosophical humanism, Philosophical anti-humanism). 
Here we will review M-L. not from the point of view of N.H. but according to the point of view of its followers as it was officially presented in the USSR, including some relevant points from the article “Marxism-Leninism” in the Dictionary of Scientific Communism published in Moscow in 1985. 
Marxism-Leninism [is] “a scientifically-based system of philosophical, economic and socio-political views; the doctrine of the cognition and transformation of the world, of the laws according to which society, nature and human thinking develop, of the ways of the revolutionary overthrow of the exploiting system and the building of communism; the world outlook of the working class and its vanguard, Communist and Workers’ Parties.
Marxism emerged in the 1840s. The needs of social development, which revealed the fundamental vices inherent in the capitalist system and the entire system of exploitation, the awakening of the proletariat to political struggle, the great discoveries in the natural sciences and advances in historical and social studies confronted social thought with the task of elaborating a new, genuinely scientific theory capable of responding to the pressing, cardinal questions raised by life. This historic task was fulfilled by Marx and Engels. Lenin started on his scientific and revolutionary activities at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, when capitalism, which has entered its last stage, imperialism, had begun to collapse and socialist society had emerged. He defended Marxism from attacks by its enemies, analyzed the latest achievements in science from a theoretical point of view, and summed up the new experience gained in the class struggles. He enriched the theory of Marxism and raised it to a qualitatively new level.”
MARXIST HUMANISM
This is a case of philosophical humanism (*). M.H. was developed especially in the years following the Second World War through the work of a group of philosophers. Its most representative exponents were Ernst Bloch in Germany, Adam Shaff in Poland, Roger Garaudy in France, Rodolfo Mondolfo in Italy, and Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse in the United States. These authors tried to recover and develop the humanist aspect which, according to their interpretation, constituted the very essence of Marxism. Previously, Engels had argued in his famous letter to Bloch (1880) that Marxism had been misunderstood, and that it had been a mistake to see an absolute and unilateral determinism of the productive forces over human consciousness and societal superstructures. Consciousness, he explained, reacts in turn over the structure, and this reaction is necessary for the revolutionary comprehension of the mutations of the structure and of the contradiction between the productive forces and social relations.
The Marxist humanists stressed the importance of the texts of Marx’s youth, especially the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, The German Ideology, and the Critique of Hegel’s “Philosophy of Right,” as well as others from his maturity, such as Theories of Surplus Value. These philosophers endeavored to reinterpret Marx’s thought in a key that was not strictly economicist and materialist (* Materialism ). They gave greater emphasis to his youthful writings, only recently rediscovered in the 1930s, than to the works of his maturity, such as Das Kapital. They focused, for example, on the passage in the 1844 Manuscripts in which Marx writes: “...man is not merely a natural being: he is a human natural being. That is to say, he is a being for himself, and after that a species being, and has to confirm and manifest himself as such both in his being and in his knowing. Therefore, human objects are not natural objects as they immediately present themselves … human nature, too, taken abstractly, for itself – nature fixed in isolation from man – is nothing for man”. At the beginning of the exposition of his anthropology in the Manuscripts, Marx says: “... we see here how naturalism or humanism distinguishes itself [from both] idealism and materialism, constituting at the same time the unifying truth of both”.
Mondolfo explains that: 
“In reality, if we examine historical materialism without prejudice, just as it is given us in Marx's and Engels' texts, we have to recognize that it is not a materialism but rather a true humanism, [and] that it places the idea of man at the center of every consideration, every discussion. It is a realistic humanism (Reale Humanismus), as its own creators called it, which wishes to consider man in his effective and concrete reality, to comprehend his existence in history, and to comprehend history as a reality produced by man through activity, labor, social action, down through the centuries in which there gradually occurs the formation and transformation of the environment in which man lives, and in which man himself gradually develops, as simultaneously cause and effect of all historical evolution. In this sense, we find that historical materialism cannot be confused with a materialist philosophy (*Philosophical Anti-Humanism and Marxism-Leninism).” 
MATERIALISM
(from L. materia, matter). Philosophical doctrine that considers matter as the sole constitutive reality of the real world. According to this view, matter in its higher forms (organic matter) is capable of changing and developing. Therefore, sensation, consciousness and ideas are no more than expressions of matter in its most organized forms. Material existence is primary, while consciousness is secondary. 
The antagonistic division between “materialists” and “idealists” (*Idealism) was widely accepted, given its simpleness, by the narrative of modernity. Today, in light of the new conceptions of the human being and science, these postures are being subjected to extensive revision.
As for the human and social sciences, many materialists consider the governing role of economic factors in the development of society as determining the interests and possibilities of human beings and organizing life and its events. For these exponents, the materialist concepts of the State and property, of war and the progress of nations, of the classes and class struggle, help identify the reasons for the opposition and conflicts and offer guidance in political praxis. At the same time, gross m. takes the power of the economic factors as absolute, starting from the principle of determinism and causal conditionality of all phenomena.
The term m. came into use in the early seventeenth century as physical doctrine regarding matter, and in the early eighteenth century as antonym of philosophical idealism.
In ancient Greek philosophy, the concept of prime matter was understood as the substance that could not be divided to the infinite. In the Middle Ages, Thomism saw in matter the potential and passive principle which, in union with substantial form, constitutes the essence of all bodies, remaining in the substantial transmutations under each succeeding form. Secondary matter was considered as being the substantial compound of raw material and form as substance; that is, as a subject apt for receiving an accidental determination. In modern times, until the arisal of Einstein’s theory of general relativity, matter was conceived as anything that was subject to the laws of gravity. Subsequently, in modern physics, the concepts of matter and energy draw closer together and at times are equated. 
In the philosophy of history, the conception of m. is applied to the doctrines that interpret the historical process by reducing it to the material causes, and consider that the social structure is determined before all else by economic necessities and laws.
METALANGUAGE
1) Specialized language used to describe a natural language. 2) Formal language that employs special symbols, used to describe the syntax of programming languages.
METALINGUISTICS
Study of the interrelationships between the language and culture of a given people.
METHOD
(from Gr. methodos,; meta, after, beyond, among; and hodos, way). Path of investigation, knowledge; mode of reaching an objective. Set of operations of practical or theoretical knowledge of reality; procedure followed in the sciences to verify a concept or to teach it. Ordered set of the principal elements of an art.
In elementary terms, a distinction is made between the analytical m., which signifies resolving the complex in the simple, and the synthetic m., which proceeds in the opposite direction. Frequently, both directions overlap and are mutually enriched by the application of deductive or inductive and experimental judgments. The contribution of statistical-mathematical procedures to determine certain constants or trends that cannot be observed in individual cases is also considered as a m.
Each of the sciences, upon establishing its specific mode of investigation, also elaborates its own m. of study, or methodology. The methodology is a doctrine on the structure, organization, logic and means of an activity; it is also a set of methods followed in a scientific investigation or in a doctrinary exposition. 
MIDDLE STRATA
(a particular aspect of the notion of social layer, from Sociology). A sociological category designating an important part of the social structure of modern society and of societies in transition from traditionalism and modernism. Encompasses the sectors situated between the upper and lower levels in the social pyramid, and contributes to social stability. 
The internal structure of the m.s. is quite contradictory. Its most dynamic and modern sector is composed of the levels that develop with progress in the technical-scientific and information fields (small-scale entrepreneurs with industrial workshops, farmers and livestock raisers, shop owners and consumer service providers, trained workers, professionals, etc.). 
Another sector is made up of the m.s. inherited from industrial society (skilled laborers, white-collar workers, farmers, etc.). An important segment of the m.s. is made up of public employees (teachers in schools and other educational institutions, salaried medical personnel, non-executive office workers, etc.). There are m.s. inherited from traditional society (artisans, journeymen, small business owners, transport services, service centers, small farmers, etc.).
In the modernized countries, the m.s. make up the scaffolding of civil society, assuring its democratic development and social and political stability, and contributing to national consensus. These strata are forces that are more active, more dynamic, more open to innovation.
In societies in transition, the role of the m.s. is contradictory and its social and political behavior cannot be characterized as homogeneous. While its more modern (and, incidentally, less numerous) sectors manifest dynamism and democratic tendencies in many situations, the traditional sectors are carriers of the propensity toward fundamentalism and right- and left-wing radicalism.
In periods of crisis, the traditional m.s. can form the social base for autocratic and even totalitarian tendencies, aspiring to corporativist (*Corporativism), chauvinist (*chauvinism) and statist mentalities. Their conduct corresponds to the client-patron model. However, in this case we are dealing with m.s. that are impoverished and de-classed, ruined, that acquire personal experience in the practice of violence in the armed forces or paramilitary groups. This conduct is the consequence of participation in wars of depredation, colonialist adventures, civil wars, inter-ethnic and inter-faith conflicts. Parallel to this, m.s. are at the same time the most willing to assimilate the humanist traditions and to repudiate all manifestations of violence and injustice.
The behavior of the m.s. in each situation is not fatally predetermined by their social condition; rather, it is the result of personal choices and the correlation of political and ideological forces. 
MODERNIZATION
(from L. modernum, recent, and from moderno, recently come into existence, that has happened recently). Way to confer a modern form or appearance to something. To perfect, to change something so that it corresponds to present-day demands and tastes.
In contemporary sociology m. is understood as the process of transformation of traditional society, which is closed and immobile, little inclined toward changes, into an open society, equipped with intensive communications and having a high degree of social mobility, organically incorporated into the international community, not as a marginal appendage but as an active subject, with full and equal rights in international relations. At times, m. (crudely disguising vested interests) is presented as the extension of “western culture” to other areas, with the resulting displacement of vernacular cultures and languages. 
The process of m. is due not so much to external factors as to the internal needs of progress in traditional societies, that seek to mobilize their reserves for an accelerated development, and to eliminate not just their technological backwardness, but their social and informational backwardness as well. These societies attempt to overcome their marginality by integrating into the universal process.
MOVEMENT OF NONALIGNED NATIONS
A movement of states that have declared their foreign policies as based on non-participation in military or political blocs. This movement condemns colonialism, neo-colonialism and racism, defends the independence and sovereignty of all countries, and advocates peaceful coexistence, nuclear disarmament, and the reorganization of international economic relations.
The first conference was held in September 1961 in Belgrade, Yugoslavia and included 25 nonaligned states. 102 nonaligned nations took part in the 1989 conference.
The movement arose as a protest against the division of the world into two political-military blocs and against related interventions in the life of neutral or non-belligerent countries, which were often dragged into the Cold War by the great powers. Its international influence diminished considerably after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact (1991) and the collapse of the USSR. This movement continues its activities, although its objectives are far from being realized.
N
NATION
(OF from L. nationem from nasci, to be born). The inhabitants of a country, ruled by the same government; the territory of that country; a group of persons who generally speak the same language and share some common history. Distinguished from ethnicity, which applies to persons of a single, common origin. The modern nation is polyphonic. It is formed in the process of structuring the market and national cultures over the basis of the emergence of civil society in a given territory. Different nations may speak the same language (e.g. England, the United States, and Ireland; Germany and Austria; Spain and the Spanish-speaking Latin American nations; the Arab states, etc.).
The term “nation” in the modern sense appeared during the wars of independence of the English and Spanish colonies in the Americas and during the French revolution. The United Nations recognized the right of nations to self-determination, contributing to the dissolution of the colonial system and the appearance of hundred new nation states following the Second World War.
Universalist Humanism (*) supports the claims to national cultural autonomy of groups of persons who regard themselves as a nation, as well as their right to receive education in their own language, and to the free use of their own language in relations with official institutions. At the same time, humanists call for the resolution of national conflicts through negotiation, without recourse to violence, and for respect for those borders recognized by the international community.
NATIONAL PROBLEM
The complex of cultural, economic, juridical, social and linguistic relationships established within a single or contiguous territory. The national problem exists between different ethno-religious groups with national consciousness and that defend their common interests, in opposition to the interests of other collectivities.
In ancient and Medieval times, with the predominance of a natural economy, the intensity of relations between human beings belonging to different ethnic or religious groups was relatively low, and was compensated with the subservience to one or another ruler that utilized extra-economic coercion as their principal method for preserving or extending their dominions ― which, as a general rule, were multiethnic and often multi-faith. 
Only in modern times, with the formation of national markets and as a result of the English and French revolutions, the era of the formation of nation states began, one official religion and language predominated. 
In conclusion, the concepts of “state” and “nation” merged together. After the breakup of the Medieval empires as a consequence of the First World War, the national principle was adopted in the construction of the European and Asian states, even by multiethnic communities (Eastern Europe, the USSR, Turkey, China). 
As a consequence of the victory over Fascism in the Second World War and the expansion of the national liberation movements to the continents of Asia and Africa, as well as to the Caribbean and Oceania, the number of states rose from fifty to nearly two hundred. These countries, the majority of them multiethnic, also apparently adopted the form of the nation state (for example, India adopted this national criterion) along with the norm of maintaining the borders inherited from the colonial era. This enabled them to minimize the dimensions of inter-ethnic and interfaith conflicts, but they failed to eradicate them entirely. 
The cases of the former Yugoslavia, Pakistan, the Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Rwanda and Burundi, Angola, the post-Soviet republics, etc. demonstrate the seriousness of national problems in today’s world.
The current national conflicts are, in large measure, the result of colonialism in its various manifestations, because the colonial empires administered their territories by pitting ethnic-religious groups against each other. Today these groups and clans want to preserve their privileges, while the groups, clans and communities suffering from inequality are used by foreign powers, opportunistic groups and natives to sow armed uprisings, terrorist acts and thus generally suppress the emerging states by stifling their independence. In this way, the n.p. has become one of the most pressing global impediments of our times. 
N.H considers that the universal human rights take precedence over the excluding values of an ethnic group or religion, clan, tribe, race, caste, or any other social group. All citizens must have the same rights, independently of their ethnic, religious or racial origin, etc. National discrimination must be prohibited and its acts eradicated. War criminals, perpetrators of ethnocide and religious terror must be remanded to the international justice courts. It is necessary to eliminate the shameful legacy of colonialism and to create the conditions necessary for all peoples of the world to lead their lives with dignity.
NATIONAL SOCIALISM
Name adopted by the old German Workers’ Party in Munich in 1920. The Nazi ideology (an apocope of National-sozialistische) is similar to that of right wing romantic authoritarianism, characteristic of Fascism (*). When Adolf Hitler became the leader of N.S., he imposed its ideology and anti-Semitic practice. N.S. is the clearest example of anti-humanist thought in modern times.
NATIONALISM
Pertaining or relating to a nation. Doctrine and movement glorifying the national personality or what is presented as such by its proponents; doctrine of political, economic, and/or cultural redress of grievances for oppressed nationalities. 
Modern political science distinguishes the term national, which reflects the legitimate interests of each nation that are without prejudice to other nations, from nationalistic, in which the selfish interests and desires of oppressing strata are cloaked beneath “national interest,” and which provokes conflicts with other nations. In the latter, n. becomes chauvinism, in which the rights of other nations and oppressed national minorities are disregarded and violated.
N.H. supports the just demands of oppressed nations and ethnic groups, but opposes the exaggeration of national sentiments to the point that human rights are infringed, some people are turned against others on national, ethnic, or ethno-religious grounds, or the human dignity of other people is not respected. No one can violate the rights of a person or people by appealing to an alleged preeminence of national interests.
NEOCOLONIALISM (New Colonialism)
Second wave of colonialism (*) in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. During that period countries such as Belgium, the United States, Italy, Japan, and Russia followed the process initiated in the fifteenth century by some European powers. The difference between n. and imperialism (*) is currently a subject of debate. N.H. characterizes n. as late colonialism, reserving the designation “imperialism” for activities of domination exercised by superpowers or powers with global aspirations. In recent decades we have seen the emergence of a neocolonial strategy in which countries that are formally independent find themselves subject to the fluctuations of a market in fact dominated by the great powers.
NEOLIBERALISM (New Liberalism)
Progressive social reforms of liberal governments after 1908. Its principal exponents were David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill. Present-day n. admits many variants, running from completely unrestricted open markets, the extreme submission to so-called “natural” laws of supply and demand, and the crassest monetarism, to some degree of interventionism, including subsidies for national production, stimulating public spending and alignment of the economy toward certain areas of production. Theoreticians of n. are currently arguing for the need to discipline societies by eliminating the benefits and entitlements of social security, health care, free education, and unemployment benefits, and without generating new sources of employment. These cuts in public spending and massive layoffs are accompanied by increasing taxation measures. At the same time, practitioners of n. are attempting to enmesh all of society in a system of indebtedness involving usurious rates of interest. N. is currently the best tool available to imperialist penetration in its task of eliminating the national state. 
NEW HUMANISM
The representatives of this movement have a clearly defined position in relation to the current historical moment. For them it is indispensable to construct a humanism that will contribute to the improvement of life, that will confront discrimination, fanaticism, exploitation and violence. In a world that is rapidly becoming globalized and showing signs of intensifying collisions between cultures, ethnic groups and regions, participants in N.H. propose a Universalist Humanism (*) that is both plural and convergent; in a world in which countries, institutions, and human relations are becoming destructured, fragmented. They work for a humanism capable of rebuilding social forces; in a world in which the meaning and direction of life have been lost, they emphasize the need for a humanism capable of creating a new atmosphere of reflection, in which the personal sphere will no longer be irrevocably opposed to the social, nor the social opposed to the personal. These exponents, interpreters and militants encourage a creative humanism, not a repetitive humanism; a humanism that, aware of the paradoxes of the times, aspires to resolve them.
N.H. favors the modification of the scheme or structure of power for the purpose of transforming the present social structure, which is rapidly becoming a closed system (*Planetarization) in which the practical attitudes and theoretical “values” of anti-humanism (*) increasingly predominate. 
NEW LEFT
Designation of the array of groups of heterogeneous philosophical ideas and political orientations which emerged in the decades of the sixties and seventies of the twentieth century. It is made up primarily of students and intellectuals along with an influx of the “new poor.”
These groups are critical of social inequality, the crushing of the personality, and the growing exploitation, consumerism and moral decadence that characterize the developed countries. At the same time, they criticize the Communists for their bureaucratization, anti-humanism and corruption.
One sector of the N.L. has embraced the methods of violence and practiced terrorism. Other groups have deviated toward nationalism, racism, or religious fundamentalism, some even allying themselves with neo-Nazi groups. 
Another part of the N.L. has sought a way out of the global crisis through a resurgent anarchism. Still other groups have joined socialist and social-democratic parties, while others have joined environmental, feminist and youth movements and organizations.
NEW ORDER
1) Hitlerian expression referring to an economically and politically centralized Europe under the control of Germany. 2) Expression that came into vogue during the presidency of Ronald Reagan; refers to the organization of international relations on the basis of an economic model and military hegemony unlawfully retained by the United States. 3) New International Economic Order. Position advanced by the developing countries (*). Some of the measures proposed are the following: national sovereignty over natural resources; reducing the disparity between the price of raw materials and manufactured products; regulation of international prices of raw materials; broadening of preferences in trade relationships with developed countries; normalization of the international monetary system; stimulating exports of products from developing countries.
NEW POOR
Category of workers forming as a result of the economic restructuring brought about by the scientific-technical revolution. It is made up of office workers, engineers, technicians and skilled workers unable to find employment; recent graduates without jobs; bankrupt farmers; residents of abandoned industrial areas; retirees whose pensions have fallen below the minimum subsistence level. The majority of the n.p. quickly lose access to benefits and services for the unemployed. 
The n.p. frequently find themselves forced to work as day-laborers or occasional workers, without training or work contracts. 
To combat this “technological poverty,” it is important to create an international retraining system, to contribute to the de-statization of the economy, and transfer efforts to the county and municipal levels, creating new centers for training, employment, recreation and culture.
NEW RIGHT
Ideological and political current that emerged in the developed countries in the late 1960s and early 1970s. 
Initially it included groups of leftist intellectuals disillusioned and disoriented by the collapse of the myth of the supposedly imminent worldwide triumph of Communism. These intellectuals underwent a transformation from Communism to traditionalism because, though these currents may seem incompatible, certain conventions of behavior, aesthetic tastes and the culture of violence in both currents are in fact quite closely related. Subsequently, a number of philo-fascist ideologues joined this movement, hoping in this way to legitimize before public opinion their neo-pagan concepts and thus win recruits among the young. 
The n.r. condemns the hypocrisy and other vices of contemporary civilization, criticizes its “mass culture” and its “de-nationalization”. The n.r. appeals to so-called “race values” and to the more primitive and zoological instincts; it glorifies ethnocentrism and racism; and it cultivates hatred, xenophobia and violence.
