Professor Wolf, we have more than three years behind us, some of which have been extremely eventful. How would you summarize this time?
Frieder Otto Wolf: Yes, it was a moving and eventful time: it seems that a “window of opportunity” for organized practical humanism is also opening in Germany. Now that the churches have lost their former oppressive ideological hegemony – and it is becoming increasingly clear that non-religious people also have an ideological orientation, have their own basic attitudes and want to “realize” these in their everyday lives in order to live together in a meaningful way. Some of the developments in recent years have been quite dramatic, varied and sometimes upsetting. And very different events have been relevant for us, from the protests against the resigned Pope’s appearance in the Bundestag to the memorial service for the victims of the NSU murders, where for the first time a church was not simply chosen as the venue and we were also invited as an ideological association. But I also see the ongoing economic and financial crisis, the so-called circumcision ruling in Cologne and the rise of right-wing populism in many European countries, which is apparently unstoppable due to the ongoing crisis. And we have been able to make our own mark in the public eye as a worldview community that has something relevant to contribute based on its humanist convictions. In terms of the association, I am also looking forward to a time of greater media independence and visibility, as well as a process that will lead to a clearer ideological profile and provide us with a shared assurance of our own intentions.
What do you consider to be the most significant progress?
On the one hand, I would mention the increased public visibility and awareness, which is reflected in increasing reporting on our social commitment, whether as a worldview community per se or specific projects and activities. We have also begun to establish a direct dialog with politicians and other important social players. In this contact work, we have also achieved some initial successes together, e.g. the fact that we were able to enshrine equal rights for ideological and religious communities in the constitution for the first time in the coalition agreement through a targeted intervention. Or through our ongoing lobbying work in the area of autonomy at the end of life and on issues relating to the further development of state church law. In autumn, there will be a first meeting – together with the Alevi community in Germany – with representatives of the Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK) in order to establish regular discussions with the smaller ideological communities in addition to the existing dialog between the KMK and the large religious communities. I am very pleased about this development, which brings me to another good step forward: an alliance has been formed, which is reflected not only in the first joint meeting between the KMK, the Humanist Association and the Alevi community. It is also reflected in the alliance for self-determination until the end of life, which was formed in March, and the alliance for sexual self-determination, which we began developing in 2012 and initiated around a year ago. On the other hand, I would consider it progress that we, as a humanist worldview community, have also become capable of speaking and engaging in dialog with the major religious communities such as the Catholic Church, which is evident from the exchanges we have had so far. The fact that a dialog is possible that goes beyond the old freethinking criticism of the church and religion is also visible to the outside world through our letter documented by the German Bishops’ Conference. And finally, there is now a form of – publicly visible – exchange and cooperation between us in Germany and humanists and our representatives at European and international level. That is why we are by no means abandoning our cooperation with other non-denominational organizations. On the contrary, we have established a joint platform here at KORSO and have begun to fill it with life.
What other positive developments are there?
I see a clearly positive result of continued valuable work in the continuous event and publication activities of the Humanist Academies and the successful transition in the office of the Director, as well as the powerful consolidation in Lower Saxony and the growing together with the Humanists Baden-Württemberg. And I am extremely pleased with the work of the Humanists in the Federal Youth Association.
And where have the developments not met the original expectations?
Unfortunately, we have not yet succeeded in developing a new humanist self-image in the way originally planned. It has become clear that this process must be fundamentally different if it is to meet democratic and pluralistic standards and have a broadly accepted outcome. I therefore consider the critical debate triggered in Berlin about the last draft to be a gain – and expect that a new draft will emerge from it that can trigger even more constructive debates. In addition, there is still the open challenge of consolidating some regional associations, which we need to tackle in cooperation, which we have at least begun to do. And unfortunately, there is still a lot to do with the corporate rights project for the federal association. But in all these areas, quality takes precedence over quantity and speed. A basic trend in social development, the relativization and reduction of the old church hegemony, simply makes it increasingly important to develop our practical humanism as a modern alternative. That is the challenge we face. And if we make the necessary effort, we will master it well.
What are the reasons for this?
I see three levels to the problems. Firstly, there is the fact that we are actually living in times that are rapidly changing, difficult and confusing. Of course, this also throws many a project that initially seemed easy to implement into disarray. Let me give you two specific examples: For example, the new push to criminalize assisted suicide at the beginning of the year naturally meant that we suddenly had to work much harder on a project for a few weeks than we had expected. But of course we had to get involved here as humanists. And: as a federal association, we were suddenly busy for several months in 2012, completely unplanned, with taking a clear stance in the so-called circumcision debate, but also with objectifying and moderating the debate. Secondly, our resources are naturally limited. Thirdly, there is the simple democratic factor: important things cannot simply be decided and done by anyone, but must first be communicated, discussed and voted on. And that is the biggest part of the work of the Federal Association and makes the difference between centrally controlled institutions or companies and a federalist-democratic ideological community like us. We should see this as a strength! And I think we have developed a culture of trust here in recent years that in no way hinders concrete initiatives.
The majority of people who break away from traditional religions are lost in a diffuse field of different views. Developments in more northern and eastern German regions in particular make it clear that social secularization as dechurching does not immediately lead to a greater spread of an enlightened and humanistic world view. What conclusions can be drawn from this?
In my view, the conscious development of a – I’m deliberately using the bureaucratic and technocratic term – “framework organization” and the conscious profiling as a special, yet relevant part of the non-denominational movement. This must be achieved above all locally and at state level. But as a federal association, we must also see ourselves as a driving force and coordinator, both in our core ideological areas such as humanist life celebrations and humanist life education, but also in our range of social and cultural services. What we have not yet really been able to implement is the transfer of relevant experience and expertise from the “large” to the “small” regional associations.
