the brights (NY times op-ed)

[Arnold Zwicky]

dale coye asks, about the "brights" discussed by dan dennett in
his nyt piece today:
 >are they a renaming of the old secular humanists?

has the history of the phrase "secular humanism" been charted?  who
first used the expression, in what context, and how has its use
changed over the years?

i'm familiar with its "outsider" use by christian fundamentalists who
want to convey that non-believers actually suscribe to a *religion*,
with its own set of beliefs, alternative to theirs.  i believe that,
at least partly in reaction to this naming practice (in a sort of
name-reclaiming action), a society for secular humanism was organized.
but i suspect that there's quite a complicated history.

the label "secular humanist" is an awkward one, with its six syllables
(one syllable more than "godless communist", even) and its association
with renaissance humanism (though modern non-believers have no special
connection to greek and roman learning).

as far as i know, no one has tried to reclaim the label "godless",
though there have been supporters of "atheist" and "agnostic" as
self-descriptions.  all of these, and "non-believer" too, suffer from
the problem that people tend to interpret them as encoding a reactive
or oppositional stance, which is presumably why dennett went for
"bright"; whatever its problems - the connotations of shininess or of
the sort of intelligence that would get you into mensa - it certainly
isn't oppositional.

the labeling issue is relevant for me.  it comes up every time i
engage myself or my partner jacques with some sort of medical
institution (most recently, the hospice facility that cared for him
and offered to care for me and our children), and surprisingly often
with social or cultural organizations.  gay dating services, even.

the medical folks are a particular problem because they want to be
able to provide you with (free) counseling, comfort, solace, etc. via
the representatives of various organized religions.  the people who
process the forms want to find a slot for everybody, and they're often
disinclined to accept "none" or "non-believer", which they view as
unresponsive; everybody believes in *something*, after all (they
think, and sometimes say).  (you must never admit that you've ever had
any connection with some sort of church, or you'll get a visit from a
local representative.  "never let them know he was baptised in a roman
catholic church!", jacques's wildly anti-clerical mother - her mother
made her do it - instructed me some time ago, adding that i might also
conceal the fact that he'd gone to haverford, just in case that
information would cause someone from the society of friends to turn up
at his bedside.)

at least once, the person processing a form for jacques wanted to
change my "non-believer" to "secular humanist".  i was adamant in
my resistance.  actually, i laughed out loud, and offended the
staffer.

(a friend once suggested, only half in jest, that if we wanted a
concerned stranger to talk to, we should say we're jewish; at least
the rabbi would probably have the same take on the afterlife as we
did.  our friend drew an analogy to ordering kosher meals on
airplanes.)

arnold (zwicky at csli.stanford.edu), who also sternly resisted
  (non-sectarian, or so they claimed) grief counseling,
  preferring instead to depend on the kindness of friends