The social base of this movement is made up of certain groups of intellectuals and students, especially in the technical and teaching professions, the middle strata who are reeling from industrial and technical restructuring, and professional soldiers alarmed at the prospect of disarmament and the reductions in armed forces following the end of the Cold War.
N.H. struggles against the fundamentalist, chauvinist and racist conceptions of the n.r., that today represent the principal danger in the ideological and political sphere, as the fomenter of ethno-religious conflicts and local wars, and as the abettor of the professional assassins who protagonize such wars.
NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGOs)
International, national and local organizations created through citizen initiative, with common extra-governmental objectives of a social, political, religious, cultural, scientific, sporting, recreational, or other nature.
NGOs form the foundation and structure of civil society, the basis of democratic regimes. Today these organizations are principally dedicated to the protection of the environment, charitable works, the defense of human rights, contributing to the settlement of social and ethno-religious conflicts, disarmament and the search for solutions to the global crisis looming over humankind. Due to the active participation of scientists and professionals, the intellectual potential of such organizations is significant.
The 1945 United Nations conference in San Francisco established in Article 71 of the UN charter that nongovernmental organizations would advise the Economic and Social Council on problems that lay within the province of their expertise. In 1950 the Conference of Nongovernmental Consultative Organizations was instituted, comprising three categories, which maintain permanent contacts with the corresponding committee of UNESCO. A conference is held every three years at which an executive committee is elected, with the organization’s offices in New York (U.S.A.) and Geneva (Switzerland). Various nongovernmental organizations cooperate with specialized organizations of the UN. Thus, subsequent to its creation in Florence, Italy in May 1950, the Conference of International Non-Governmental Organizations had been authorized by UNESCO to participate in the Benefit for Consultative Agencies. It meets every other year in Paris, France, where it is headquartered. 
NEW SURPASSING THE OLD
General tendency of the development of living structures, society and of human consciousness. If life is taken, not as an isolated and singular occurrence, but as a step of greater complexity in the structure of nature, then the universe itself can be considered as developing in an irreversible direction (following the arrow of time), in which simple structures tend to surpass their initial condition, interacting, grouping together, and finally achieving a greater complexity than that of the previous moment. On the other hand, if life is viewed as an isolated case and likewise the universe, as another singular phenomenon, then one cannot speak of the tendency of the surpassing of the old by the new. But, at the same time, such a view will render general science impossible ―there is no science of the singular and non-repeatable. Cosmologies as well as the biology of earlier eras opted for the tendency to imagine a universe that tends to lose energy and order. In this way, the organizations of increasing complexity were seen as singular cases, as phenomena of hazard.
For N.H., the n.s.o. is a general tendency of the development of the universe. In the case of society, this tendency is expressed in generational dialectics, in which the new generations (*) finally prevail. In the consciousness it is expressed in the temporal dialectic in which future time has primacy; and history, as the surpassing of present moments by other, more complex ones that advance toward an irreversible future. It is in the destructuring (*) of any system where the rupture brought about by the new surpassing the old is verified. Nevertheless, the most progressive elements of the previous stage are incorporated into the new evolutionary step, and the elements that do not adapt to the changed conditions are discarded. 
NIHILISM
1) Systematic negation of life. 2) Negation of humanist values. 3) Anti-humanism.
This term was first used by Turgenev in his 1862 novel Fathers and Sons. The term “nihilists” referred to the violent activities of a Russian revolutionary society that had just published a manifesto following the assassination of Czar Alexander II in 1881.
NON-VIOLENCE
Generally refers to some or all of the following: a system of moral concepts that disavows violence; the mass movement led by Mahatma Gandhi in India in the first part of the twentieth century; the struggle for civil rights by African-Americans in the United States under the leadership of Martin Luther King; and the activities carried out by Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana. The activities of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Sakharov, S. Kovalev and other famous dissidents opposed to Soviet totalitarianism may be included as well. 
The idea of n-v. is expounded in the Bible and in the writings of other religions in the exhortation ”do not kill”. This idea has been developed by numerous thinkers and philosophers; Russian authors Leo Tolstoy and Feodor Dostoievsky expressed it in profound formulations. Tolstoy’s formula proclaiming the supremacy of love and the “non-use of violence against evil,” or better, the impossibility of fighting one evil with another, found worldwide resonance, inspiring a somewhat singular sect of “Tolstoyists.” 
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) formulated the ethics of n-v. in his own way, basing it on the principle of ahimsa (the refusal to use any form of violence against the individual, nature, even insects or plants) and on the “law of suffering.” Gandhi was able to organize the Satyagraha, an anti-colonial non-violent movement uniting many millions of people. This was expressed in massive and sustained civil disobedience against and noncooperation with the British authorities, reaffirming Indian identity and freedom, but without recourse to violent methods. The people called Gandhi Mahatma (“Great Soul”) for his courage and unyielding adherence to the principle of n-v. This non-violent movement prepared the ground for Great Britain to renounce its supremacy in India, though Gandhi himself was killed by a paid assassin. Unfortunately, in time the principle of ahimsa was completely forgotten, and the subsequent political process in India and Pakistan was accompanied by great bloodshed and unrestrained violence.
The struggle of Martin Luther King also ended without fully achieving its objectives, as he, too, was assassinated while speaking at a mass meeting.
Nonetheless, the concept of n-v., including non-violent forms of protest, continues to be a vital, evolving force in the world. Daily mass actions by lower strata of workers, meetings and protest demonstrations, strikes, womens’ and student movements, farmworker and peasant demonstrations, leaflets, neighborhood newspapers and periodicals, appearances on radio and TV, all these constitute the contemporary forms of the ethic and practice of n-v.
N.H. strives to reduce violence to the greatest extent possible, to move completely beyond it in perspective, and to set in motion all methods and forms of bringing resolution to conflicts and opposing sides along the path of creative n-v.
N-V. is frequently equated with pacifism (*), when in reality the latter is neither a method of action nor a style of life but rather a sustained protest against war and the arms race. 
NORTH-SOUTH
(Problem of Relations)This term is used to characterize the relations between the industrialized, technologically-developed countries (the North) and the developing countries (the South),, for the most part concentrated in the southern hemisphere. To a certain degree, the concept of “South” also includes the countries of Asia, with the exception of Japan, South Korea and some other Asian countries such as Singapore. Thus, this problem can be interpreted as a problem of relations of injustice, dependency and exploitation between the center and the periphery.
The injustice of these relations was recognized by the UN General Assembly in a special resolution in 1974. Since the Paris Conference (1975-1977) and the Cancún Meeting (1981), there has been an ongoing dialogue between the official representatives of both groups of countries. Within the framework of the UN and its specialized institutions, certain mechanisms were created to compensate, albeit minimally, this injustice, and to contribute to the socioeconomic and cultural development of the countries in process of development, allocating no less than one percent of the developed countries’ domestic product for this purpose. But the arms race, local conflicts, and growth in unemployment have blocked the attainment of even this modest objective, not to mention the urgent need to restructure international economic relations, and to eliminate some of its unjust factors that hinder the development of the South.
O
OPPORTUNISM
(from opportune; L. opportunum; something done or that happens at a particular moment, on purpose and when it is convenient). Personal behavior or political attitude that dispenses to a certain extent with moral principles, adapting to the prevailing public opinion and thereby receiving the corresponding favors and benefits from the powers that be.
In contemporary political struggles adversaries frequently accuse each other of opportunistic practices to discredit their opponents in the eyes of the electorate. For this reason, allegations should be carefully weighed and substantiated, so as not to fall into politicking.
In the political life of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, mutual accusations of o. were commonplace in almost all political campaigns and electoral processes. A special propensity for leveling such accusations could be observed in the communist movement. Stalin accused all his adversaries, whether real or imagined, of being opportunists, now from the right, now from the left. In some cases, he even referred to “opportunistic monsters from the right-left” and stigmatized the “centrists.” This last was used by Russian Communists as the height of o., the worst insult of all. Victims of Stalinism were labeled “opportunists” if, prior to their arrest, they had been members of the Communist Party or of the Komsomol (Communist youth organization).
OPPOSITION
(L. oppositio, place against, opposite). 1) Contraposition of a group’s own criteria, ideas and policies against the policies and ideas in power. Non-violent resistance to such policies and the proposal of alternatives to the official policy. 2) Minority that, in deliberative bodies, opposes the government policy and at times forms a “shadow cabinet.” This form of o. is termed parliamentary o. 3) Minority or minorities within a political party that pronounce themselves to be against the party’s political strategy and organizational or other measures. 
O. typically involves tactical and organizational questions, but at times can be extended to key political issues and lead to a split in the party or its dissolution. Various conservative and communist parties in Europe, America and Asia dissolved in this way. In many cases, the opposing minority forms its own faction, with its own organizational headquarters, funding and publicity apparatus, but remaining within the framework (platform) and statutes of the party. Such o. within a party is called internal o. 
OPPRESSION
(From L. oppressio, act and effect of oppressing, to exert pressure against something, to subject someone to excessive restraint, to the point of afflicting or tyrannizing them. This repugnant and widespread social phenomenon has deep historical roots and is manifested when persons or a privileged group appropriates the product of others’ labor, forcing them to serve, to fulfill their wishes. O. is a product of violence.
There is family, gender, racial, national, religious, class o., etc. Since ancient times, the human being has struggled against all the forms of o. Humanism from its beginnings has condemned o. and inspired to the defense of human dignity.
ORTHODOXY
(Gr. orthos, right, straight, true, and doxa, opinion). Conformity with the views officially held to be true. Dogmatic rectitude in political and social groups.
Orthodox Church or Eastern Orthodox Church, official name of the Christian churches that practice Eastern rites (in Syria, Egypt, Greece, Turkey, Serbia, Bulgaria, Rumania, Russia, the Ukraine, and other countries).
Since 1054, when the Christian churches of Rome and Constantinople became separated, this centrifugal process has continued and intensified. Since 1961 most of the independent Orthodox churches that recognize the moral authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople have held conferences (in which fifteen official Orthodox churches have participated). And there are a number of Orthodox churches in each country. In Russia alone, in addition to the official church that enjoys the open support of the government, there are four Orthodox churches that follow the old rites and no fewer than six that follow other rites.
P
PACIFISM
(from L. pacem: peace). Moral and political principle that recognizes human life as the supreme social and ethical value and sees its supreme ideal in the maintaining of peace among ethnic, religious and social groups, and among nations and blocs of states. Includes respect for the dignity of the human person, groups and peoples, and for human rights in general. P. contributes to mutual understanding between peoples of different cultures and generations. It rejects mistrust, hatred and violence. 
P. is an attitude of rejection of war and the arms race. Since the First World War, many courts in different parts of the world have recognized the right of conscientious objection to exempt from military service pacifists and members of religious sects who are opposed to weapons and instruments of war. In addition, conscientious objectors have undertaken campaigns proposing that some percentage of the taxes allocated for defense be reallocated to education and public health. The ideas of disarmament and demilitarization have inspired numerous anti-war movements, which, however, have frequently failed to reach agreements due to their different concepts of social reality and, at times, because of specific tactical differences as well. Pacifist groups have now reached the point where they can organize autonomous fronts at the grassroots level in alliance with others advocating social change (*Action front).
PATERNALISM
(from patres, belonging to the father or derived from him). Doctrine that regards employer and employees as partners in the company, and recommends a whole series of administrative, social, economic, technical, cultural and psychological measures to guarantee the “social peace” presenting the employer as the only guarantor of that peace.
Chief among these measures is profit-sharing for company employees through the distribution of minority shares to them based on the fulfillment of certain conditions. Another important measure is a system of free training and retraining of personnel to raise worker productivity and product quality, thus increasing the company’s competitiveness in the marketplace.
From the point of view of solidarity (*) and the view that all social actors are human beings with equal rights and corresponding duties, N.H. criticizes the unilateral approach of this doctrine and its class “egoism”. (*Worker ownership). 
In addition to sharing in the profits, employees have the right to effective participation in the management of their company and to control its activities within the limits of their competence. Just as employers do, employees also have the right to organize themselves freely and to defend their interests. For this reason, N.H. rejects the doctrine and practice of p. as being a form of social discrimination, although it does accept some concrete procedures that can facilitate the fulfillment of the social pact between employers, employees and the State, and always with the observance of international norms.
PATRIARCHY
(from Gr. patriarkhes; power of the first fathers). Primitive social organization in which authority is exercised by a male head of family, whose power at times extends even to distant relatives of the same lineage. P. also refers to the period in which this system has prevailed. As distinct from the practice under matriarchy, kinship under this system is determined by the paternal line. 
This system was reinforced when women were displaced from the sphere of production of goods and their efforts centered on domestic tasks. The change coincided with the passage from adaptive technology to transformative technology, the use of copper, the division between agriculture and animal husbandry, and specialization in various crafts. In all these tasks the main physical burden has fallen on men, which has led to changes in family forms. Later, p. was replaced by more complex civilization as the bronze age gave way to the iron age and the rise of writing and the State. Nevertheless, the structure of domination by men continues, with discrimination against women in managing and decision-making in work and government. In this sense, present-day society still displays patriarchal features characteristic of pre-civilized times. 
PATRIOTISM
(from Gr. patriotes, fellow countryman). Feeling of affection for one’s native territory, and the disposition to defend it from external attacks.
Underlying this sentiment is the biological tendency to mark the territory inhabited and to defend it against outside incursion. During the period of formation of the national states of Western Europe in the nineteenth century, this feeling, humanized by the movements of national and social liberation, contributed to the consolidation of the nation states. However, on numerous occasions it degenerated into a chauvinism manifested, for example, in the Napoleonic wars, some of the Balkan wars, the war of the Triple Alliance that pitted Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay against Paraguay, the war of the Pacific between Chile, Bolivia and Peru, etc. Subsequently, this mass patriotic feeling was exploited by imperialists in the first and second world wars. This speculation in the lowest and basest of ends was most evident in the imperialist conquests and other crimes of the regimes of Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin. Today, patriotic sentiment often cloaks horrendous crimes which are committed in “local conflicts” such as those that have taken place in the territories of India, Ethiopia, Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, and the former USSR.
Humanists love their countries, but they condemn the speculation in and manipulation (*) of patriotic feelings, which leads to xenophobia, nationalism and racism, fomenting bloody conflicts.
PEOPLE
(from L. populum, the group of inhabitants of a place, region or country). 1) The entire population of a country. 2) Various forms of historical communities (tribe, nation, etc.).
Since ancient times, efforts have been made to limit the concept of p., giving it an ethnocentrist or classist interpretation. For example, in the Greek polis, slaves, sailors, skilled craftspersons and immigrants from other Greek cities were excluded from the category of the p. The same occurred with the lower castes in India, and in ancient and medieval Japan even as late as the Second World War. During the Middle Ages in Europe serfs were excluded from the designation p. In the Russian Empire, a person without parents of Russian origin was labeled “inorodetsy” (a person of foreign descent) and, along with those who did not profess the official religion even when they practiced some form of the traditional Eastern Christian rite, were deprived of civil rights and not officially considered part of the Russian p. 
Since the English revolution, the aristocracy has been excluded from the concept of the p. In this sense, the bourgeoisie has been included, as well as the aristocracy, in European revolutionary literature of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In Soviet literature, intellectuals and dissidents were not considered part of the p., even when they came from the worker and peasant classes. 
PERCEPTION
(from L. perceptio, from percipere, to grasp). Action and effect of apprehending a phenomenon through the senses, whether through the external senses or senses of the intrabody. The external senses comprise the senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell, and the external tactile sense; the internal senses are comprised of cenesthesia, kinesthesia, and the internal tactile sense. Atomistic psychology has sought to decompose perceptions into sensations and to view the consciousness as nothing more than the passive recipient of stimuli originating in the external world. Today, Humanist psychology (*) considers p. to be a dynamic structure of sensations in which the consciousness actively organizes the data received through the pathways of the senses. 
Humanist psychology distinguishes between p. of landscapes (*landscape) and simple perceptions. In every p. the phenomena of attitude, evaluation and preferences concerning a given stimulus are always present. This lets us view the p. of landscapes as interactive, moving beyond an exclusive attention to the cognitive and the experimental. 
In the social psychology of N.H. the concept of “landscape” allows the development and application of a method yielding a rich knowledge of different cultures and their modes of perceiving the world.  
PERSONAL EMPLACEMENT
At present, anything that may offer personal reference points, referred to action as well as to one’s psychological emplacement in front of this changing world, is subjected to argument. The crisis of “life-models” alludes to this problem. In one of his Letters to My Friends, Silo presents a summary of previous observations on this point. Even at the risk of its being insufficient as an explanation, it is pertinent to present it in this entry. It says: 
1. Driven by the technological revolution, the world is undergoing rapid change, which is colliding with established structures and the formative experience and habits of life of both individuals and societies. 
2. As change makes more factors in society become “out of phase,” this generates growing crises in every field, and there is no reason to suppose this will diminish; on the contrary it will tend to intensify. 
3. The unexpectedness of today’s events clouds our ability to foresee the direction that these events, the people around us, and ultimately our own lives will take. 
4. Many of the things we used to think and to believe in no longer work. Nor do we see adequate solutions forthcoming from any society, any institution, or any individual – all of whom suffer the same ills. 
5. If one decides to stand up to these problems, one must give direction to one’s life, striving for coherence among one’s thoughts, feelings and actions. And because we do not live in isolation, we must extend this coherence to our relationships with others, treating them as we want to be treated. While it is not possible to fulfill these two proposals rigorously, nonetheless they constitute the direction in which we need to advance, which we will be able to accomplish above all if we make these proposals permanent references, reflecting on them deeply. 
6. We live in immediate relationship with others, and it is in this environment that we must act to give a favorable direction to our lives. This is not a psychological question, a matter that can be resolved solely in the head of an isolated individual, it is related to the concrete situation in which each of us lives. 
7. Being consistent with the proposals we are attempting to carry forward leads us to the conclusion that it would be useful to extend to society as a whole those elements that are positive for ourselves and our immediate environment. Together with others who are moving in this direction, we will put into practice the most appropriate means to allow a new form of solidarity to find expression. Thus, even when we act very specifically in our own immediate environment we will not lose sight of the global situation that affects all human beings and that requires our help, just as we need the help of others.
8. The precipitous changes in today’s world lead us to seriously propose the need for a new direction in life.
9. Coherence does not begin and end in oneself, rather it is related to one’s social environment, to other people. Solidarity is an aspect of personal coherence.
10. Proportion in one’s activities consists of establishing one’s priorities in life, of not letting them grow out of balance, and basing one’s actions on these priorities.
11. Well-timed actions involve retreating when faced with a great force, and advancing with resolution when it weakens. When one is subject to contradiction, this idea is important in making a change of direction in one’s life.
12. It is unwise to be unadapted to our environment, which leaves us without the capacity to change anything. It is equally unwise to follow a course of decreasing adaptation to an environment in which we limit ourselves to accepting the established conditions. Growing adaptation consists of increasing the influence we have in our environment as we advance in the direction of coherence.
PERSONALISM
(from L. persona, mask, person). A philosophical theory that regards the human being and human freedom as the highest spiritual values. The notion of p. itself is much broader than some of its particular manifestations, or than the mode of behavior of one person. In reality, the personalist aspect is an integral part of all social, religious and psychological sciences, as well as the ideological or political sciences, and predominates in culture and art as well.
The key to the philosophy of p. lies in the following problems: the problem of the individual becoming a personality; the problem of the individual and the collective; and the problem of the individual, society and human liberty, and responsibility toward other human beings. In the religious current of p., the primary emphasis is placed on the problem of the individual and God, as reflected in the variants of religious existentialism (*Existentialism). 
According to many personalists, the individual is a natural-biological category, while the personality is a social and historical category. An individual is an integral part of society, group, class, clan, or nation. The personality constitutes a whole; it is not an organic category. The personality is made up of certain intellectual and spiritual qualities, their stable combination, as well as a structure of firm supra-individual, valid orientations. The strength and character of those qualities is what distinguishes one person from another. Every human being is an individual, but not every individual develops into a personality. Many people live mechanically, either passively adapting themselves to the environment or opposing society. 
According to p., the human being is free and occupies a place above the State, the nation and the family. But the spiritual and moral life of a person is intertwined with the life of society, and so the personality runs the risk of becoming alienated by society and its demands (*Alienation).
That the human being may lose its independence, or be subjected to the will and interests of others – whether Party, Church, or State – is the foremost concern of personalists. A depersonalized being is the greatest sin of all in society or any human organization, and so the objective of p. consists in defending the self-sufficiency and independence of the personality, its full freedom to live out its own course. Today more than ever, however, while there exists a supposed “freedom of thought,” in reality people typically follow and obey values that are produced by manipulation, as if these were their own opinions. While p. cultivates ideals close to those of N.H., it differs from the latter by discounting the importance of collective solidarity and by letting itself be drawn into individualism, becoming isolated from active processes and instead preferring digressions that are purely abstract and philosophical. 