How has the relationship with other smaller and larger ideological communities in Germany developed in recent years?
As mentioned above, it is perceived as just as important a dimension of our dialog and alliance work as our work with non-denominational groups in KORSO or our ongoing dialog with the Alevi community. We have also established ongoing cooperation with human rights organizations such as the Lesbian and Gay Association of Germany and the Humanist Union. Contacts and discussions have repeatedly led to cooperation and joint initiatives.
What redefinition of the position in society do you advocate after the experiences of recent years?
For a dual movement: Defining practical humanism even more positively and articulating it more clearly in ideological terms – and forming broad alliances against social and cultural coldness and concrete exclusionary movements. We have already shown on various occasions in the examples mentioned above that this is possible and how it can be done. We need to consolidate and expand this.
Can a humanistic worldview still be articulated today, as in the past, simply as a contrast to religions?
Only to a very limited extent. I believe that the heyday of criticism of religion and the church that we have seen in recent years is over for the time being. It does not really do justice to pluralization, nor to the large majority of liberal believers and the principles of an open society: in view of the relatively enlightened religious attitudes that are quite widespread, it makes no sense to keep claiming that the real representatives of religion are fundamentalists of various hues.
The website of the Federal Association states: “We believe that the thesis of the return of religions is false and does not correspond to the facts.” Is this assessment still true in your view?
Empirically, this is still true: the number of followers of Christian denominations and their binding power has declined sharply in Germany and continues to decline, and is by no means compensated for by devout Muslims and Jews, for example – despite the increase in professing Christians in the new Bundestag. There will be no return to the denominational reality of the Federal Republic in the 1950s, that is absolutely clear. However, we should differentiate precisely in our assessment: It is not only a good thing that the churches have lost their influence “among the people”, but this can also mean ideological and ethical indifference, cynicism, superficiality and disorientation. Here, of course, we must continue to pay attention to the fact that social secularization is not good per se, but only if it is underpinned by viable alternative offers. I see a return of the major dogmatic religions in the media sector, where they have successfully renewed their institutional strength and adapted their offerings to the zeitgeist. In terms of the secularization of the public sphere, however, we are in a special, rather positive situation in Germany and in large parts of Europe. From a global perspective, there are comparable trends in many countries, but there are also diverse counter-movements, some of which are fighting violently for a return of dogmatic religion, motivated in part by the same or similarly profound crises that have also strengthened reactionary and conservative forces in Europe.
What are the priorities for development in the coming years?
Of course, strengthening and building the practical dimension of our worldview – and making sure we know how we can better develop and articulate this humanism, which we represent in practice, theoretically in the future – continues to be particularly important. This applies not only to the smaller communities, which I hope will gain considerably from a stronger nationwide network of ideological fields of practice. We have already made a start on this, for example, in the context of the celebration speaker system or the celebration culture. And there is another thing I think is important: in future, we must finally find ways to become more accessible to women and people with a migration background. I am convinced that the traditional image of the “white men’s club” is not particularly suitable for the future. There have already been initial improvements on some levels, but this is far from enough. The Emnid survey conducted in March finally made it clear that we can reach many people in practical and ideological terms if we address them in a positive way. And as I said a year ago on the occasion of the international humanist holiday, we need to develop a culture of invitation, welcome and personal encounters. Valuable developments can grow from this.
In some European countries, as well as on the African and Asian continents, there are currently young initiatives that want to contribute to improving their societies on the basis of humanist convictions and values. What role do these associations – many of which are only a few years old – play? from your point of view for us?
Well, I think that these wonderful developments will first of all help us as humanists to better orient ourselves in the real world and define our tasks. The fact that we exist today as a federal association and act as such stems from the insight of former leaders to reach out into the regions and also support small initiatives in other countries without anchored communities. I think this will continue now, but it should also redefine our tasks and priorities. After all, who could or would provide young associations with a larger framework, inspiration and concrete support if not us here in prosperous Central and Western Europe? I don’t see anyone other than ourselves – and it would be very sad if such initiatives had to be thrown back on themselves and only their own strength and creativity.
A real generational change is currently taking place at the Humanistische Akademie Deutschland as the new Director Ralf Schöppner begins his work. What impetus can we expect here in the near future?
I expect an opening into the broader intellectual and academic discourse and a connection to the slowly developing research on humanism. We also need a stronger link between the academy’s work and the ideological profiling in the association’s fields of practice. We now have a good starting point for this – also thanks to the achievements of the former director, Horst Groschopp. And with Ralf Schöppner, we will succeed in becoming radically contemporary in our academy work.
On the 20th anniversary of the federal association last year, it was repeatedly emphasized that young people are the future. What does this mean in concrete terms?
For us, the urgent question arises of new forms of communication and participation as well as an expanded role in this direction for JuHus as a nationally represented association of young people with humanist convictions. While the work with and for young people – where it exists – shows me that we have irreplaceable commitment here, we have a major problem in the transition between youth and working life. Over the next three years, we will be focusing on this so that young adults can also find an appropriate framework after starting university, for example. And we absolutely need the younger generation to do this. I also hope that the responsibility for the content of the federal association will be borne by a significantly younger executive committee. I am convinced that this will lead to an important and fruitful enrichment for our projects.
Mr. Wolf, thank you very much for the interview.
