Sir Afilonius Rex and Lila de Alba

Oza-Cesuras and Madrid, Spain, 19th August 2026

Question of the moment: Why is the term European Humanist treated like a bad thing to be?

The term “European humanist” is fundamentally associated with the Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals of reason, science, secularism, and universal human rights. While these principles are often viewed positively, the term has faced intense criticism over the last century from various academic, historical, and philosophical perspectives.

Here is why the concept is frequently critiqued or viewed with suspicion in modern discourse:

1. The Postcolonial Critique: Hypocrisy and Imperialism

The most severe criticism of European humanism comes from postcolonial thinkers, such as Aimé Césaire and Frantz Fanon. They argued that the movement was deeply hypocritical.

• The “Civilising Mission”: While European philosophers were writing about universal human dignity and liberty, European nations were simultaneously expanding brutal colonial empires and engaging in the transatlantic slave trade.
• A Narrow Definition of “Human”: Critics argue that the “universal man” championed by European humanists was implicitly white, male, and European. Colonised peoples and indigenous populations were frequently categorised as “savage” or “lesser,” allowing empires to justify exploitation while still claiming humanist values.

2. The Postmodern Critique: Power and Exclusion

In the mid-20th century, postmodern and poststructuralist philosophers (like Michel Foucault) launched an intellectual movement known as “anti-humanism.”

• The Illusion of Universal Truth: They argued that humanism’s claim to have found the “objective” or “universal” truth about human nature was actually a tool of power.
• Marginalisation: By defining the ideal human as completely rational, European humanism inherently labeled those who did not fit the mold, such as the neurodivergent, the impoverished, or non-Western cultures, as irrational, justifying their marginalisation or institutionalisation.

3. Ecological and Posthumanist Critiques: Anthropocentrism

Modern environmentalists and “posthumanist” philosophers critique European humanism for being strictly anthropocentric (human-centered).

• Nature as a Resource: Humanism placed humanity at the absolute center of the universe, viewing human reason as the master of the natural world.
• Ecological Harm: Critics argue that this worldview treats animals and the environment merely as raw materials for human progress and consumption, which laid the philosophical groundwork for modern ecological crises and climate change.

4. Religious and Traditionalist Critiques

From a theological or conservative perspective, the evolution of European humanism into modern secular humanism is viewed as a negative societal shift.

• Moral Relativism: Religious critics argue that by removing divine authority and replacing it purely with human reason, humanism strips society of an absolute moral foundation, leading to moral relativism and spiritual emptiness.

Despite these critiques, many still proudly identify with the humanist tradition, pointing out that its core mechanisms, such as free speech, the scientific method, and human rights, are exactly what provided the tools to critique and dismantle imperialism and inequality in the first place.

Many thanks for reading. Our knowledge-base is continually expanding,