N.H. goes beyond p., contributing to the self-development of each person in a process in which individuals create their own lives, in union and accord with other human beings, until they produce a free society with solidarity, in which it will be possible to realize the ideal of p.
PHILANTHROPY
In its root, love for humankind. In practice, various philanthropic associations began to emerge as early as the seventeenth century. These philanthropic societies developed in an effort to ameliorate specific cases of poverty, and later took on a progressive character of solidarity, sometimes international in nature. At the present time, many humanitarian organizations acknowledge p. as the primary personal attitude uniting their members.
PHILOSOPHICAL ANTI-HUMANISM
On the basis of the description developed by nineteenth-century scholars, existentialist thinkers accepted the view that humanism was a philosophy, thus clearing the way for their opponents to lay the foundations of p.a. These detractors came principally from the ranks of structuralism and conservative Marxism. Of course, Nietzsche had already developed certain premises that were later used by Lévi-Strauss and Foucault. Heidegger’s critique of humanism is also a manifestation of p.a. 
Within Marxism, Althusser promoted the theory that there was not one Marx but two: the young, still “ideological” Marx, and the mature, truly “scientific” Marx. The conclusions that the French philosopher drew from this dichotomy include:
Any thought that appeals to Marx for any kind of restoration of a theoretical anthropology or humanism is no more than ashes, theoretically. But in practice, it could pile up a monument of pre-Marxist ideology that would weigh down on real history and threaten to lead it into blind alleys.
When (eventually) a Marxist policy of humanist ideology, that is, a political attitude to humanism, is achieved – a policy that may be either a rejection or a critique, or a use, or a support, or a development, or a humanist renewal of contemporary forms of ideology in the ethico-political domain – this policy will only have been possible on the absolute condition that it is based on Marxist philosophy, and a precondition for this is theoretical anti-humanism.
P.A. customarily formulates its criticism of Humanism on the basis of a rigid scientism. N.H. accepts numerous criticisms of traditional Humanism, but favors the revision, not only of the prevailing idea of human being (*), that is proper to the nineteenth century, but also of the conception of science (*) that [likewise] corresponds to that era.
PHILOSOPHICAL HUMANISM
Position held by numerous exponents of Existentialism (*) and by representatives of various historicist currents. Some confused ideologies have also emerged based on so-called “human nature.” In general, these naturalists accept the definition of the human being as a “rational animal,” and thus place him in the category of an evolved “animalitas,” with which they do not determine the structural differences between a human being and an animal; rather they note the differences in complexity that develop within one same structure. It is difficult to understand how these naturalists or neo-naturalists can consider themselves to be “humanists.”
PLANETARIZATION
Radically distinguished from the concept of globalization. The latter corresponds to the trend toward imposing a worldwide homogeneity, driven by imperialism, the financial interests, and international banking interests. Globalization is advancing at the expense of diversity and the autonomy of nation states, and at the expense of the identity of cultures and subcultures. Those who preach globalization seek to establish a worldwide system (*New Order) based on an ostensibly “free” market economy. N.H., in contrast, gives its backing to p., the process in which the different cultures move toward convergence, without, however, losing their own ways of life or identities. The process of p. can pass through stages that include national federations and federative regionalization, ultimately approaching a model that is a multi-ethnic, multicultural and multi-faith confederation – a universal human nation.
POLITICAL CULTURE
The integral part of civic culture (community spirit) that regulates the political relationships between citizens, political groups, and national and supranational institutions, including international institutions.
In differentiated societies, while each social layer possesses certain particularities of its own p.c. of its own, at the same time there are norms and institutions common to all that guarantee a relative sociopolitical stability and impede social disintegration. The State’s p.c. is set in the juridical norms and institutions that correspond to the political sphere, including the constitution, electoral laws and other documents. The p.c. also includes traditions and customs that are transmitted through the group and even from the level of the family.
POLITICAL PARTY 
(from L. partita, partitus: party). Union among people who follow the same interest or share the same opinion. It is a form of political organization that struggles to attain decisive positions in the exercise of state power. The conditions under which political parties carry out their activities depend on the existing political regime in a given country. 
The party system is determined by the State’s electoral system. The modern party system was formed in Western European states and the Americas in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and today encompasses practically all states in the world.
In totalitarian states the single-party system is used as the principal instrument of social mobilization and repression. In some authoritarian states political parties are prohibited, while in others they have an ephemeral and precarious existence.
The democratization of political and social life is accompanied by a broadening of the functions of political parties, the democratization of their internal organization and operation. However, the existence of a multi-party system alone cannot be considered as the decisive criterion of the degree of democratization of the political regime, although it is one of the necessary features. 
In democratic states, as a general rule political parties register no more than five percent of all citizens. The majority of voters are not militants of any party, and their political sympathies shift from one election to the next.
The current crisis of democracy also affects the political parties and is accompanied by citizen apathy and abstention from voting in elections.
In the information society, the functions of political parties are progressively reduced, yielding their place to clubs and other forms of organization, characterized by the absence of a permanent affiliation and rigid party discipline.
The specific features of a political party are: political activities, doctrine, organizational principles and statutes, a style and methods of operation. All of this is reflected in the party program, platform and statutes. Parties have specific symbols, including anthems. As a rule, they have their own organs of diffusion. 
POPULISM
(From L. populum, group of people that forms a community). Social movement or current in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that appeals to the masses. Its characteristic features are the belief in the possibility of fast, simple and easy solutions to social problems; social egalitarianism; anti-intellectualism; ethnocentrism (nationalism); xenophobia and demagoguery.
P. propagates the establishment of “direct democracy,” manipulated by the Party or leader, instead of representative democracy; it promotes the concentration of power in the hands of a charismatic leader and attacks the corruption and bureaucratization of official institutions. Thus, p. is a highly heterogeneous current that can serve diverse political forces and have different objectives.
POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY
An advanced society from a technological point of view, that has surpassed or is in process of surpassing the traditional stage of extensive and intensive development of industry, communications, and large cities. Such a society unfolds its technico-economic, social and political activities over a broad and efficient base of information systems, especially systems of electronic communication through computers, used in financial operations and development of production. Earlier forms of social life and the economy are not eliminated, but are substantially modernized with the incorporation of new scientific-technological knowledge.
The advance of information technology marks an important change in the role and power of the human intellect. Thus, since the 1950s a general change is produced in the development of civilization, in the human mentality and system of values; in technology and work; in social relations and management, in international cooperation, in the creative capacities of the human being himself. This tendency is universal in character, but advances at a different speed and intensity in different regions and countries, which increases the disproportions between them. Information technology does not in itself contradict the humanization of life, but contributes to this process when society and concrete personalities adopt this objective and consciously act in this direction. 
POWER
(from L. potere, to be able). To have the capability, time, or opportunity to carry something out. The faculty and jurisdiction to order or to do something; authorization to carry something out; the forces of a state; the supreme governing and coercive authority of a state.
In political life, the designation for the group of economic, social and political leaders who make up the ruling class of a state. In antiquity the term p. was used as a synonym for influence, authority, control, force, empire; in the early twentieth century, as the capacity of a person to impose their will on others. Today, p. is defined in terms of the relationships of dependence of certain social unities upon others.
The powers of the State, based on the theory of the separation of powers, are: constitutional p., which relates to the organization of the State, the writing and amending of its constitution through a representative constituent assembly or referendum; legislative p. which resides in the authority to make and amend the laws, and which belongs to an elected representative body or parliament; executive p., which is responsible for the governing of the State and the enforcing of the laws, and belongs to the government formed by the monarch or president and/or legislative body of a State; and finally judicial p., which carries out the administration of justice and corresponds to the justice system.
There is also a moderating p. such as that exercised by the head of State. 
P. and fear provide the basis for the irrational form of authority that is used to prohibit all criticism – an authority built on inequality. In Oriental despotisms and modern totalitarian regimes alike, the p. of the state has been absolute and deplorable. 
The most profound thinkers have always dreamed of ending all p. imposed on human beings, reserving for human beings only the p. over things. Today the exercise of p. is not reserved for the State alone, but the latter appears as a mere intermediary or executor of the intentions of the great concentrations of economic p. (the Para-state). On the other hand, the theory that explains the emergence, development, transfer and disarticulation of p. is not limited to a traditional sociopolitical vision, but considers the different “niches” of p. such as technology, communications, population distribution in urban and rural areas, population concentrations in the peripheral areas or in centers of decision-making, and the manipulation of “culture” in general (language, social customs, religion, science, art and recreation). 
PRE-RENAISSANCE HUMANISM
Some authors have used this term to describe the Western historical humanism that began to develop in the mid-eleventh century. Among the exponents of this humanism can be included the Goliard poets and the French cathedral schools of the twelfth century. Numerous specialists have observed that in this pre-Renaissance humanism there can already be seen a new image of the human being and of the human personality. This is constructed and expressed through action, and it is in this sense that the will is given greater importance than speculative intelligence. Additionally, a new attitude toward nature appears, and it is no longer regarded as a simple creation of God and a vale of tears for mortals, but as the domain of the human being and, in some cases, the seat and body of God. Lastly, this new attitude toward the physical universe reinforces the study of the many aspects of the material world, tending to explain it as comprised of immanent forces requiring no theological concepts for their understanding. This demonstrates early on a clear orientation toward experimentation and a tendency toward mastering natural laws. The world now becomes the kingdom of humankind, which is to dominate it through a knowledge of the sciences.
PROBLEM OF FOOD SUPPLY, OR HUNGER
One  of the most acute contemporary global problems, affecting more than one and a half billion human beings worldwide, especially in the developing countries (*) and, most critically, in the 26 least developed countries of Africa, in Haiti, Nicaragua, Albania, India, China and North Korea. Over fifty million people die of hunger each year.
At times the principal factor in the problem of hunger is observed in the imbalance between limited food resources and unregulated population growth, especially in developing countries. For example, during the 1970s and 1980s food production grew at an annual rate of 2.8%, while annual population growth was 1.8%. Thus, the principal factors of hunger are rooted in the vices of our civilization; they are determined by deficiencies of social organization at the national and international levels; they are the fruit of the unjust distribution of social wealth and the indigence of hundreds of millions of human beings ― pauperization, massive unemployment, illiteracy and low labor productivity in the underdeveloped countries ―the product of the colonialist legacy and of ill-conceived social experiments.
The p. of h. are an integral part of underdevelopment and cannot be solved without a restructuring of the productive system, the modernization of social life, the elimination of zones of poverty, and the reorganization of the international system of economic relations. Hunger can only be overcome through the worldwide distribution of social, scientific, environmental and spiritual progress― in short, through the humanization of our Earth.
PROPERTY
(from L. proprietas the right or faculty of enjoying and having something at one’s disposal to the exclusion of others’ will). Essential attribute or quality of a person or thing; the dominion, right, or faculty one holds over one’s possessions to use and dispose of them freely.
The forms of p. vary in different cultures and in different historical epochs. Some theorists of anarchism (*) call for doing away with all forms of p. Marxism-Leninism (*) sees in private p. the root of all exploitation of one human being by another, and calls for replacing it with collective p. With the goal of humanizing p., N.H. takes into account historical experience in establishing various forms of social regulation of p. at different levels, working from the base up. But the principal focus of the humanist proposal lies in the questioning of p. in general (*Company-society) and establishing a system of worker ownership (*).
PUBLIC OPINION
(from L. opinionem, accepted concept or belief regarding something). A position or emotional attitude concerning particular issues or questions, on which people generally agree. P.O. expresses public interest (or interests) and exerts influence on individual conduct, on the position of social groups, and on national and international policy. 
P.O. plays an important role in the formation of collective organization. In many cases this leads to manipulation of the collective consciousness by means of governmental control of the news media, bureaucratic procedures, the falsification of polling results, etc.
The general study of p.o. emphasizes the quantitative measurement of opinions; the investigation of the relationship between individual and collective opinions regarding a specific issue; the description of the political role of p.o.; and the study of the influence of the mass media and other factors on the formation of p.o. 
The formation of the information society creates technological conditions that can lead to an elimination of traditional manipulation and falsification of p.o., but for this to come about will require the conscious civic participation of all citizens of good will.
N.H. protests against the manipulation of p.o. and the monopoly of the news media, it struggles against these shameful policies and denounces them in concrete cases where they appear, working to ensure freedom of consciousness. 
Interpersonal contact, electronic magazines, neighborhood newspapers, yearbooks and other publications of humanist orientation are an important contribution to the formation of free and democratic p.o.
Q
QUALITY OF LIFE
The most abstract and complex criterion of real or anticipated social welfare (*) of citizens. It is calculated on the basis of indices of the standard of living, health, the state of the environment, working conditions, level of education, development of culture, as well as an appraisal of people’s general state of meaning and interest in life.
In each civilization and in each stage of history, q. of l. has come to be understood as a complex structure of social existence, which includes personal freedom and the level of general humanization. Q. of L. cannot be evaluated by quantitative measures alone, as a disproportion between a high standard of living and q. of l. is frequently observed.
R
RADICALISM
(from L. radix, root). Movement that seeks profound reform in the political, scientific, moral and religious order, and is opposed to the position of relativists. Historically, radical parties appeared in the political life of European and American countries of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, occupying the left flank within the democratic movement, and regarding liberals as the right flank. Radicals supported the republican principles of universal suffrage, secular education, advanced social legislation and other human rights. Radicals have taken part in numerous political revolutions, forming political alliances with socialists and actively participating in the struggle against fascism and totalitarianism in general, and working for the modernization of society.
In contemporary political studies, the term r. is used to stress a propensity to use political force in vigorous extra-legal actions, and a distinction is made between r. of the right (Fascism, fundamentalism) and r. of the left (anarchism, Communism).
RECIPROCITY
Takes place between two or more persons or groups when an action realized or given by one is equivalent to that received from the other. N.H. follows the principle of r. in its relationships with the other organizations, parties and groups with which it establishes common objectives for carrying out concrete activities.
REFORMISM
(from L. reformare, redo or remake). A current or approach that seeks to carry out social, political and religious reforms. This political current proposes the modernization of society, not through revolutions but through reform and gradual change. It considers a continuing process of social reforms as the least painful method of change. R. promotes social progress, while rejecting violence and civil war. 
N.H. agrees with this movement in placing value on reforms and the rejection of extremism, but points out the historical narrowness of r., which ascribes absolute value to legal forms and has its entire reason for being in democratic societies, yet at the same time lacks any effective approach to dealing with totalitarianism, despotism, colonialism, or imperialism. R. also tends to underestimate the value of initiatives and movements that come from the base and their non-violent forms of struggle such as civil disobedience and civil resistance.
REGIME
System of governing or ruling; constitution or practices of a government. Refers to a certain type of power and social administration as distinct from the stage of socioeconomic development and the social nature of the State. It is a historical form of power, of the mechanism of power understood as the process of administration or governing. There are democratic (presidential and parliamentary), authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.
A given form of State (monarchy, republic, etc.) can have different political regimes during different periods of its existence, ranging from parliamentarian to dictatorial. Thus, the concept of r. possesses a high degree of dynamism, and the social nature of the State may remain unchanged even while the political r. may vary.
RELIGION
(from religare, to bind, bind together). In broad terms it can be said that r. is based on the belief in spiritual beings. However, this does not apply fully to the original Buddhists, nor to the Confucianists, for whom r. is a code of conduct and a style of life. Religions express what exists in their respective landscapes of formation (*), in the descriptions of their gods, heavens, hells, etc. They burst onto the scene in a given historical moment, and it is usually said that at that moment God “reveals” himself to humanity. But something has taken place during that historical moment for such “revelation” to be accepted. Before this scenario, an entire debate begins concerning the reigning social conditions at that time. While this way of viewing the religious phenomenon has its importance, it does not explain the inner register that is had by the members of the society that is moving toward a new religious moment. If r. is based on a psychosocial phenomenon, then it is appropriate to study it from that perspective as well (*Religiosity).
One may speak of the “externality” of religions when one studies the system of images projected in icons, paintings, statues, buildings and relics (proper to visual perception), or in canticles and prayers (corresponding to auditory perception), or in gestures, postures and bodily orientation (proper to kinesthetic and cenesthesic perception) (*Perception).
From the point of view of the “externality” of a r. one may study its theology, its sacred books and sacraments, as well as its liturgy, its organization, its holy days and the prescriptions of age or physical condition for believers to carry out certain practices. 
Finally, likewise from the point of view of religious “externality,” it is interesting to note how frequently errors are committed in both description and prognosis. In this light, almost nothing that has been said about the religions still applies today. If some thought of r. as a sedative for political and social activism, today they are faced by the powerful momentum of r. in these areas; if others imagined religions as imposing their message, today they find that the message of r. has changed; those who thought that the r.s would continue forever, today find themselves doubting their “eternity”; and those who assumed that the r.s would soon disappear are now witnessing, to their amazement, the eruption of religious forms that are overtly or latently mystical. Nothing that used to be said about religions remains valid today, because both apologists and detractors of r. had positioned themselves externally, without taking note of the internal register, the system of ideation of human societies ―and, logically, without understanding the essence of the religious phenomenon, everything about it may seem marvelous or absurd, but almost always unexpected.
The universal religions are usually considered as universal those that have originated in a more-or-less delimited territory, or in a specific ethnic group, and subsequently spread to other geographical areas or ethnicities. However, what is characteristic of universal religions is their momentum toward the conversion of new members without territorial, linguistic or ―in general ― cultural limitations. Examples of these universal religions are, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. It should be noted, however that they all appear initially as heresies in a cultural milieu where a local religion predominates. Over time, moreover, different heretical movements likewise emerge within these universal religions, giving rise to diverse sects (Lamaism, Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism, etc.; Catholicism, Protestantism, the Orthodox Church, etc., within Christianity; Sunni, Shia, etc., within Islam). 
Apart from the great division between universal and local or national religions, the existence is recognized of a system of beliefs and practices that are more-or-less universally disseminated and considered as falling within animism or shamanism. The fact that these religions have not systematized literature does not invalidate the fact and the character of their category as r.s. 
For N.H., whether or not one subscribes to a specific r. ― just as whether or not one adheres to atheism ― may be reduced to a problem of individual conscience. In any case, N.H. cannot have as the starting point of the development of its theory or practice, the belief or non-belief in religious questions. The point of departure for the entire conception of N.H. is the comprehension of the structure of human life. This point leads to important differences with the humanisms that antedate N.H.
RELIGIOSITY
System of internal registers by means of which a believer orients their mental contents in a transcendent direction. R. is closely linked to faith, which can be oriented in naive, fanatical and destructive, or useful ways (from the point of view of which references are used) in relation to a contemporary world whose rapidly changing or painful stimuli are leading to an increasing destructuring (*) of human consciousness. 
R. does not necessarily involve belief in a divinity, as can be seen, for example, in the case of the original Buddhist mysticism. From this perspective, it is possible to understand the existence of a “r. without religion.” But in any case, r. involves an experience of “meaning” in events and in human life. Nor can such an experience be reduced to a philosophy, a psychology or, more generally, to any system of ideas.
RENAISSANCE
Rebirth, revival. The term R. refers to the spiritual and moral renewal observed in Europe in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, which came about through the restoration of the humanist cultural tradition of the ancient world, especially of the Hellenic and Roman cultures, and through affirming the decisive role of living national languages (Italian, French, English, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Czech, Polish, Hungarian, etc.). The invention of the printing press allowed the wide dissemination of this cultural legacy and the achievements of these young national literatures, while the spread of engraving made works of art accessible to the people.
This movement undertook the struggle against medieval Scholasticism, and contributed to the affirmation of experimental science, the development and spread of secular morality and education, monetary economies with trade and commerce, and humanist art and literature.
