10 Tenets of Liberal Humanism

Definition:
The word 'Liberal' defines something it is not, that is not 'radically political' and thus evasive
on political commitment, on how it is aligned. Humanism in this context also means something similar,
that is something not-Marxist, not feminist or not-Theoretical. So, Liberal humanism_
theory before theory, can be defined as:
A philosophical and literary movement in which man and his capabilities are the central
concern. It can also be defined as a system of historically changing views that recognizes the
value of the human being as an individual and his right to liberty and happiness. Liberal
humanism has its roots at the beginning of English studies in the early 1800's and became
fully articulated between 1930 and 1950. It was attacked by theories such as Marxism and
Feminism beginning in the 1960's. Let’s have an eye on ten tenets of liberal humanism.
1. Good literature is of timeless significance; it somehow transcends the limitations and
peculiarities of the age it was written in, and thereby speaks to what is constant in human
nature. As Ben Jonson said of Shakespeare: ‘Not for an age but for all time’.
Ezra Pounds’ definition of literature: “It is news which stays news”
2. The literary text contains its own meaning within itself. No need to place it within a
context of
a) Socio-political_ the context of a particular social ‘background’ or political
situation
b) Literary-historical_ as shaped by the conventions of particular genres
c) Autobiographical_ that is, as determined by the personal details of the author’s
life and thought.
3. To understand the text well, it must be detached from the context and studied in isolation.
Moreover, there must be the close verbal analysis of the text without prior ideological
assumptions, political preconditions, and specific expectations. As Matthew Arnold said
that the true business of criticism is, “to see the object as in itself it really is.”
4. Human nature is essentially unchanging. So, the same passions, emotions, and even
situations are seen again and again throughout human history. It follows that continuity in
literature is more important and significant than innovation. Thus, a well-known
eighteenth century definition of poetry maintains that “what oft was thought but ne’er so
well expressed. Likewise, Samuel Johnson famously denigrated Sterne’s novel Tristram
Shandy on the grounds of it novelty, that is, its originality.
5. Individuality is something securely transcends our environmental influences. The
discipline as a whole is believed what is now called “Transcendent Subject”, which is the
belief that the individual is antecedent to, or transcends, the forces of society, experience
and language.
6. Literature should necessarily leads to the enhancement of life and propagation of humane
values. Moreover, it must not be intended to the propaganda, which does happen if
literature becomes overtly and directly political. As Keats says:
 “We distrust literature which has a palpable design upon us.”
7. Form and content in literature must be fused in an organic way i.e. ‘fanciful’ and
imaginative’. As Coleridge says in Biographia Literaria:
“Imagery, or any other poetic form which is detachable from the substance of the work,
rather than being integrated with it, is merely ‘fanciful’ and not truly ‘imaginative’.
8. Organic form of language in literature applies above all to ‘Sincerity’. And Sincerity
includes truth to experience, honesty towards the self, and the capacity for human
empathy and compassion. Moreover, when language achieves these qualities, then a truly
sincere poet can transcend the sense of distance between language and material.
9. What is important in literature is the ‘silent’ showing and demonstrating something,
rather than the explaining, or saying, of it. Hence, ideas as such are worthless in
literature until given the concrete embodiment of ‘enactment’. According to this idea,
words should mime, or demonstrate, or act out, or sound out what they signify, rather
than just representing it in an abstract way. This idea is stated with special fervency in the
work of F.R. Leavis.
10. The job of criticism is to interpret the text, to mediate between it and the reader. A
theoretical account of the nature of reading, or of literature in general, is not useful in
criticism, and will simply, if attempted, encumber critics with ‘preconceived ideas’ which
will get between them and the text.