In that epoch, humanism appeared as a comprehensive conception of the world which affirmed the supreme value of the human being, of human life. The inspiration of humanist ethical criteria were clearly indicated in the increased concern for personal and social well-being and the defense of liberty and human rights.
During the R. there was an extraordinary outpouring of inspired works by scientists, artists, poets, philosophers and political thinkers. Celebrated Italian artist, scientist, engineer, architect and writer Leonardo da Vinci stands as a symbol of the R. On the basis of astronomical experiments and observations, Polish scientist Nicolaus Copernicus and Italian mathematician and physicist Galileo Galilei created the heliocentric model of the solar system, for which they suffered persecution by the Church. German astronomer Johannes Kepler formulated the fundamental laws of planetary motion.
English philosopher and political figure Francis Bacon was one of the creators of the experimental method in science, which contributed decisively to the break with Scholasticism. French philosopher and moralist Michel de Montaigne denounced the vanity of dogmatism. Celebrated Dutch jurist and diplomat Hugo Grotius published his treatise On the Law of War and Peace. Italian historian, writer and politician Niccolò Machiavelli laid the foundation for the idea of the nation state, and contributed to the study of the procedures of political life. 
In literature and art, the principal focus was on human beings and their inner world, and on the role of the personality (*Personalism) in social life. We should also mention Italian poet Petrarch, English dramatist William Shakespeare, Spanish writer Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, and French writer François Rabelais.
R. civic humanism became the pillar of all subsequent Western conceptions of humanism. By generalizing the traditions of classical Greek philosophy and ethics and joining them with advances in the natural sciences and practical experience in life, R. humanism formulated a series of fundamental ethical criteria, defined human liberty as a primary value, revealed the beauty and grandeur of the human person and, for the first time, established the priority of the personality and its interests, demonstrating the bond between personal and social needs.
REPRESSION
(from L. repressio, action and effect of repressing, detaining). System of sanctions and discrimination exercised against internal and at times external adversaries of an existing regime, which views them as disloyal or subversive elements. R. is also at times exercised against particular ethnic or religious groups, students, intellectuals, or other social groups.
R. is a discriminatory sanction that is distinct from judicial sanctions and administrative measures, which prosecute ordinary criminals in accordance with the penal code in order to protect the safety of citizens. However, national laws and particularly administrative measures in many cases violate human rights and display markedly repressive characteristics. The rampant corruption in judicial systems and administrative bodies, civil and armed forces, as well as social prejudices based on ethnocentrism, race, religion, etc., are transforming the struggle against crime into repressive campaigns that are directed against the poor, dissidents, minorities, etc.
There are a broad array of repressive measures ranging from the blow from a policeman’s club to legal proceedings and trials, incarceration, involuntary deportation and even the physical elimination of adversaries.
REVANCHISM 
(From OFr. revenche to take vengeance). Policies directed toward the recovery of lost territory, constitution, or power. Those who follow the politics of r. resort to any means, including the most radical and violent, to achieve their objectives.
In foreign policy, policies of r. engender wars that lead to national tragedy for the people, as happened in Germany following the First World War or Yugoslavia following the breakup of the Tito regime. In domestic politics, r. leads to counterrevolutions, coups d’états, even civil wars.
R. is characteristic of extremist forces that try to recover through violence positions they have lost. R. is dangerous because it can mobilize broad strata of the population under the banner of patriotism and the defense of national interest. It is capable of creating real threats to democracy, peace and international security.
REVOLUTION
(from L. Revolutio action or effect of turning over, revolve). A sudden, profound change that implies an important break with the previous model and the emergence of a new one. There are a number of different types of r.: social, political, cultural, scientific, technological. In social life we observe social, national and anti-colonial revolutions, among others.
Social revolutions differ from military and political coups in that they lead to profound transformations of the entire social, economic and political structure of a system, and to the rise of a new type of sociopolitical culture.
The term r. often implies swift, radical change, generally achieved through violence. This is not, however, the essence of r., and thus it is possible to conceive of non-violent r., such as that proposed by N.H. (*Worker ownership). 
Revolutions are frequently accompanied by civil wars, massive destruction of accumulated wealth, impoverishment and hunger for the majority of the population, which, in turn, tends to provoke reversals and the triumph of counterrevolution.
REVOLUTIONARY DEMOCRACY
Term introduced into international political language in the 1960s when, in several emerging states of Asia and Africa that rose from the ruins of the colonial system, the leaders of the most radical wings of national liberation movements came to power through armed struggle. Generally, they proclaimed a non-capitalist path of development for their countries, used the Cold War between the Eastern and Western blocs to negotiate with both for their own advantage. Some moved openly into the Soviet orbit, others preferred to join Maoism; still others formed part of the nonaligned movement. In general, these leaders rejected democratic principles and human rights, establishing cruel autocratic regimes (as demonstrated by the examples of Somalia, Ethiopia, Burma, South Yemen, etc.). Taking revolution as an absolute and violence as the method of government, they emptied the term “democracy” of meaning, filling it with the adjective “revolutionary”, and understanding by “revolution,” armed struggle.
With the end of the Cold War, the term r.d. lost its reason for being and is no longer used.
S
SCIENCE
(From L. scientiam). Cognitive and research activity that produces reasoned knowledge. Those who practice s. are designated scientists.
The field of s. consists of the elements of specific scientific knowledge, its conceptual apparatus, methods of research, and a rigorous system of information. It also includes scientific publications, instruments, as well as research and educational institutions. 
Traditionally, according to the subject of study we distinguish between the exact sciences (mathematics, logic, etc.), the natural sciences, which are concerned with the study of nature (animal, plants and minerals), and the humanities, which study arts and letters.
Some elements of scientific knowledge and scientific methods were developed in antiquity (particularly in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, pre-Columbian America, Greece, Rome and Byzantium) and others during the Middle Ages. In the modern age after the seventeenth century, however, with what is called the scientific revolution based on an experimental base and the inductive method, s. diverged from theology and became an autonomous branch of study and activity, breaking with the Scholastic method. In the twentieth century, along with increasing differentiation of scientific disciplines, a growing importance has also been accorded to the processes of integration, interdisciplinary and systems studies, and modeling.
Obviously, s. is historical and progresses in accordance with the social process in general. This fact, which is often overlooked, leads to many errors of understanding. It is well known that the s. of one epoch becomes corrected or contradicted by new knowledge, so that one cannot speak rigorously of a definitive s. as if it were something enshrined forever with its great principles and conclusions. In this sense, it is more prudent to speak of the “present state of the sciences.” The field of epistemology focuses on these and other problems, engaging in critical study of the development, methods and results of the sciences.
S. is meant to serve the human being, human development, and harmony between humanity and nature. Unfortunately, up to this point many scientific discoveries have been applied more for destructive than creative purposes. In general, there are greater concentrations of high technology (*) in the military-industrial complex than elsewhere; the social sciences, far from contributing to the humanization of life, moral improvement and human solidarity, are today used to manipulate the social consciousness and behavior of the masses, reinforcing the power of the oligarchies and bureaucratic institutions.
Meanwhile, all of culture, education, the socialization of the personality and social progress depend on the level of development of s. and, in the long run, on the degree to which s. is given a humanist or anti-humanist orientation.
SECURITY
(From secure and this from L. securum, free from danger and risk). Broadly, the whole system of guarantees that protects human rights, above all the right to life; maintainment of social stability; prevention of social disasters and violent disturbances; defense of national sovereignty; fulfillment of international obligations.
There are several kinds of s., including environmental, economic, social, civil, national, international, etc.
S. is one of the principal means for realizing political sovereignty, which serves the interests of each person and of society as a whole, and of the entire country in its relations with other countries and the international community. S. includes peace and the stable and progressive development of the personality and society.
Despotic, totalitarian and authoritarian regimes twist the meaning of s., giving it an opposite sense – to conserve the status quo by any means. This is expressed in the misleadingly termed “national doctrine,” which has attempted to justify crimes and violations of human rights by artificially setting them against supposed demands of national sovereignty. Those who preach the “doctrine of national s.” have employed this slogan to hide the interests of the dominant groups, while inciting prejudice, xenophobia and militarism. For this reason, N.H. has rejected and continues to reject the repressive concept of national s. at the service of dictatorships.
SELF-GOVERNANCE
(From governance: L. gubernare, to govern). Self-management, self-government.
In the democratic political system, this term is applied to territorial government bodies elected by the people at the community and municipal level, and also to the elected officials of cooperative partnerships and the elected bodies of social-democratic organizations.
S.-G. is an ideal of anarchist systems and of some currents of socialism, youth protest, feminist and environmental, etc., movements.
Contemporary humanists support the efforts of popular movements at the level of neighborhoods, educational institutions, clubs and associations, etc., to organize themselves democratically following the principle of s.-g., which is understood as a variant of direct and participatory democracy. Humanists strive to collaborate with other citizens in the exercise of their civil and constitutional rights, to broaden the scope of democracy and create organs of local, municipal power, based on the principle of s.-g. as the democratic expression of their will, of the culture of consensus and non-violence, of human solidarity.
SEPARATISM
(From separate: L. separare). Doctrine and political movement that promotes the separation of a territory from a larger territory in order to achieve the independence of its population or its annexation by another State.
S. expresses the will to national self-determination which intensifies when the rights of ethnic, religious, cultural, or other minorities are violated, or when economic conditions worsen in a region of the country, which is commonly accompanied by the violation of human rights and arbitrary treatment of all kinds. When the eagerness for self-government is crushed by force, this generally engenders a reaction on the part of the oppressed, leading to a vicious circle of reciprocal violence as is happening in Chechnya, Kurdistan, the Basque country, Corsica, Northern Ireland, Tibet, the Yucatan, East Timor and in other parts of the world today.
Bureaucratism and arbitrary administrative acts on the part of the central power constitute an important factor in the generation of separatist conflicts.
A phenomenon of a different nature occurs when one area, region, or province of a country attempts to separate itself from the whole because of its more advanced development. Absent the imposition of any inequity or bureaucratic mistreatment, s. in such a case reflects the ambition of certain strata of the population to constitute their own power in isolation from the whole. Nor should we overlook the actions of oligarchic interest groups, which for their own benefit seek either to liberate themselves from the whole or to be annexed to another country.
Separation is a delicate problem that demands broad public debate, with the final decision always in the hands of the people. This is achieved through open plebiscite, not by simple resolution of some occasional leadership of the separatist area. Moreover, even in the case of a plebiscite, it is important that a body of accords be agreed upon with minority that is obliged to accept the separation.
N.H. condemns ethnocide, genocide and repression; advocates the recognition of cultural autonomy for minorities; and is convinced that the vicious circle of violence can be broken by measures that include raising the standard of living, eliminating areas of poverty, modernization of developing regions and countries, respect for human rights, de-bureaucratization and democratization. 
In any event, the phenomenon of s. will increase in the continuing process of destructuring of national states that is today taking place in the world, and it can take a new direction only if the development of an authentic federative system that provides autonomy and sovereignty for the affected regions can be set in motion. Although the concept of an authentic federalism that could replace the disappearing national states may still seem somewhat shocking to the sensibilities of broad sectors of the populations, the new generations today have an awareness of the conflicts created by excessive centralization of the national state.
SILOISM 
System of ideas formulated by Silo, literary pseudonym of M. Rodríguez Cobos. S. is a philosophical humanism (*), but is also an attitude and approach encompassing the values of New Humanism (*).
SLAVERY
(From Gr. sklabos, prisioner). Age-old institution entailing absolute dependence of one human being (the slave) on another or others (the slaveholder). The slave is regarded as a thing, a living instrument that can be bought, sold, inherited, etc.
Initially, prisoners of war, women and children of conquered tribes were made into slaves by their conquerors. Later, with the development of mercantilist relations, creditors began to convert debtors and their impoverished neighbors and relatives into slaves.
In this way, great slave markets developed, with slaves working not only in domestic chores but also in agriculture, mining, crafts, as galley slaves on ships, gladiators in public spectacles, etc. The children of slaves were also considered slaves. S. and the slave trade eventually developed into a highly lucrative branch of the economy. Some slaves belonged to the State, as for example the Helots in Sparta.
Slaves frequently rose up against their oppressors, as in the famous slave wars of Ancient Rome in the years 135, 105-102 BCE, and the uprising of 73-71 BCE, this last led by the renowned Spartacus. In Haiti, Toussaint Louverture led a slave insurrection against the French slaveholders from 1796 to 1802, which culminated in island’s independence.
The productivity of slaves was always quite low in comparison with the work of free persons, but was compensated by the very low cost of slaves obtained in innumerable wars and pirate operations. The slave trade was one of the most important sources of the wealth used to finance the empires of Rome, England, Holland, Portugal, Spain and others.
S. was abolished in Europe as a result of the French Revolution of 1789; later in Latin America during the wars of independence; in British India in 1833; in the French colonies in 1848; in the United States in 1865; in Paraguay in 1870; and in Brazil in 1888.
However, s. resurged in the empires of Hitler, Stalin and Mao in the form of concentration camps and the use of mass forced labor.
S. still survives today in various countries in Africa, Asia, in some states of the Caribbean, Central America, and republics formed following the collapse of the USSR, sometimes reappearing in disguised forms.
S. contradicts the legal and moral conscience of today’s humankind, as reflected in the UN Charter .
Humanism has always condemned and continues to condemn s. as a shameful institution, opposed to the freedom and dignity of the human being.
SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS
(From L. conscientia;, from com-, with, and scire, to know). The psychosocial sphere of life and the historical process, which includes moral, religious, juridical, economic, political and aesthetic ideas, as well as art, the sciences, social intentions, customs, traditions, etc. S.C. goes hand in hand with the processes of interpersonal communication that arise in the development of reciprocal interactions and influences among human beings.
In this vast structure two things stand out: the generational level (*generations) and the action of both large and small social groups. S.C. has a complex relationship with culture, taking on tribal, regional, national and international characteristics. Its expression is manifested through vertical as well as horizontal structures.
The forms of s.c. include morality, religion, art, science, philosophy, as well as juridical and political consciousness. One form of expression of s.c. is social or public opinion.
The humanist attitude (*) is a historical form of s.c. that develops at various periods in different cultures, and manifests clearly in the corresponding humanist moment (*) of each culture. 
SOCIAL CONTRACT
According to the classic texts of the European Enlightenment, the S.C., that is, the pact among citizens, is the only legitimate source of law, power and the State. The democratic system starts from the conception of the S.C., according to which citizens’ rights imply symmetrical civil responsibilities. This concept considers the political system to be a certain balance of powers. 
An idea concerning the emergence of the State on the basis of a conscious contract among human beings, as opposed to the period of anarchy and barbarism, of the “war of all against all.” According to this conception, human beings consciously and willingly accepted restraints on their freedom in favor of the State as guarantor of personal security and public order. This idea was developed more thoroughly by the philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), who concluded that the S.C. would be able to protect the rights of all. 
The S.C. is also conceived as a form of understanding between different social classes, and cooperation between the citizens and the State, with the objective of avoiding strikes, civil wars and other forms of violent conflict.
SOCIAL DARWINISM
Sociological school of the late nineteenth century that extended English naturalist Charles Darwin’s ideas on the evolution of species through natural selection, to the social evolution of humankind, thus confusing biology with sociology. Positing as an absolute the thesis of the survival of the fittest and extending it to the social life of humankind leads to the negation of another tendency in the evolution of nature: solidarity within the species and mutual aid. S.D. is linked to the racial school of anthropology, and stimulates aggressive behavior among people, transforming them from brothers and sisters into enemies and rivals of their own kind. 
S.D. is an example of anti-humanism (*), since it artificially divides humankind, inciting one group against another, justifying fratricidal wars and various forms of oppression.
SOCIAL DEMOCRACY
International ideological and political movement made up of political parties, youth groups, women’s groups, unions and cooperatives. S.D. arose in Germany in the mid-nineteenth century as a political movement of wage-earning workers against capital, and was influenced by the ideas of Marx, Lassalle, Proudhon, Bernstein, Kautsky and others. In the 1870s the anarchists split off from this movement, as did the communists during the First World War, both groups forming their own internationals. At the end of the nineteenth century and during the first half of the twentieth, this group of workers parties was known as the Second International.
Following the Second World War in the 1950s, the social democratic and socialist parties came together to form the Socialist International, which is still active today, headquartered in London.
Social democratic parties assimilated the principles of ethical socialism. They do not acknowledge the class struggle as the motor of the historical process, though they defend the interests and rights of salaried workers; they are partisans of vigorous social politics; they favor the regulation of relations between capital and labor not only by means of corresponding agreements between unions and management but also by the State. They also support anti-monopolistic legislation, minority rights, economic and social programs for those most in need, some degree of redistribution of social wealth at the expense of the most wealthy, etc. S.D. favors peace, international cooperation and independence for colonial states. Finally, it supports the idea of human socialism as a model for the society of the future.
SOCIAL GROUP
A community bound together by more or less strong bonds of profession, interests, work, religion, etc. 
Within the s.g. a system of roles and rules forms spontaneously, leaders emerge, and group discipline and ideology take shape.
In the criminal community the group is united by joint participation in criminal acts and functions as an armed band, a group linked by mutual commitments and needs but also by common psychological factors such as fear, hatred, the desire for revenge, etc.
In the religious world, groups in the form of ecclesiastical congregations and monastic orders can be distinguished.
Throughout the world today there is manifest action by youth groups, women’s groups, neighborhood associations, etc. This demonstrates that the s.g. can be considered as a more stable and simpler form of self-organization, of manifesting the sentiment of solidarity, and of mutual support.
The group is the primary and basic level of socialization of the personality in today’s atomized and dehumanized society. Sociologists distinguish different types of social groups: 1) large (tribe, class, nation); 2) small (family, neighborhood, community, groups of friends and other primary groups); 3) nominal (classroom, theater audience); 4) institutionalized (workers’ brigade, religious order, parliamentary faction, bankers association, army unit); and 5) referential (referred to the determination of the individual’s character and place in society and their system of values, using, for example, a survey of a particular group of workers. A poll reveals the characteristics of a profession or of a factory, without the need to consult all the workers of the trade or factory.
All totalitarian and corporative systems turn the force of group psychology and discipline into absolutes, crushing individual intellect and intention. Thus, Italian and German fascism began their activities with the creation of small paramilitary groups of youths.
The s.g. can play a positive as well as negative role. It can mobilize people, lift their spirits, humanize their consciousness, and give them energy (for example, democratic grassroots organizations, youth and feminist movements, humanist associations and clubs, etc.). In other cases, the group stifles the personality (crime syndicates, fascist, racist and fundamentalist movements). The problem consists of channeling these groups energy in a direction that favors the interests of the human being as a free and reasoning person, appealing to the highest human sentiments, instead of exploiting irrational and destructive behaviors.
SOCIAL MOBILITY
Change of social status of a person or group within the social structure.
“Horizontal” mobility is manifested in the transiting of persons from one sphere to another while maintaining the same social level (for example, a worker’s transfer from one factory to another; the move from one city to another). “Vertical” mobility is linked to a promotion or demotion in social status, with leaving one social category and entering another, due to an increase in qualifications, acquisition of a new profession, or retraining, political changes, economic crisis, etc. 
The process of s.m. develops continually and injects dynamism into the entirety of social development; it is a consequence of such development. In personal terms, this can mean success, promotion, or frustration and failure; in social terms it can be expressed in impoverishment or elevation of social status. 
Migration and immigration, that is, the geographical displacement of the population from one territory to another, can be accompanied by s.m. in the vertical sense as well, but these processes, though they may overlap, are not identical. 
SOCIAL REFORMISM
A political tendency within the labor movement and social-democratic parties. This current denies the inevitability of class struggle and the socialist revolution; reformists support the idea of social cooperation between labor and capital, support positions against revolution, in favor of social reforms on behalf of workers, in favor of the creation of the “welfare society” and “people’s capitalism.” This movement gained a foothold in the workers movement of democratic countries in Europe and the Americas, but did not prosper in countries ruled by totalitarian and authoritarian regimes..
S.R. arose in the European workers movement in the second half of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth. It gained strength from ethical socialism and revisions in Marxist doctrine. It opposed the notion of the indispensable role of political revolution and violence in history, and considered social reforms a crucial instrument of the working class in the transformation of society. Among principal contributors to its ideology have been Lassalle, Bernstein, Kautsky, Jaures and Iglesias. The First World War did damage to a number of this movement’s postulates and strengthened the position of social revolutionism, out of which the international communist movement was born.
S.R. was one of the historical sources of postwar social-democracy and the Socialist International following the Second World War.
N.H. values the antiwar spirit and the repudiation of violence of s.r., its support for labor legislation, and its practice of unionism and cooperativism, but at the same time takes issue with the narrow classism and economic reductionism of its theorists.
SOCIAL ROLE
(social: L. socialis, from socius, companion. Role: Fr. role; L. rotulus, cylinder). Character or agency through which one participates in the affairs of society.
A person’s s.r. has both psychological and sociological aspects. Each individual performs a certain part, depending on their position in the social structure, according to their social status. A person’s conduct is related, not only to their personal characteristics, but also to their social status, situational demands and circumstances. Within a given social group, each person plays a particular role (or roles). These roles change along with modifications in people’s status and circumstances. Each role has its functions, obligations and advantages, and requires correlation with others; that is, it is subject to specific norms, expectations, and has its moral value. These norms regulate interpersonal relations and contribute to the socialization of personal behavior and to the resolution of conflicts within the social group and within society. Thus, social roles can be viewed as one segment of the culture. With social progress, there is a diversifying of social roles, and each citizen plays more numerous and complex, not only throughout life but in each one of its periods. This allows the individual to develop their personality multifacetically, to overcome the uniformness of certain roles, step outside them.
From the point of view of humanist psychology (*), the set of social roles constitutes the system of behavioral structures, that make up the different layers of the individual’s personality.
SOCIAL SECURITY
Body of legislative measures and corresponding institutions that cover or protect against the risks faced by citizens, principally with regard to work and health.
These measures were instituted in Western Europe at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth; in Latin America, after the First World War; in the US in the 1930s.
SOCIAL STRATIFICATION
1) Configuration and relationship between the generations that constitute a society. One of the instruments of study used in this analysis is the population pyramid. 2) Formation of and relation between the cultural collectivities that make up a society. 3) Formation of a society based on defining strata by the application of criteria of occupation, income and relations of dependency. This type of analysis of the s.s. admits numerous variations. Historically, in periods dominated by the basic extractive activities (agriculture, mining and fishing), the corresponding s.s. revealed a broad base of workers dedicated to those tasks. Following the industrial revolution there was a gradual change in the formation of the social base and the strata emerging from that process. The development of secondary and tertiary industries, and the growth of the service sectors correlatively modified the s.s. and people’s way of life. The factors of rural exodus, urban growth, and disproportionate growth in regional and world population are driving the trend toward the rapid formation of new forms of s.s. There is continuing displacement of large sectors of workers as a result of changing manufacturing technology and mass migrations from less favorable areas to others where, in turn, recession and unemployment are increasing. The present changes in s.s. are leading to the separation or isolation of strata that were previously related through solidarity (*), at the same time that the psychosocial phenomenon of discrimination (*) is on the increase.
SOCIAL WELFARE
Well-being of society. Object and measure of the progress of society. Also refers to self-organization, equality and prosperity of the citizens, to the scope of their rights and liberties.
S.W. is both an index of the material and spiritual level of development of society and a permanent objective and striving toward a better state. The principle indexes of s.w. are: level of per capita income; real standard of living (food, housing, clothing); degree of development of democratic rights of the individual; freedom of conscience; and social guarantees that basic needs will be met in the areas of employment, health care, education and retirement or social security.
For N.H. s.w. is dynamic and one of the primary categories corresponding to the effort to integrate the good of the individual and the good of the whole.
SOCIALISM
Social system in which there are no economic divisions, but an approximation to a classless society with the means of production under the control of society. There are socialist schools of the most diverse kinds. Around 1848 with L. Blanc, s. emerged as a political power in Europe, but the influence of Marx (*Marxism-Leninism) set s. on a different path of class struggle and revolution. In Europe, different social democratic parties have emerged, such as the British Labor party, that believe it is possible to achieve s. without revolution.
SOCIETY
(From L. societas). Natural or consensual grouping of persons that constitutes a unity distinct from each of its individuals. A form or system of joint coexistence of human beings, and a certain stage of their self-organization. S. is not merely about the sum of its individuals; it is about their self-organization.
In different periods of world history and in different regions, a number of specific models of s. have existed: various models of social structure, of family relations, of the community, of political institutions, of culture, ideology, etc. A s. may be made up of hundreds and thousands of communities, organized according to some criterion: religious, gender, occupational, familial, residential, or on the basis of common interests.
Society has a dynamic life, as does each person, who is the bearer and creator of the social whole.
SOLIDARITY
(From L. solidus, solid). A comprehension or awareness of the community of feelings, interests and ideals, or common objectives among people and their corresponding actions. In a society that is divided into antagonistic groups, this feeling has group or corporative characteristics, uniting people of common ethnicity, race, profession, class or strata, nation, party, etc. At the same time, and as a defect, it can set group against group, dividing society and provoking antagonisms and resentments. 
In certain social, political, religious and other movements it is present as a motivating force and moral principle of joint action for the achievement of common objectives, and it takes concrete form in the creation of solidary organizations and institutions [or: that practice solidarity]. At the present time, s, is becoming ever more clearly a moral imperative to provide aid and collective support to victims of natural and social disasters, and to victims of any type of injustice and violence. That is how s. is interpreted in contemporary humanist consciousness, which does not separate one human being or group from another but strives to unite all human beings, motivating them to act in solidarity. 
SPACE
(From L. spatium). Container of all coexisting perceptible objects; the part of this container occupied by each object; extent of a site, terrain, or place.
One of the most general concepts characterizing the universe. Its conception varies in different cultures and grows richer with scientific-technical progress. Different philosophical schools accord it dissimilar and even contradictory interpretations.
In the socio-cultural and political arena, the positing of s. as an absolute has contributed to its being overvalued in military strategy and modern political geography, especially following the creation of the pseudoscience known as “Geopolitics.” Its use by the ideologues of fascism, racism and ethnocentrism has contributed to the justification of acts of aggression (*) and colonization of weak countries, to the practice of genocide, and to the uprooting, removal and mass relocation of conquered populations. The conversion of s. into an absolute is at the root of the aggressive doctrine of national security and the expansionism of modern empires, whose justification is adorned with the false conception of needed “vital space.” In reality, as the example of postwar Japan attests, scientific-technical progress along with measures for demographic control make the development of a country possible without the expansion of its territory. These possibilities increase with the growth of regional and international integration.
STATE
(From L. statum). Basic instrument of political power. Its principle characteristics are: 1) a monopoly on violence, which is delegated to various armed organizations; 2) the levying of taxes; 3) bureaucracy, i.e., all the functionaries of the organs of the s.; 4) territoriality, that is, a geographical area in which the s. exercises its power; 5) the capacity to act in the name of all citizens it considers to be subjects. Frequently, the s. has been confused with the people or the civil society. In general, all forms of statism tend to avoid acknowledging this distinction.
The s. can be regarded as the fundamental institution of the political system and political organization which constitutes the structure of society. It is a complex social formation whose fundamental structural elements are: legislative institutions, executive bodies, judicial system, control factors and armed forces. Every modern s. has a constitution and symbols of identity. It is the apparatus of social operation and management and, moreover, an association that occupies a certain territory and includes all members of a given society. The characteristic feature of the s. is its sovereignty, that is, a monopoly to represent the entire society. Today, the nation s. is tending to disappear through the process of regional and international integration, relinquishing its functions to supranational organisms.
With the development of society and improvement of its structure, the sphere of the s. has gradually given way to civil society, which is taking on a number of its functions.
The types of states and their relations with civil society and with other states depend on the type of civilization to which they belong. States are differentiated by their forms of government (monarchy, republic, tyranny, etc.), the structure of the institutions of political power (unitary, federal, confederated) and the political regime (presidential, parliamentary, authoritarian, totalitarian, etc.). 
The s. has external and internal functions. Civil society is today assuming some of the internal functions of the s., and even beginning to carry out external functions, which are shared with the s.
The s., like any institution, is not a natural structure but a historical one that changes with the times and the society’s stage of development. In the present era, the national s. is steadily losing sovereignty to a supranational para-state that is subject to international financial power.
Humanists condemn violence on the part of the s. and adopt a historically precise position with respect to the policies of each specific s. The political attitude of humanists with respect to the s. depends on the essential social character of its policies and the methods used to carry them out.
STATEMENT OF NEW HUMANISM
Also called Statement of the Humanist Movement or Humanist Statement (*Humanist Statement).
STRUCTURALISM
Philosophical current that arose in the decade of the 1960s, especially in France. It is a “way of thinking” that unites very different authors, who express themselves in the most diverse fields of the human sciences including anthropology (C. Lévi-Strauss), literary criticism (R. Barthes), Freudian psychoanalysis (J. Lacan), historiographic investigation (M. Foucault), as well as specific philosophic movements such as Marxism (L. Althusser).
These scholars reject the ideas of subjectivism, historicism and humanism, which are the core of the interpretations of phenomenology and existentialism. Using a method in sharp contrast with that of the phenomenologists, “structuralists” tend to study the human being from outside, as though it were any other natural phenomenon, “the way one would study ants” (as Lévi-Strauss has said), and not from within, as the contents of consciousness would be studied. With this focus, which imitates the procedures of the physical sciences, they attempt to elaborate research strategies capable of elucidating the systematic and constant relations they believe exist in human behavior, both individual and collective, and to which they give the name “structures.” These are not obvious relations, but deep relations that, in large part, are not consciously perceived, and both limit and constrain human action. The research of structuralists tends to highlight the “unconscious” and conditioning factors rather than consciousness or human freedom.
The concept of structure (*) and the method inherent to it do not come to s. directly from the logico-mathematical sciences or from psychology (the Gestalt school), which had already been using this concept for some time. Rather, s. borrows its analytical instruments from linguistics. In fact, one point of reference common to the various distinct developments of s. has always been the work of F. de Saussure in his Course of General Linguistics (1915) which, in addition to constituting a decisive contribution for the foundation of modern linguistics, introduced the use of the “structural method” into the field of linguistic phenomena.
The vision of s. would have made more progress had it gone more deeply into the study of the fields of “presence” and “copresence,” in which Husserl locates the characteristic of the consciousness that allows it to infer more than it perceives or understands. Ratio-vitalism probes deeply into this copresence in order to comprehend the structure of ideation, which it calls belief (*), and on which ideas and reason are based. We note that the system of beliefs is in no way related to a supposed “unconscious.” It has its own laws, its own dynamic, and it develops historically, transformed by the generations (*) as their landscape (*) changes. Beliefs appear, then, as the “soil” in which these other structures of ideation called “ideas” are rooted and nourished. 
STRUCTURE
This term can be defined in both a broad and a narrow sense. A series of random numbers is still a “series” or, more broadly defined, a s. Only something definitively amorphous would not be a s., which is equivalent to saying: “that which has no s. is not a s.” However, such a formulation is vacuous. In the sense explained by Husserl, the elements of a whole are not comprised as parts of the whole but as members, and therefore the totality or group is a whole and not simply a “sum.” The members of a given body are correlated, and so they are not independent with respect to the others, and are in fact reciprocally interrelated. This marks an important distinction from the atomistic conception and its method of analysis applied to the study of a s. When Husserl establishes that in the s. of perception or representation, “color” is not independent of “extension,” he is indicating that an atomistic separation of the two terms ruptures precisely the real essence of the perception or representation. Thus, consciousness in general must be viewed as a s. that changes in its position-in-the-world, and in which each of its members is related with the others in an inseparable way in that change of position. This description is valid for an understanding of structures as diverse as historicity and human society.
As for the relationship between a s. and its environment (which in turn should be considered as a s.; for example, the biotic environment), it is usually designated as a “system” (for example, an ecological system). In general, in a system the structures interrelate as members of the same system. When we speak of the-human-being-in-the-world, we refer to a system of non-independent structures, and, in this case, the human being (*) cannot be considered, in and of itself, but rather as an “opening up” toward the world; in turn, the “world” can only be meaningfully apprehended in relation to the human being.
STYLE OF LIFE
(From L. stilum, from Gr. stylos, stick). Historical ensemble of communicational features of and system of images and methods of artistic creation of a personality or group of people, that represents tastes, habits and modes of behavior, reflecting particularities of their internal world through the external forms of human existence. The s.o.l. depends, in large part, on the cultural values, psychosocial characteristics and historical traditions of the family, social and ethnic group, and the religion in which a person has been educated. It is connected to the way of life manifested by norms and behavioral stereotypes and consciousness of large human groups, and even of entire generations and civilizations. The s.o.l. also includes the corresponding ethical and aesthetic aspects. The most human forms of self-realization and self-education are embodied in the s.o.l., revealing a person’s degree of liberty and integrity.
The humanist s.o.l. is marked by the respect for diversity, for the rights, opinions and interests of others; by the repudiation of violence and exploitation; by the intention of maintaining harmonious relations with nature and society, and by the desire to deepen one’s knowledge and to broaden and perfect one’s skills.
SUFFERING
In N.H., the problems of pain and s. are of the greatest importance. A distinction is made between pain (as a psycho-physical response to bodily injury, whether it comes from the outside or from inside the body) and s., which corresponds to a mental posture towards problems, whether real or alleged. Having established this distinction, it is said that the motor of human action is the overcoming of physical pain and the resulting search for physical pleasure. The activity of the civilizing process is channeled in this direction. Thus, there is a correspondence between the development of science and of social organization and the solutions that are given to this problem. Social organization itself starts out from the temporal and spatial finiteness of the human being as an individual; and this finiteness, marked by pain and defenselessness, is countered with social endeavor. Hunger, lack of shelter and protection from the elements, disease and all kinds of bodily difficulties are combated, thanks to the advance of society and ― little by little ― the progress of science. 
S., however, is mental, and does not correspond to the non-satisfaction of immediate needs, nor does it arise as a bodily response to painful physical stimuli. The fear of sickness, loneliness, poverty, and death cannot be resolved in physical terms, but through an existential position in front of life in general. At any rate, one suffers through different pathways such as perception, memory and imagination. Not, however, because of the perception of painful physical stimuli, but because of the perception of stimuli from situations one is unable to attain, or that give rise to despair generated by one’s failure to attain them, etc. The pathways of memory and imagination present their own characteristics as well. Certainly, consciousness is structural and comprehensive, so that this distinction between paths is only useful for purposes of analysis, and when one suffers it happens globally, it is about the suffering consciousness, even if it may be possible in each case to distinguish certain more pronounced aspects. 
The surpassing of pain and suffering is foremost in the activities of humanists, and it is from this conception that their vision starts of the need for shared social endeavor, in favor of science, social justice, and against all violence and discrimination. On the other hand, humanism likewise has much to contribute with respect to the problem of the meaning of life, one’s emplacement in front of life and the development of the human being, in order to overcome mental s. 
T
TECHNOLOGY
(Gr. techne, art, craft, skill also Gr. teckne: a set of rules, system or method of making or doing). Science (*) should not be confused with the body of practical applications that derive from it and are designated by the term t. Science and t., however, mutually affect each other in a process of vigorous feedback. Today, the term t. is used to refer to all the methods that tend to improve systems for obtaining or developing products. Depending on the velocity and quality of the change experienced, people refer to technological evolution or revolution. In turn, t. is understood as the study of the means, techniques and processes employed in the various branches of production in general and of industry in particular. 
For N.H., the development of t. depends not only on the prior accumulation of knowledge and social practice, but also on the direction of the process in any given society that, considering the current moment, finds itself in relation with a world society (*planetarization). Independently of material conditions, the ideas involved in forecasting and making plans for the future have a decisive influence on technological developments in the present. Thus, for one same material surroundings, different lines of technological development can be chosen, yielding different results. Today we are reaching limits of material advances that have failed to take into account whether certain resources are renewable, and it is difficult to sustain the direction of these advances without irreparable harm to the environment, which forms a limiting factor for all technological progress. As a result, we see alternative technologies being applied more vigorously every day. 
THE MOST IMPORTANT THEME
An expression in N.H. alluding to one’s personal emplacement and approach to life. This theme consists in knowing whether and in what conditions one wants to live (*personal emplacement).
THEOCENTRIC HUMANISM
A position characterized by its similarity with certain proposals of other humanisms, but always starting from the idea of the divinity. Christian Humanism (*) is one case of t.h. Manifestations of t.h. can be observed in the most diverse cultures.
THESIS
Doctrinal proposals of the Humanist Party, approved in the first Humanist International (*). Thesis Four, which is especially descriptive of the political vision of the party, reads as follows: “Social contradiction is a product of violence. The appropriation of the social whole by only one segment is violence, and that violence is the basis of contradiction and suffering. Violence is manifested as stripping the other of intentionality (and, certainly, of liberty); as an act of submerging the human being, or human groups, in the natural world. That is why dominant ideologies have termed subjugated indigenous peoples “natural;” termed exploited workers the “work force;” relegated women to the category of simple “procreators;” regarded enslaved races as zoologically “inferior;” viewed young people dispossessed of the means of production as nothing but projects, caricatures, the “immature stage” of complete human beings; postponed peoples as “underdeveloped.” The latter forms part of a crudely naturalist scheme in which it is assumed that “development” must involve the single model carried by the exploiters, to whom full evolutionary development is attributed, not only in objective terms but in subjective terms as well, since for them, their subjectivity is a simple reflection of objective conditions.”
TIME
(From L. tempus). One of the most general concepts that characterize the universe. In different cultures t. is conceived of and measured in different ways. In ancient times the notion of t. emerged as cyclical t., measuring the rhythm of the processes of nature and the human being as part of nature. To measure these cyclic processes, calendars based on movements of the sun, moon and planets were used.
The spread of Christianity contributed to the introduction of the unilinear notion of t. to measure the sacred periods of history as the process of salvation of humankind, from the act of the creation of the universe to the final judgment. This principle was extended to civil history as well, while nature was considered an atemporal phenomenon. With the rise of science and the use of the mechanical clock, the telescope and the microscope, the notion of linear t., irreversible and ascending, allowed the formulation of evolutionary theory to explain the phenomena of nature, which was subsequently applied to the phenomena of society and culture as well. 
To measure political processes, the concept of political t. was introduced, and the theory of synchronic and diachronic chrono-politics was developed. The first is used in political science and the second in world history and futurology.
TOLERANCE
(From tolerate: L. tolerare). Moral quality that expresses an attentive and respectful attitude on the part of a person, group, institution, or society with respect to the interests, beliefs, opinions, habits and conduct of others. T. manifests in a willingness to achieve mutual understanding and reconciliation of divergent interests and opinions through persuasion and negotiation. As construed by some religions, t. includes the principle of not resisting evil by means of violence. This approach was developed into a political and moral doctrine by Tolstoy and Gandhi. T. should not be confused with charity (*) or compassion.
T. assures the spiritual freedom of each person in modern society. Since the eighteenth century it has been applied above all in the sphere of religion, with the recognition of the freedom and right of people to profess faiths that are different from the one that is official or dominant. Today, t. has become a condition necessary to the very survival of humankind because it allows effective dialogue between different cultures and currents on the basis of mutual respect and equal rights.
T. is the foundation of modern democracy because it assures religious, ideological and political pluralism, provides guarantees for minorities vis-à-vis majorities, and assures the sovereignty of the personality.
N.H. considers t. an indispensable condition for the humanist style of life and of national and international cooperation as a basis for the effective implementation of universal human rights. 
TOLSTOYISM
Ideological current of the disciples of Russian writer and thinker Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910), that propounded the ideas of non-violence, love for the human being, the overcoming of alienation and moral self-perfection of the personality through union with God, without the fierce intermediation of the official Church. According to Tolstoy, the State, private property, and the formal Church are all obstacles to the realization of this ideal.
Followers of Tolstoy, who formed their sect in several countries, idealized rural life, work on the land and the agricultural community. They have pronounced themselves against social inequality and oppression, and in favor of the brotherhood of all human beings.
The activities of Gandhi in India, Schweitzer in Africa, Nkrumah in Ghana and Luther King in the US have embodied in original ways the ideas of Tolstoy on non-violence and love.
The humanist line of Tolstoy was distorted by some of his followers and gradually declined. Today, T. as an organized social movement hardly exists, although in some places small agricultural communities still continue. 
TOTALITARIANISM
(from L. totalis, the whole, all). 1) Ideology that seeks to subordinate the human being to the complete and total domination of the omnipotent State, through socio-psychological and ideological manipulation of the behavior of the masses, the repressive control of all public and private life for every citizen, and through daily terror. 2) A sociopolitical regime and system that is a variation on the motivational model that is marked by complete repressive bureaucratic control, violently imposed by an all-powerful and terrorist State on the whole society and each of its inhabitants. Today, this control and corresponding repression are carried out using the information technologies of post-industrial civilization.
Totalitarian regimes exploit organized industrial forced labor on an increasing scale. T. makes use of the image of the enemy to maintain psychological control of the masses; it inhibits human intentions, devaluing them and degrading and destroying the personality; it transforms the individual into a primitive instrument of the bureaucratic machinery and of the state. It is characterized by a total militarization of public life and an elimination of civil society.
There are various forms and manifestations of t., based on the ideas of fascism, nationalism, corporativism, communism, etc.
N.H. condemns all manifestations of t. as violent and oppressive regimes and ideologies, and calls for a struggle against such a crushing of human dignity. Humanism is diametrically opposed to t., and creates an atmosphere of resistance to that inhuman system, undermining its foundations and pointing out methods to combat it.
TYRANNY
(From L. tyrannum). Government exercised by a tyrant, whether an individual or a reduced group, who obtain absolute power through violence and against established law. Tyrants exercise power without justice and in accordance with their will.
The basis of t. is naked force, terror and cynicism, meant to provoke fear and blind obedience. It often arises during periods of transition from a traditional system to a new and different system, when the old political and social elites have been discredited and the new elites are in the process of formation. It is a regime that is cruel yet fragile, and provokes violent political disorder. 
T. has many features in common with despotism in that it employs a number of mechanisms inherited from the latter, but differs in its lack of legitimacy, its lack of a more or less stable social base, and in its breaking with tradition and traditional society.
U
UNEMPLOYMENT
(From L. implicare, to enfold, engage). Lack of work, involuntary idleness. A social phenomenon provoked by natural or social disasters and present in virtually all societies and cultures with very few exceptions. Affecting a part of the population that is able to work but cannot find socially necessary employment in order to receive its part of the social product, with which to sustain itself and those family members unable to work. This unjust situation comes about when human beings do not have access to the means of production and cannot acquire on their own the knowledge and skills that would allow them to achieve their capabilities. In societies based on agriculture and livestock, u. arises as a result of monopoly ownership of arable land, pasture, livestock and access to water. In industrial society it occurs during so-called crises of overproduction. 
Democratic states with advanced labor laws have employment services and unemployment funds, which pay benefits while the unemployed seek work. They also have services for retraining that allow the unemployed to acquire a new skill, trade, or profession. While these state measures and union practices against u. alleviate the situation of the unemployed, they do not bring an end to the scourge of u.
There are, in addition to various forms of full u., other forms of partial u. that occur when workers have only part-time work or are given extended time off, or vacation with minimal pay. In many cases companies circumvent labor laws by hiring workers for short periods or less than full time to avoid paying unemployment benefits, in this way effectively violating the rights of the unemployed. There are other hidden forms of u., especially in rural areas, where there are no unemployment services and benefits. A related situation is underemployment, in which workers do odd jobs, occasional work or engage in selling items that people buy in a spirit of public solidarity.
U. affects an average of between 3 to 10% of the economically active population in developed countries, and between 10 and 50% in developing countries, where it is the main social evil and the fundamental source of poverty. Marginalized sectors of the population and persons unable to work are not even included in the unemployment lines (in the modern meaning of this term). 
UNIONISM
(From L. unio). Association formed to defend the professional and economic interests common to its members. System of organization of salaried workers based on unions.
U. was born in England in 1824. The right of workers to form associations of their own was recognized in 1868. U. later spread to several countries of Europe and the Americas, and in the twentieth century became to the entire world. 
At times the union movement plays an important political role, participating in the struggle for power (e.g., the Solidarity movement in Poland in the 1980s).
Unions and the union ideology tend to reflect the acuteness of economic confrontation in society, though under favorable economic conditions they serve as the basis for collaboration between labor and capital. This can be seen, for example, in the case of the AFL-CIO in the US.
In authoritarian regimes, the unionist ideology is used by union bureaucrats and the single party system to manipulate the masses for the benefit of the ruling elite. This is seen in the example of the official unions in the USSR and their inheritors today in Russia, in the relations between the official unions and the presidents of Mexico and Argentina, and in the vertical unions under the Franco regime in Spain.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, anarcho-syndicalism and revolutionary syndicalism were powerful, but today the process of union destructuring is giving way to fragmented autonomous groups that occasionally coordinate actions around specific grievances.
UNIVERSALIST HUMANISM
Also called New Humanism (*). Characterized by an emphasis on the humanist attitude (*). The humanist attitude is not a philosophy but a point of view, a sensibility and a way of living in relationship with other human beings. U.H. maintains that in all cultures, in their most creative moment (*), the humanist attitude pervades the social environment. In such periods, discrimination, wars and violence in general are repudiated. Freedom of ideas and beliefs is fomented, which in turn provides incentive for research and creativity in science, art and other social expressions. U.H. proposes a dialogue between cultures that is neither abstract nor institutional, but rather an agreement on fundamental points and a mutual and concrete collaboration between representatives of different cultures based on their respective and symmetrical humanist “moments” or eras (*Humanist moment). The general ideas of u.h. are formulated in the “Statement of the Humanist Movement” (*Humanist Statement).
UTOPIA
(Gr. ou, not, and topos, place. A place that does not exist). From the title of the book Utopia (1516) by English statesman and author Sir Thomas Moore, that described an imaginary ideal republic. Synonymous with the dream of the artificial founding of an earthly paradise, of high social ideals.
In our time, Utopianism is characteristic of various philosophical schools of humanist orientation, for it reflects the aspiration to a better world of happiness, equality and well-being. This factor plays a certain positive role in the mobilization of human beings’ creative energies; it contributes to the development of human intentionality as a real stimulus for social progress and as a moral standard.
In real life, however, artificial attempts to realize the Utopian ideal “here and now,” without taking into account the concrete circumstances and tendencies in the development of certain societies, led to many abuses of power and numerous human victims. This sad experience is reflected in the critical “anti-Utopian” literature.
V
VIOLENCE
(from L. violentiam, excessive use of force). The simplest, most frequently employed and most effective mode for maintaining power and supremacy, for imposing one’s will over others, for usurping the power, property and even the lives of others. According to Marx, v. is “the midwife of history.” That is, all of human history ― even progress ― is the result of v.: wars, appropriation of territory, conspiracies, murders, revolutions, etc. Marx claimed that all important problems of history have generally been resolved by force. Intelligence, reasoned discussion, or reforms have played a secondary role. In this sense, Marx is right; he is wrong, however, to the extent that he confers absolute priority to the role of v., denying the advantages of evolution without v. Neither is he correct when he justifies v. with some noble end (although he himself on many occasions expressed reservations about v., saying that no good end can excuse the use of evil means for its attainment). Advocates of v. of every persuasion justify it as a means to achieve “good” or “useful” ends and results. This focus is dangerous and mistaken, however, since it leads to the defense of v. and the rejection of non-violent means.
It is customary to categorize v. as direct, individualized (authority of father over child), or as indirect (permutational), usually “codified” by social institutions and official policies (wars, a dictator’s power, single-party power, religious monopoly). There are also other ways of categorizing v.: as physical or psychological; as open or concealed. In society, other more precise gradations of v. can be observed ― at the level of the family, of the nation, of world politics, as well as in the relation of the human being with nature, with other animal species, etc. All around us we can observe one or more of these elements, manifestations, or states of v., carried out to resolve problems or to achieve desired results at the cost of harming or inflicting suffering on another individual or group. V. is not necessarily oriented toward any specific enemy (though such cases do occur); rather, it is exercised to obtain certain concrete results, and it is therefore regarded as necessary and useful. Often, the one exercising violence believes they are acting in a just manner. This is the origin of the concept of distinguishing between “black” (unjustified) v. and “white” (justified).
V. is multifaceted. In the majority of cases it is viewed as an ethical category, as an evil, or as a “lesser evil.” Today, v. has become pervasive in all aspects of life: it appears continually and on a daily basis in the economy (exploitation of some human beings by others, coercion by the State, material dependency, discrimination against women in the workplace, child labor, unjust taxes, etc.); in politics (domination by a single or small number of parties, the power of certain leaders, totalitarianism, the exclusion of citizens from real participation in decision-making, war, revolution, armed struggle for power, etc.); in ideology (the imposition of official viewpoints, the prohibition of free thought, subordination of the communications media to private interests, the manipulation of public opinion, propaganda of ideas that are inherently violent and discriminatory but convenient to the ruling elite, etc.); in religion (subjection of the interests of the individual to clerical edicts, stringent thought-control, prohibition of divergent beliefs, persecution of heretics); in the family (exploitation of women, dictatorial control over children, etc.); in education (authoritarianism of teachers, corporal punishment, prohibition of diversity in curricula and teaching methods, etc.); in the armed forces (arbitrariness of officers, unthinking obedience of soldiers, punishment, etc.); in culture (censorship, prohibition of innovative currents and movements, prohibitions against publishing certain works, edicts by the bureaucracy, etc.).
If we analyze the sphere of contemporary societal life, we continually come up against the v. that curtails our liberty; for this reason it is practically impossible to determine what sorts of prohibitions and suppressing of our will are truly rational and useful, and which ones are contrived and anti-human in character. A special task of authentically humanist forces consists of overcoming the aggressive features of contemporary social life: to promote harmony, non-violence, tolerance  and solidarity.
When people speak of v., they generally mean physical v., this being the most overt expression of corporal aggression. Other forms of v., such as economic, racial, religious, sexual v., and so on, can at times act while concealing their true character, and lead to the final subjugation of human intention and freedom. When these forms of v. become manifest, they are also exercised through physical coercion. Every form of v. has discrimination (*) as its correlate. 
W
WAR
(from OHG. werra, quarrel). Open, armed conflict between tribes, clans, states, large social, religious, or ethnic groups; the strongest form of violence.
There have been more than 2,500 wars recorded in world history, among them two world wars. In the First World War, more than 20 million people died; in the Second World War, more than 50 million.
Wars are conducted to redistribute social goods by means of armed violence, seizing them from some human beings and delivering them to others.
In earlier times, not only was this selfish motive not concealed but it was openly displayed. In modern times this motive is hidden behind ostensible religious, geopolitical, or other motives (e.g. the defense of religious beliefs, access to sacred sites or the sea, restoring the rights of ethnic minorities, “ethnic cleansing” of territories, and many other such pretexts).
In principle, it is possible to avoid the transformation of smaller conflicts into wars, but in contemporary society there are powerful social forces, including the military-industrial complex, chauvinist and nationalist groups, crime syndicates, etc., that have a vested interest in wars. The arms trade is the most lucrative business for the United States, France, England, Russia, China, and a number of other powers.
Hopes that the League of Nations (following the First World War) and the United Nations (following the Second World War) would erect effective barriers to prevent the outbreak of war have been frustrated. Armed conflicts today grip the Balkans, the Middle East, Africa, as well as republics formed out of the collapse of the USSR. Notwithstanding this, humanity has created certain international principles and legal processes to punish war crimes and war criminals. The international tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo established a precedent of great importance that is now being carried on in the International Tribunal of The Hague, under the UN charter .
Although the anti-war movement is no longer as large as it once was, this phenomenon has not died out and continues to develop. Humanism works to support the revival of the anti-war movement in order to bring peace to regional and local conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Chechnya and other places in the Caucasus; Rwanda and Burundi; Guatemala and Chiapas, Mexico; Cambodia and East Timor.
WOMEN’S ISSUES
A general term referring to the whole matrix of problems brought about by the condition of inequality, injustice and subordination of women in contemporary societies. The ongoing struggle against discrimination (*) in these “patriarchal” societies has taken the form of feminism, which constitutes a step forward in the achievement of immediate redress and in the application of laws of equality, laws that did not exist prior to those protests and actions, or, if they did, were merely formal, without concrete application. 
N.H. maintains that the development of w.i. is indispensable to the process of society’s humanization. W.I. cannot be limited to the activities of organizations that are to a greater or lesser degree humanitarian, but should take on the character of action fronts (*),based on its own characteristics and with multiple connections to other anti-discrimination fronts.
WORKER OWNERSHIP
Form of property (*) in which the workers of a company participate not only through wages or salary but also in the profits and especially the management (*) of the enterprise. Such arrangements include a wide range running from holding minority shares to a majority interest and, in the best of cases, to holding all shares and complete decision-making power in company management. From the earliest times of cooperativism, w.o. has experienced advances and setbacks, passing through the stage of intermediation by the state bureaucracy and being subject to a broad array of forms of concealing property that have left it, in practice, in the hands of capitalist groups. The juridical-political factor is decisive when it comes to putting w.o. into practice, because the possibility of developing w.o. depends on the scope and reach of the laws in effect. In a political-social system of humanist type, the primary objective is to incentivate and extend w.o. to the entire population. Humanist political evolution or revolution (*) tends toward structuring a society in which w.o. predominates.
This topic may be viewed within the larger issue of the new technical and social relations of production that are beginning to emerge in the world economy, and which correspond to the growing role and power of workers in the process of production, combining the ideals of social justice with the promise of economic efficiency (*Humanist Statement).
In a 1996 study by the Centro de Estudios Nacionales para un Desarrollo Alternativo in Chile, CENDA (Center for National Studies of Alternative Development), authors Manuel Riesco and Paola Parra establish precedents for and comparisons of w.o. in various parts of the world. They write: 
W.O. of companies is a phenomenon that has gained importance in the world in recent decades. In just a few years, tens of millions of workers have acquired significant ownership in tens of thousands of companies around the world, in the most diverse regions and countries. This process is due to a number of factors, one of the most significant being the one developing in the US, in which w.o. has become an important means of financing for private business during a period of dramatic restructuring; it has also received government stimulus through mechanisms of subsidy involving tax exemptions. This practice is spreading and becoming consolidated, forming part of the general trend toward placing greater power in the hands of workers as a way of improving the competitive position of the company. Another phenomenon that has contributed to the increase of w.o. has been the wave of privatizations that has swept over most of the world. The majority of countries that have pushed through massive programs of privatization have utilized w.o. as a means of neutralizing the strong opposition such processes have encountered from workers in the affected companies. As a result of the previous processes, workers have acquired, in some cases and only temporarily, high levels of ownership of their companies. In Russia, for example, 91% of privatized companies are majority-owned by their workers and executives, with executives holding minority shares in the remaining 9%. However, it has rapidly become clear that the workers soon lose their ownership interest of these privatized companies, which after a few years falls into the hands of capitalist groups that in not a few cases simply consist of the former executives of these same companies. This is, then, one of the forms through which the meaning of w.o. can be perverted.
In China, the w.o. experience has stirred up interest, not only in the government but also in the unions represented by the FSTCH, which has adopted w.o. as the preferred strategy for the reform of 400,000 state-owned companies (SOC) and another 400,000 affiliated urban collectives, especially the 20,000 S-OC and 100,000 urban collectives that are under the direct control of the FSTCH. The overall direction of the reform process in China seems quite clear, even though its forms have yet to be defined. Give the sheer magnitude of the Chinese economy, its impact on the worldwide experience with w.o. is likely to be huge. 
In the United Kingdom, over the course of just three years (1978-81), the percentage of the gross national product represented by public sector-owned industry fell from 11% to 2%. However, these privatizations did not fully represent a transfer of state-owned property to workers, which, in this case, meant an increase of capitalist ownership over and above w.o.
In the US, 1995 was an important year in the growth of w.o. The formation of new plans for employee stock-ownership reached the highest level since the end of the 1980s, prior to the most recent crisis. In all, considering only the various plans for direct ownership, that is, excluding investments by pension funds, US workers currently own investments worth some $500,000,000,000 dollars, or more than 6% of total company shares in this country. More than 10,000 companies have significant worker ownership. The largest of these has more than 190,000 workers; there are over 780,000 employees in the ten largest. The largest companies in which workers own more than 51% of the shares are: Publix Supermarkets (95,000 workers); United Airlines (75,000); Science Applications (17,000); Avis, car rental (12,500); and Amstead Industries (8,000). Around fifteen million workers are involved in various employee ownership plans, a significant number if we recall that the total number of workers employed in the US manufacturing sector is around twenty million. These figures have risen rapidly over the past twenty years, beginning with the enactment in 1974 of legislation to regulate and stimulate employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs).
According to the CENDA study: 
In Jamaica, legislation inspired by ESOPs in the United States constitutes one of the most modern and complete models in the world. This legislation, passed in April 1995, is oriented toward the private sector, although it does not preclude possible application to privatizing government functions. The objectives of the government are to enroll between three and five percent of workers in ESOPs in less than a year. The law stimulates worker participation in various ways. They can buy stock, deducting the cost from their taxes, or the company can buy stock for them, which is facilitated through various mechanisms. A number of tax incentives are offered to companies that establish ESOPs. For example, if a company lends its workers money to purchase stock at below-market interest rates, it can then deduct annually from its taxes an amount equivalent to the amortized loan payments. If the workers participate in management, the amortization period for purposes of the company’s tax deduction can be reduced to two years. If the source of funds is an external loan, the company can deduct from taxes 25% of the principal and 100% of the interest. If a company makes contributions to its workers to buy stock in the company, that company can deduct from taxes 100% of the contribution of both principal and interest payments on the loan. Finally, the ESOP itself can borrow money to buy stock, with security provided by the company, just as in the US system. In all cases, the stock is kept in a fiduciary or trust fund for the exclusive benefit of the participating workers. The rules for assigning and gradual acquisition or vesting of full individual rights in the stocks are similar to those in the US. The emphasis of the law is on stimulating long-term stock ownership by workers, which is manifested in a series of incentives for this purpose, but there are also provisions allowing employees to sell part of their shares up to a certain limit after the third year, with the company having to repurchase them. In this way, the Jamaican ESOP is envisioned as a retirement fund as well as a mechanism for stimulating savings. Dividends received by the workers are tax-free. There is also an option that allows, at the end of three years, the diversification of up to 50% of the shares into other financial instruments. The law is highly participative, and the shareholders of the ESOP have full rights, with the trustees being required to vote according to the instructions of the workers. A board of at least three trustees oversees the plan, one elected by the employees, another by the company, and the third by common agreement. Shares can be sold to other workers of the company once a worker has gained full individual rights (fully vested), pending approval by the plan administrators. Part-time and temporary workers, and even persons outside the company who ‘maintain a significant economic relationship’ with it, and for example, suppliers can participate in the plan. The principal objective of the law is to promote a more equitable distribution of income, in addition to developing the stock market. The law has been supported by the unions, who have decided to incorporate a demand to include ESOPs in future collective bargaining. The Jamaican ESOP program has received support from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).
In Spain, the Mondragón cooperatives of the Basque country constitute one of the most successful cases of w.o. in the world. The CENDA report comments on this experience:
The Mondragón group comprises over one hundred cooperatives. Today it is one of the twelve largest industrial groups in Spain, providing employment for over 26,000 persons. In 1984 the Mondragón holdings reached $8,900,000,000 with consolidated earnings of over $270,000,000. The group comprises more than eighty industrial cooperatives, a credit union, two distribution cooperatives, and three agricultural cooperatives. 
It also operates five study centers, four universities and a polytechnic secondary school; three research centers; and six service cooperatives for functions such as janitorial care, consulting, social security, design and insurance. In Spain, Mondragón is the leading force in almost every sector in which it operates: household goods; automobile parts, machine tools; computer automatic controls; construction structures. Moreover, its sales include a high percentage of exports, up to 60% in some product lines. These exports go mainly to countries in the European Union, although markets in the US, China, Hong Kong and Latin America are also important. In this regard it has followed a strategy for internationalization, taking advantage of opportunities for foreign investment. For example, it has established a refrigerator plant in Morocco; factories for household items in Mexico and Holland; semi-conductor manufacturing in Thailand; elevator assembly and maintenance in the United Kingdom; computer services in France; and railroad car manufacturing in China. All of its enterprises are administered democratically on the basis of one worker, one vote. They are divided into three groups: financial, industrial and commercial. Each operates independently but on the basis of a common strategy. Of the 103 Mondragón cooperatives formed between 1956 and 1986, only five failed during that period. Of these, three went bankrupt, one was dissolved, and the other two chose to become conventional capitalist companies (Tseo 1995). The main group of cooperatives is located in the heart of the Basque region, where cooperatives have been in operation at least since 1870, a factor that is certainly relevant to the success of the experience.
WORLD CENTER FOR HUMANIST STUDIES
The creation of the W.C. for H.S. was created by a resolution of the Humanist Forum (*). This institution for research in the social sciences (in particular historiology, history of cultures, economics, philosophy, anthropology, political science and psycho-sociology), was formally constituted in Moscow on November 24, 1993. It is a nongovernmental and voluntary organization with an orientation congruent with N.H. It regularly produces publications and convenes interdisciplinary conferences and symposia. It is the intent of the Center to conduct studies and to make contributions to the humanization of science and technology, with emphasis on problems of education. Though its membership originally consisted primarily of academics, the participation of broader sectors of the general public is growing.

LIST OF WORDS AND RELATIONS 

1) (*) See the article indicated by the asterisk
2) Mentions: the word in question appears in other articles
3) References: Names of authors, persons, or works

ACTION FRONT 
	(*) Demonstration Effect; Destructuring 
	Mentions: Women’s Issues 

ACTION
	(*) Humanist Psychology 
	Mentions: Action Front; Administration; Aggression; Anthropocentric Humanism; Army; Centers for Humanist Communication; Choice; Christian Humanism; Collectivism; Consensus; Cooperation; Dignity; Discrimination; Education; Evolution; Existentialist Humanism; Fascism; Games; Golden Rule; Human Being; Humanist International; Humanist Moment; Humanist Statement; Idealism; Immigration; Justice; Landscape of Formation; Legitimacy; Marxist Humanism; Non-Violence; Opposition; Oppression; Pacifism; Personal Emplacement; Pre-Renaissance Humanism; Reciprocity; Repression; Revolution; Self-Governance; Social Consciousness; Social Stratification; Solidarity; Structuralism; Suffering; Thesis; Unemployment; Women’s Issues

Active Non-Violence

Adaptation
	(*) Environment; New Surpassing the Old; Structure 
	Mentions: Alienation; Ecology; Christian Humanism; Human Being; Personal Emplacement 

ADMINISTRATION
	Mentions: Bureaucracy; Economy; Power 

AGGRESSION
	(*) Violence 
	Mentions: Army; Coalition; Space 

ALIENATION
	(*) Worker Ownership; Adaptation (Growing) 
	Mentions: Dehumanization; Equality; Tolstoyism 

ALTRUISM
	(*) Reciprocity; Solidarity 
	References: Comte 
ANARCHISM
	(*) Self-Governance 
	Mentions: Liberty; New Left; Property; Radicalism 
	References: Bakunin; Gandhi; Kropotkin; Nietzsche; Proudhon; Stirner; Tolstoy 

ANTHROPOCENTRIC HUMANISM 
	(*) New Humanism 

ANTI-HUMANISM
	(*) Discrimination; Violence 
	Mentions: Liberalism; New Left; Philosophical Anti-Humanism; Social Darwinism 

Anti-Humanist Attitude
	(*) Humanist Attitude 

Anti-War Movement
	Mentions: Anti-War Movement; Cold War; War

ARMY 
	(*) Aggression
	Mentions: Chauvinism; Violence

ATHEISM
	Mentions: Liberty; Humanist Statement; Religion 

AUTHORITARIANISM
	Mentions: National Socialism

BELIEF
	(*) Generations; Science 
	Mentions: Populism; Structuralism; Religion; Religiosity 

BOURGEOISIE
	Mentions: Capitalism; Class; Cosmopolitanism; Historical Humanism, Conditions of; People
 
BUREAUCRACY
	Mentions: Conformity; Violence; Worker Ownership

CAPITALISM
	(*) Bourgeoisie 
	Mentions: Feudalism; Marxism-Leninism; Social Reformism 

CASTE
	Mentions: Despotism; Fraternity; National Problem

CENTER OF CULTURES 
	(*) Humanist Associations and Clubs

CENTERS FOR HUMANIST COMMUNICATION
	(*) Action Fronts 

CENTRISM

CHARITY
	(*) Humanitarianism; Tolerance 

CHAUVINISM
	Mentions: Cosmopolitanism; Middle Strata; Nationalism; Patriotism
 
Choice 
	Mentions: Feudalism; Justice; Liberty; Manipulation; Worker Ownership 

CHRISTIAN DEMOCRACY
	(*) Christian Humanism 
	References: J Maritain; Pope Leo XIII 

CHRISTIAN HUMANISM
	(*) Anthropocentric Humanism; Philosophical Humanism; Theocentric Humanism 
	Mentions: Christian Democracy; Existentialist Humanism; Theocentric Humanism 
	References: Aquinas; Aristotle; Bergson; Darwin; Descartes; Freud; Hegel; Kant; Marx; Nietzsche; Pope Leo XIII; Puledda: On Being Human; Maritain: Integral Humanism; Rousseau 

Civil War

Class
	Mentions: Bureaucracy; Capitalism; Existentialism; Fraternity; Justice; Marxism-Leninism; Oppression; Paternalism; Personalism; Power; Social Group; Social Reformism; Solidarity; Violence
 
COALITION

Cold War 
	Mentions: Anti-War Movement; Movement of Nonaligned Nations; New Right; Revolutionary Democracy

COLLECTIVISM
	Mentions: Personalism 

COLONIALISM
	(*) Neo-Colonianism; Imperialism 
	Mentions: Democracy; Gandhism; Movement of Nonaligned Nations; National Problem; Reformism 

COMMUNISM
	(*) Marxism-Leninism; Socialism
	Mentions: Anarchism; New Right; Radicalism; Totalitarianism 
	References: Marx; Engels: “Communist Manifesto ”

Community For Human Development
	(*) Center of Cultures; Humanist Associations; Humanist Clubs; Humanist Centers of Communication; Humanist Forum; Humanist International; Humanist Movement; Siloism; World Center for Humanist Studies
	References: Silo

COMPANY-SOCIETY 
	(*) Humanist, Statement; Ownership; Power 
	References: M. de Burgos: “Company and Society”

CONFORMITY
	(*) Bureaucracy

CONSENSUS
	Mentions: Cosmopolitanism; Middle Strata; Self-Governance

CONSERVATISM
	Mentions: Dogmatism

CONSUMERISM
	(*) Alienation
	Mentions: New Left

COOPERATION
	Mentions: Charity; Consensus; Developed Countries; Developing Countries; Fascism; Gandhism; Global Problems; Grassroots Social Organizations; Internationalism; Post-Industrial Society; Social Contract; Social Democracy; Tolerance

CORPORATIVISM
	Mentions: Democracy; Totalitarianism 
	References: Zalazar; Vargas 

COSMOPOLITANISM
	(*) Chauvinism; Imperialism; Internationalism

CRITIQUE 
	Mentions: Cosmopolitanism; Dogmatism; New Left; Philosophical Anti-Humanism; Power; Structuralism; Utopia

DEHUMANIZATION
	(*) Alienation; Humanist Moment; Marxism-Leninism; Science; Social Darwinism

DEMAGOGUERY
	Mentions: Populism 

DEMOCRACY
	Mentions: Bureaucracy; Christian Democracy; Electoral System; Fascism; Humanist Statement; Imperialism; Internationalism; Marxism-Leninism; Political Party; Populism; Revanchism; Revolutionary Democracy; Self-Governance; Social Democracy; Social Reformism; Tolerance 

DEMONSTRATION EFFECT 
	(*) Planetarization
	Mentions: Action Front; Humanist Moment

DEPENDENCY
	Mentions: Dehumanization; Humanist Statement; Imperialism; Liberty; North-South; Power; Slavery; Social Stratification; Violence

DESPOTISM
	Mentions: Reformism; Tyranny
	References: Hitler; Mao Ze dong; Stalin

DESTRUCTURING
	(*) New Surpassing the Old; Structure 
	Mentions: Action Front; Alienation; Dogmatism; Generations; Humanist Moment; Religiosity; Separatism; Unionism 

Developed Countries 
	Mentions: New Left; New Right; North-South; Unemployment 

Developing Countries 
	Mentions: Problem of Hunger; North-South
 
DICTATORSHIP
	Mentions: Democracy; Community for Human Development

DIGNITY
	Mentions: Alienation; Authoritarianism; Corporativism; Critique; Despotism; Development of Historical Humanism; Dictatorship; Existentialist Humanism; Fraternity; Development of; Immigration; Laughter; Nationalism; Oppression; Pacifism; Slavery; Totalitarianism
DIPLOMACY
	Mentions: Anti-War Movement; Jesuitism; Machiavellianism

DISCRIMINATION
	Mentions: Active Non-Violence; Anti-Humanism; Bourgeoisie; Humanist Attitude; Humanist Movement; Humanist Statement; Humanity; Immigration; Internationalism; National Problem; New Humanism; New Humanism; Paternalism; Repression; Social Stratification; Suffering; Violence; Women’s Issues

DOGMATISM
	 (*) Destructuring 
	Mentions: Authoritarianism; Christian Humanism; Renaissance

ECOLOGY
	(*) Environmentalism 
	Mentions: Cosmopolitanism; Environmentalism 
	References: Lamarck; Treviranus; Haeckel 

ECONOMY
	(*) Humanist; Statement; Worker Ownership
	Mentions: Alienation; Bourgeoisie; Cold War; Developing Countries; Liberty; Marxism-Leninism; National Problem ; Neo-Liberalism; New Poor; Planetarization; Post-Industrialist Society; Renaissance; Slavery; Violence

EDUCATION
	(*) External Landscape 
	Mentions: Class; Conformity; Critique; Family; Jesuitism; Nation; Neo-Liberalism; Pacifism; Quality of Life; Radicalism; Renaissance; Science; Social Welfare; World Center for Humanist Studies
	References: Silo: Humanize the Earth

ELECTION
	(*) Liberty
	Mentions: Democracy; Electoral System; Existentialist Humanism; Humanism; Humanist Statement; Political Party; Self-Governance

Electoral System 
	Mentions: Political Party 
	References: Hitler; Hussein; Mao Ze dong; Mussolini; Nasser; Pinochet; Stalin; Suharto

ELITE
	Mentions: Conservatism; Consumerism; Tyranny; Violence; Unionism 

EMANCIPATION 

EMPIRICAL HUMANISM 
	(*) Humanist Attitude 

ENLIGHTENMENT 
	Mentions: Atheism; Humanism; Humanist; Justice; New Order; Religion; Renaissance; Social Contract; Social Well-Being; Society; Solidarity 
	References: Condillac; Descartes; Diderot; Goethe; Leibniz; Locke; Montesquieu; Newton; Rousseau; Schiller; Spinoza; Voltaire

ENVIRONMENT
	(*) Structure 
	Mentions: Adaptation; Administration; Alienation; Anthropocentric Humanism; Authoritarianism; Civil War; Dehumanization; Demagoguery; Destructuring; Developing Countries; Dictatorship; Economy; Electoral System; Environmentalism; Fascism; Feudalism; Gandhism; Global Problems; Grassroots Social Organizations; Historical Moment; Human Being; Humanist Statement; Landscape of Formation; Legislation; Legitimacy; Marxism-Leninism; Nation; National Problem; Nongovernmental Organizations; Paternalism; Personal Emplacement; Power; Pre-Renaissance Humanism; Public Opinion; Reformism; Religion; Renaissance; Revanchism; Revolution; Security; Separatism; Social Darwinism; Social Democracy; Technology; Tolerance; Tolstoyism; Totalitarianism; Violence; War; Worker Ownership

ENVIRONMENTALISM
	Mentions: Ecology; Humanist Statement 

EQUALITY 
	Mentions: Dependency; Emancipation; Fraternity; Global Problems; Humanist Attitude; Humanist Statement; Injustice; Organizations of the Base Community; Social Welfare; Tolerance; Utopia; Women’s Issues

EVOLUTION
	(*) Revolution 
	Mentions: Capitalism; Christian Humanism; Marxist Humanism; Social Darwinism; Technology; Thesis; Violence; Worker Ownership 
	References: Prigogine 

EXISTENTIALISM
	Mentions: Existentialist Humanism; Structuralism 
	References: Berdiaev; Hegel; Heidegger; Husserl; Jaspers; Kierkegaard; Nietzsche; Ortega y Gasset; Sartre; Unamuno

EXISTENTIALIST HUMANISM 
	(*) Existentialism; Philosophical Humanism
	References: Dostoievsky; Heidegger; Husserl; Sartre: Existentialism; To Rebel is Just 

External Landscape 
	(*) Internal Landscape

FAITH 
	(*) Belief 
	Mentions: Atheism; Existentialism; Existentialist Humanism; Humanist Statement; Law; Liberty; Machiavellianism; Religiosity 

FAMILY 
	Mentions: Dependency; Fraternity; Patriarchy; Personalism; Society; Social Group; Style of Life; Violence 

FASCISM 
	(*) National Socialism 
	Mentions: Coalition; Christian Democracy; Democracy; Immigration; National Problems; Radicalism; Social Group; Space; Totalitarianism 
	References: Mussolini

FEMINISM
	(*) Women’s Issues

FEUDALISM 
	Mentions: Internationalism; Liberalism 
	References: Marx; Philanthropy 

FRATERNITY 
	(*) Solidarity 

GAME

GANDHISM
	References: Gandhi 

GENERATIONS
	(*) Destructuring; Historical Moment; Landscape of Formation; New Surpassing the Old 
	Mentions: Belief; Education; Humanist Moment; Humanity; Leisure; Life Style; Pacifism; Social Conscience; Social Strata; Structuralism

Global Problems 
	(*) Planetarization 

Golden Rule 
	(*) Humanist Attitude 
	References: Hillel; Plato; Confucius; Herodotus 

GOVERNANCE
	(*) Administration 
	Mentions: Alienation; Cooperation; Democracy; Despotism; Dictatorship; Electoral System; Fascism; Humanist Statement; Liberty; Paternalism; Patriarchy; Post-Industrial Society; Power; Regime; State; Worker Ownership

Grassroots Social Organizations 

HIERARCHY 
	Mentions: Christian Democracy; Jesuitism 

HISTORICAL MOMENT
	(*) Environment; Generations; Landscape; Structure; System 
	Mentions: Generations; New Humanism; Religion 

HISTORICAL HUMANISM 
	(*) Humanist Attitude 
	Mentions: Historical Humanism, Conditions of; Historical Humanism, Development of; Humanist Statement; Pre-Renaissance Humanism
 
HISTORICAL HUMANISM, CONDITIONS OF 
	(*) Humanist Attitude 
	References: M. Polo 

HISTORICAL HUMANISM, DEVELOPMENT OF 
	(*) Humanist Attitude 
	References: Lothar of Segni; Manetti; “De dignitate et excellentia hominis”; Petrarch; Valla: “De Voluptate ”

HISTORIOLOGY
	(*) Landscape of Formation 
	Mentions: Humanist 

Human Being 
	Mentions: Alienation; Anarchism; Anthropocentric Humanism; Atheism; Caste; Chauvinism; Choice; Christian Humanism; Collectivism; Consumerism; Cosmopolitanism; Despotism; Dictatorship; Dignity; Dogmatism; Ecology; Economy; Education; Emancipation; Enlightenment; Environmentalism; Equality; Existentialism; Existentialist Humanism; Feudalism; Fraternity; Game; Historical Humanism, Development of; Human Landscape; Humanism; Humanist Attitude; Humanist Statement; Humanitarianism; Individualism; Initiative; Intentionality; Justice; Landscape of Formation; Liberty; Materialism; Oppression; Personalism; Philosophical Anti-Humanism; Philosophical Humanism; Post-Industrial Society; Pre-Renaissance Humanism; Renaissance; Science; Slavery; Social Darwinism; Social Group; Structuralism; Structure; Suffering; Thesis; Time; Tolstoyism; Totalitarianism; Unemployment; Utopia; Violence 
	References: Silo: Contributions to Thought: “Psychology of the Image” and “Historiological Discussions”

HUMANISM
	(*) Humanist Attitude; New Humanism 
	Mentions: Action; Anthropocentric Humanism; Chauvinism; Christian Democracy; Christian Humanism; Collectivism; Cosmopolitanism; Dignity; Dogmatism; Empirical Humanism; Enlightenment; Existentialist Humanism; Feudalism; Historical Humanism; Historical Humanism, Conditions of; Historical Humanism, Development of; Humanism; Humanist Attitude; Humanist Statement; Initiative; Marxist Humanism; New Humanism; New Humanism; Oppression; Philosophical Anti-Humanism; Philosophical Humanism; Pre-Renaissance Humanism; Renaissance; Siloism; Slavery; Statement of New Humanism; Structuralism; Suffering; Theocentric Humanism; Totalitarianism; War

Humanist Associations and Clubs 
	(*) Humanist Statement 
	Mentions: Social Group 
	References: Humanist Statement
 
HUMANIST ATTITUDE 
	(*) Humanist Moment 
	Mentions: Anti-Humanist Attitude; Empirical Humanism; Golden Rule; Historical Humanism, Conditions of; Historical Humanism, Development of; Humanism; Humanist; New Humanism; Social Consciousness 

HUMANIST FORUM 
	(*) Community for Human Development 

HUMANIST INTERNATIONAL
	(*) Thesis; Document; Humanist 
 	Reference: Bases of Political Action; Declaration of Principles; Doctrinary Thesis; Humanist Statement; Statutes 

HUMANIST MANIFESTO I 
	References: Dewey; Humanist Manifesto II
 
HUMANIST MANIFESTO II 
	References: Lamont; Monod; Sakharov; Skinner 

Humanist Moment
	(*) Demonstration Effect; Destructuring; Humanist Attitude; Planetarization; Social Consciousness 
	Mentions: Dehumanization 
	References: Akhenaton; Cuzi Yupanqui; Kukulkán; Metzahualcóyotl; Topiltzín; Tupac Yupanqui 

Humanist Movement
	(*) Document; Humanist; Humanitarianism; New Humanism
	Mentions: Humanist Movement 
	References: Humanist Statement 

HUMANIST
	(*) Humanist Attitude; Humanist Movement 
	Mentions: Action; Altruism; Anti-Humanist Attitude; Army; Centers for Humanist Communication; Charity; Christian Humanism; Collectivism; Community for Human Development; Consensus; Dehumanization; Empirical Humanism; Enlightenment; Existentialism; Existentialist Humanism; Golden Rule; Historical Humanism, Conditions of; Historical Humanism, Development of; Humanism; Humanist; Humanist Forum; Humanist International; Humanist Manifesto I; Humanist Manifesto II; Humanist Moment; Humanist Movement; Humanist Psychology; Humanist Statement; Idealism; Immigration; Jesuitism; Marxist Humanism; New Humanism; Perception; Philosophical Anti-Humanism; Property; Public Opinion; Renaissance; Social Consciousness; Social Role; Solidarity; Style of Life; Tolerance; Tolstoyism; Utopia; Worker Ownership

Humanist Psychology
	Mentions: Action; Humanist Psychology; Perception 
	References: Ammann; Binswanger; Brentano; Frankl; Heidegger; Husserl; Jaspers; Merleau-Ponty; Mueller; Sartre

HUMANIST, RELATED WORDS 
	References: Campana: “The Origin of the Word ‘Humanist’”; Niethammer; Rüegg

HUMANIST STATEMENT or document 
	(*)Humanist Forum; Humanist International; New Humanism

HUMANITARIANISM
	(*) Altruism; Philanthropy 
	Mentions: Charity 

HUMANITY
	Mentions: Alienation; Atheism; Christian Humanism; Global Problem; Humanist Statement; Internationalism; Marxism-Leninism; Nongovernmental Organizations; Slavery; Social Darwinism; Time; Tolerance; Violence; War

IDEALISM 
	(*) Materialism 
	Mentions: Christian Humanism; Historical Humanism, Development of; Marxist Humanism 

IMMIGRATION 

IMPERIALISM 
	(*) Neo-Colonialism; Colonialism 
	Mentions: Cosmopolitanism; Internationalism; Marxism-Leninism; Planetarization; Neo-Colonialism 

INDIVIDUALISM 
	Mentions: Anarchism; Christian Humanism; Collectivism; Personalism 
	References: Bakunin; Protagoras; Stirner 

INITIATIVE 
	Mentions: Aggression; Cooperation; Existentialist Humanism; Nongovernmental Organizations; Organizations of the Base Community 

internal Landscape 
	(*) External Landscape 

INNOVATION 
	Mentions: Critique 

INTENTIONALITY 
	(*) Existentialism 
	Mentions: Action; Anti-Humanist Attitude; Charity; Dehumanization; Education; Existentialist Humanism; Human Being; Humanist Attitude; Humanist Moment; Humanist Statement; Idealism; Liberty; Social Group; Style of Life; Violence; World Center for Humanist Studies
	References: Brentano; Husserl 

INTERNATIONALISM 
	(*) Nationalism; Planetarization 
	Mentions: Cosmopolitanism

JESUITISM 
	References:T. de Chardin; Clement XIV; Loyola I; Pious VII; Viera 

JUSTICE 
	Mentions: Enlightenment; Power; Suffering; Tyranny; Worker Ownership 
	References: Aristotle 

Landscape of Formation 
	(*) Generations 
	Mentions: Generations; Historiology; Separatism 

Laughter
	References: Bergson: Laughter 

LAW
	(*) Legislation
	 Mentions: Dictator; Equality; Fascism; Humanist Statement; Justice; Legitimacy; Liberalism; Non-Violence; Worker Ownership

LEADER
	Mentions: Gandhism; Populism; Worker Ownership 

LEGISLATION

LEGITIMACY
	Mentions: Leader; Tyranny 

LEGITIMISM
	References: T. de Chardin; L. P. de Orleans 

Leisure 
	Mentions: Game

LIBERALISM
	(*) Neo-liberalism 
	Mentions: Christian Humanism; Conservatism 
	References: de Tocqueville; Hayek; Locke; Nozick; Popper; Rawls; Smith; Stuart Mill; von Mises

LIBERTY 
	(*) Existentialism; Worker Ownership 
	Mentions: Action; Alienation; Anarchism; Anti-humanist Attitude; Atheism; Authoritarianism; Bourgeoisie; Choice; Christian Humanism; Collectivism; Critique; Dehumanization; Democracy; Dependency; Election; Emancipation; Equality; Existentialist Humanism; Feudalism; Fraternity; Humanism; Humanist Attitude; Humanist Manifesto I; Humanist Statement; Individualism; Initiative; Justice; Liberalism; Manipulation; New Humanism; Non-Violence; Personalism; Public Opinion; Quality of Life; Renaissance; Slavery; Social Contract; Social Welfare; Structuralism; Style of Life; Thesis; Tolerance; Violence 
	References: Berdiaev; Bóhme; Spinoza
 
LOVE 
	(*) Solidarity 
	Mentions: Charity; Existentialism; Fraternity; Philanthropy; Non-Violence; Tolstoyism 

MACHIAVELLIANISM
	References: Machiavelli 

MANIPULATION
	Mentions: Alienation; Authoritarianism; Community for Human Development; Conformity; Patriotism; Power; Public Opinion; Totalitarianism; Unionism; Violence 
MARGINALIZED PEOPLE
	Mentions: Modernization 

MARXISM-LENINISM	
	(*) Marxist Humanism; Philosophical Anti-Humanism; Philosophical Humanism 
	Mentions: Marxist Humanism; Philosophical Anti-Humanism; Philosophical Humanism
	References: Engels; Lenin; Marx 

MARXIST HUMANISM 
	(*) Materialism; Marxism-Leninism; Philosophical Anti-Humanism; Philosophical Humanism 
	References: Bloch; Bloch; Engels; Fromm; Garaudy; Marcuse; Marx: Capital, Critique of Hegel’s “Philosophy of Right,” Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, The German Ideology, Theories of Surplus Value; Mondolfo; Shaff

MATERIALISM
	(*) Idealism 
	Mentions: Idealism; Marxist Humanism; Marxism-Leninism 
	References: Einstein: Theory of Relativity 

META-LANGUAGE

METHOD
	Mentions: Chauvinism; Consensus; Cooperation; Critique; Dictatorship; Existentialism; Fascism; Humanist Psychology; Intentionality; Manipulation; Marxism-Leninism; National Problem; Non-Violence; Perception; Reformism; Renaissance; Revolutionary Democracy; Science; Structuralism; Structure

MIDDLE STRATA 
	(*) Chauvinism
	Mentions: Class; New Right 

MODERNIZATION
	Mentions: Developing Countries; Feudalism; Innovation; Problem of Hunger; Radicalism; Reformism; Separatism 

MOST IMPORTANT THEME, THE 
	(*) Personal Emplacement

Movement of Nonaligned Nations

Nation
	(*) New Humanism 
	Mentions: Aggression; Chauvinism; Colonialism; Humanist Statement; Internationalism; National Problem; Nationalist; People; Personalism; Planetarization; Revanchism; Social Group; Solidarity; Violence 
National Socialism
	(*) Fascism 
	References: Hitler 

Nationalism
	Mentions: Chauvinism; Cosmopolitanism; Fascism; Internationalism; New Left; Patriotism; Populism; Totalitarianism
 
Neo-Colonialism
	(*) Colonialism; Imperialism 
	Mentions: Imperialism; Movement of Nonaligned Nations 
	References: Lloyd George; Churchill 

Neo-Liberalism
	References: Lloyd George; Churchill 

New Humanism
	(*) Anti-Humanism; New Humanism; Planetarization 
	Mentions: Statement of New Humanism 

New Left

New Order
	Mentions: Anarchism; Enlightenment; Fascism 
	References: Hitler; Reagan 

New Poor
	Mentions: New Left 

New Right

New Surpassing the Old 
	(*) Generations; Destructuring 
	Mentions: Adaptation; Generations 

Nihilism
	Mentions: Liberty 
	References: Alexander II; Turgenyev: Fathers and Sons 

Non-Violence
	(*) Pacifism 
	References: Dostoievsky; Gandhism; Martin Luther King; Kovalev; Nkrumah; Sakharov; Solzhenitzin; The Bible; Tolstoy

Nongovernmental Organizations 
	Mentions: Democracy 
North-South

Opportunism
	Mentions: Marxism-Leninism 
	References: Stalin 

Opposition
	Mentions: Democracy; Fascism; Individualism; Legitimism; National Problem; Worker Ownership 

Oppression
	Mentions: Emancipation; Existentialist Humanism; Humanist Statement; Justice; Laughter; Tolstoyism 

Orthodoxy
	Mentions: Religion 

Pacifism
	(*) Action Front 
	Mentions: Non-Violence 

Paternalism
	(*) Worker Ownership 

Patriarchy

Patriotism
	(*) Manipulation 
	Mentions: Cosmopolitanism; Revanchism 
	References: Hitler; Mussolini; Stalin 

People
	Mentions: Bureaucracy; Communism; Demagoguery; Democracy; Dependency; Fraternity; Humanist Statement; Legitimacy; Metalinguistics; Non-Violence; Renaissance; State

Perception
	(*) Humanist Psychology; Landscape 
	Mentions: Action; External Landscape; Human Being; Human Landscape; Internal Landscape; Religion; Separatism; Structure; Suffering 

Personal EMPlacement 
	Mentions: Landscape of Formation 
	References: Silo: Letters to my Friends 

Personalism
	(*) Alienation; Existentialism 

PHILANTHROPY 

PHILOSOPHICAL ANTI-HUMANISM 
	(*) Human Being; Science 
	References: Althusser; Foucault; Heidegger; Lévi-Strauss; Nietzsche 

PHILOSOPHICAL HUMANISM 
	(*) Existentialism 
	Mentions: Christian Humanism; Existentialist Humanism; Marxist Humanism; Philosophical Anti-Humanism; Siloism 

PLANETARIZATION
	(*) New Order 
	Mentions: Bourgeoisie; Demonstration Effect; Internationalism; Planetarization 
 
POLITICAL CULTURE
 
Political Party 
	Mentions: Leader; Opposition 

Populism

Power
	Mentions: Action Front; Alienation; Anthropocentric Humanism; Anti-Humanism; Authoritarianism; Bourgeoisie; Bureaucracy; Choice; Christian Democracy; Class; Conformity; Conservatism; Corporativism; Dehumanization; Democracy; Despotism; Dictatorship; Ecology; Election; Electoral System; Existentialist Humanism; Fascism; Generations; Historic Moment; Historical Humanism, Development of; Humanist Moment; Humanist International; Humanist Statement; Humanitarianism; Internationalism; Legislation; Legitimism; Liberalism; Marxist-Leninism; National Problems; New Humanism; Opportunism; Patriarchy; Political Party; Regime; Revanchism; Revolutionary Democracy; Science; Self-Governance; Separatism; Social Contract; Socialism; State; Tyranny; Unionism; Utopia; Violence; Worker Ownership 

PRE-RENAISSANCE HUMANISM

Problem of Hunger 
	(*) Developing Countries 

Property
	(*) Anarchism; Company-Society; Marxism-Leninism; Worker Ownership 
	Mentions: Alienation; Anarchism; Bourgeoisie; Bureaucracy; Capitalism; Class; Communism; Cooperation; Economy; Equality; Family; Humanist Statement; Liberalism; Liberty; Materialism; Tolstoyism; Violence 
Public Opinion 
	Mentions: Center of Cultures; Legislation; New Right 

QUALITY OF LIFE 
	(*) Social Welfare

Radicalism
	Mentions: Class; Middle Strata

Reciprocity
	Mentions: Altruism; Fraternity; Humanist Movement 

Reformism
	Mentions: Marxism-Leninism; Social Reformism 

Regime
	Mentions: Capitalism; Caste; Conservatism; Corporativism; Dictatorship; Fascism; Feudalism; Fraternity; Historical Humanism, Conditions of; Humanist Manifesto I; Marxism-Leninism; Nongovernmental Organizations; Political Party; Repression; State; Totalitarianism; Unionism

Religion
	(*) Landscape of Formation; Perception; Religiosity; 
	Mentions: Alienation; Anarchism; Atheism; Discrimination; Existentialist Humanism; Justice; National Problem; People; Power; Religiosity; Social Consciousness; Social Group; Style of Life; Violence 

Religiosity
	(*) Destructuring 
	Mentions: Humanist Statement 

Renaissance
	(*) Personalism 
	References: Bacon; Cervantes; Copernicus; da Vinci; Galileo; Grotius: Law of War and Peace; Kepler; Machiavelli; Montaigne; Petrarch; Rabelais; Shakespeare

Repression
	Mentions: Political Party; Separatism; Totalitarianism 

Revanchism

Revolution
	(*) Worker Ownership 
	Mentions: Bourgeoisie; Civil War; Class; Conservatism; Evolution; Fraternity; Humanist Moment; Legitimism; Marxism-Leninism; Nation; New Poor; People; Personal Emplacement; Revolutionary Democracy; Science; Social Reformism; Social Stratification; Socialism; Technology; Violence 

REVOLUTIONARY DEMOCRACY 

SCIENCE 
	(*) Technology 
	Mentions: Atheism; Belief; Class; Dehumanization; Developed Countries; Dogmatism; Ecology; Economy; Education; Evolution; Humanity; Legislation; Marxism-Leninism; Materialism; New Surpassing the Old; Power; Renaissance; Social Consciousness; Space; Suffering; Time; World Center for Humanist Studies 

Security
	Mentions: Dictatorship; Faith; Family; Neo-Liberalism; Repression; Revanchism; Social Contract; Social Security; Social Welfare; Space; Worker Ownership

SELF-GOVERNANCE 
	Mentions: Alienation; Anarchism 

Separatism

Siloism 
	(*) Philosophical Humanism; New Humanism 
	References: Silo 

SLAVERY 
	Mentions: Alienation; Consumerism; Emancipation; Feudalism 
	References: Hitler; Spartacus; Mao Ze dong; Stalin; Toussaint L’ouverture 

SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS 
	(*) Generations; Humanist Attitude; Humanist Moment 
	Mentions: Science; Humanist Statement 

SOCIAL CONTRACT 
	Mentions: Enlightenment
	References: Rousseau

SOCIAL DARWINISM 
	(*) Antihumanism 
	References: Darwin 

Social Democracy
	References: Bernstein; Kautsky; Lassalle; Marx; Proudhon; 

SOCIAL GROUP 
	Mentions: Authoritarianism; Elite; Fraternity; Leader; Marginalized people; National Problem; Social Role; Style of Life

SOCIAL MOBILITY

Social Reformism 
	References: Bernstein; Iglesias; Jaures; Kautsky; Lasalle; Marx 

Social Role 
	(*) Humanist Psychology 

Social Security
	Mentions: Social Welfare; Neo-Liberalism; Worker Ownership 

Social Stratification 
	(*) Discrimination 

SOCIAL WELFARE 
	Mentions: Quality of Life 

Socialism
	(*) Marxism-Leninism 
	Mentions: Christian Humanism; Communism; Cooperation; Fascism; Humanist Statement; Social Democracy; Social Reformism 
	References: Blanc; Marx 

Society
	Mentions: Alienation; Anarchism; Anti-War Movement; Army; Bourgeoisie; Bureaucracy; Capitalism; Caste; Choice; Christian Humanism; Civil War; Class; Cold War; Collectivism; Communism; Conformity; Consensus; Consumerism; Cooperation; Corporativism; Critique; Democracy; Developing Countries; Dignity; Dogmatism; Economy; Elite; Enlightenment; Existentialist Humanism; Feudalism; Game; Generations; Grassroots Social Organizations; Historical Humanism; Historical Humanism, Development of; Human Being; Human Landscape; Humanist Statement; Initiative; Innovation; Internal Landscape; Justice; Law; Legitimacy; Leisure; Liberty; Marginalized People; Marxism-Leninism; Materialism; Middle Strata; Modernization; Nation; Neo-Liberalism; New Surpassing the Old; Nihilism; Nongovernmental Organizations; Patriarchy; Personal Emplacement; Personalism; Political Party; Post-Industrial Society; Public Opinion; Radicalism; Reformism; Religion; Security; Social Democracy; Social Group; Social Reformism; Social Role; Social Stratification; Social Welfare; Socialism; Solidarity; State; Structure; Style of Life; Suffering; Technology; Time; Tolerance; Totalitarianism; Tyranny; Unemployment; Violence; War; Women’s Issues; Worker Ownership; Solidarity
	
SPACE 
	Mentions: Alienation; Global Problems; Humanist Moment; Liberty; State 
STATE 
	Mentions: Administration; Alienation; Army; Atheism; Colonialism; Conservatism; Democracy; Emancipation; Faith; Generations; Human Being; Humanist Statement; Internal Landscape; Justice; Law; Legislation; Machiavellianism; National Problem; Personal Emplacement; Power; Religion; Renaissance; Science; Social Mobility; Social Welfare; State; Totalitarianism

STATEMENT OR DOCUMENT OF NEW HUMANISM
	(*) Humanist Statement 
	Mentions: Economy; Humanist Associations and Clubs; Humanist International; Humanist Movement; New Humanism; Worker Ownership

STRUCTURALISM
	(*) Belief; Generations; Landscape; Structure 
	Mentions: Philosophical Anti-Humanism 
	References: Althusser; Barthes; Foucault; Lacan; Lévi-Strauss; Husserl; Saussure: “Course on General Linguistics ”

STRUCTURE
	(*) Human Being 
	Mentions: Adaptation; Bureaucracy; Capitalism; Christian Humanism; Democracy; Destructuring; Developed Countries; Environment; External Landscape; Historical Moment; Historical Humanism, Conditions of; Initiative; Innovation; Landscape of Formation; Marxist Humanism; Materialism; Method; Middle Strata; New Humanism; Nongovernmental Organizations; Patriarchy; Perception; Personalism; Philosophical Humanism; Quality of Life; Religion; Revolution; Social Consciousness; Social Mobility; Social Role; Society: New Surpassing the Old; State; Structuralism
	References: Husserl 

STYLE OF LIFE 
	Mentions: Non-Violence; Planetarization; Religion; Tolerance
 
Suffering
	Mentions: Existentialism; Human Being; Humanist Statement; Non-Violence; Thesis 

Technology
	(*) Science; Planetarization 
	Mentions: Alienation; Education; Existentialist Humanism; Innovation; New Poor; New Right; Science 

THEOCENTRIC HUMANISM 
	(*) Christian Humanism 
	Mentions: Christian Humanism 

Thesis
	(*) Humanist International 
	Mentions: Anarchism; Existentialist Humanism; Humanist International; Jesuitism; Social Darwinism
 
Time
	Mentions: Adaptation; Alienation; Belief; Bourgeoisie; Community for Human Development; Dependency; Despotism; Ecology; Existentialism; Existentialist Humanism; Feudalism; Fraternity; Generations; Historical Humanism, Development of; Humanist Statement; Legitimacy; Leisure; Liberty; Marxism-Leninism; Marxist Humanism; Materialism; Modernization; National Problem; New Surpassing the Old; Opportunism; Power; Religion; Social Stratification; Structuralism; Worker Ownership

Tolerance
	(*) Charity 
	Mentions: Violence 
	References: Gandhi; Tolstoy 

Tolstoyism
	References: Gandhi; Martin Luther King; Nkrumah; Schweitzer; Tolstoy; 

Totalitarianism
	Mentions: Christian Humanism; Non-Violence; Radicalism; Reformism; Violence 

Tyranny
	Mentions: Humanist Statement; State 

UNEMPLOYMENT 
	Mentions: Capitalism; Humanist Statement; North-South; Problem of Hunger; Social Stratification

UNIONISM
	Mentions: Action Front; Anarchism 
	References: Franco 

universalist HUMANISM 
	(*) Humanist Attitude; Humanist Moment; Humanist Statement; Nation; New Humanism
	References: Humanist Statement 

Utopia
	References: Moore: Utopia

Violence
	(*) Discrimination 
	Mentions: Active Non-Violence; Aggression; Alienation; Anarchism; Anti-Humanism; Army; Authoritarianism; Bourgeoisie; Chauvinism; Civil War; Dependency; Despotism; Dictatorship; Fascism; Gandhism; Humanist Attitude; Humanist Statement; Middle Strata; Nation; New Humanism; New Humanism; New Left; New Right; Non-Violence; Oppression; Pacifism; Reformism; Revanchism; Revolution; Revolutionary Democracy; Self-Governance; Separatism; Social Reformism; State; Style of Life; Suffering; Thesis; Tolerance; Tolstoyism; Tyranny; War

WAR 
	Mentions: Anti-War Movement; Christian Democracy; Civil War; Coalition; Cold War; Existentialist Humanism; Fascism; Humanity; Imperialism; Marxism-Leninism; Marxist Humanism; Materialism; Movement of Nonaligned Nations; Nation; National Problem; New Right; Pacifism; Patriotism; People; Renaissance; Retaliation; Revolutionary Democracy; Slavery; Social Contract; Social Democracy; Social Reformism; Social Security; Violence 

WOMEN’S ISSUES 
	(*) Action Front; Discrimination

Worker Ownership 
	(*) Administration; Document; Humanist; Property; Revolution 
	Mentions: Alienation; Economy
	References: CNSAD (Center for National Studies for Alternative Development); Humanist Statement; Loyola; Parra, Riesco

WORLD CENTER FOR HUMANIST STUDIES 
	(*) Humanist Forum