Search results

This chapter deals with the question: What is Digital Humanism? It argues that Digital Humanism is a philosophy suited for the analysis of the digital age that has specific epistemological, ontological and axiological dimensions. It also introduces a specific version of Digital Humanism, namely Radical Digital Humanism. It argues that we need to advance the co-operation of all Humanisms in order to circumvent the rise of new fascisms in the digital age. The chapter also discusses and responds to objections to Digital Humanism.

The purpose of this chapter is to shed light on humanistic knowledge traditions and highlight their value in informing educational administration and leadership curricula designed for graduate students. We argue that, despite their distinctive features, humanist traditions such as the Confucian, Buddhist, Islamic and European share many core values and practices that should be incorporated into the educational administration and leadership curricula. However, these traditions tend to be overlooked or marginalised by curriculum designers. We argue that incorporating these traditions into educational administration and leadership curricula can contribute to greater internationalisation and achieve a greater diversity. The chapter starts with an exploration of the origins, nature and definitions of humanism. The following parts discuss Confucian, Buddhist, Islamic and European humanist traditions and examine how they can contribute to shaping educational administration and leadership curricula.

This chapter introduces the goals of the book Digital Humanism: A Philosophy for 21st Century Digital Society. It outlines the book’s chapter structure and discusses societal development as the context that requires Radical Digital Humanism today. The chapter argues that we need to ask the following questions: Why is Humanist philosophy important in the contemporary digital age? How can Humanism help us to critically understand how digital technologies shape society and humanity? What kind of Humanism do we need to make sense of digitalisation in society? The book Digital Humanism: A Philosophy for 21st Century Digital Society contributes to the renewal of Humanist philosophy in the digital age.

This chapter focuses on the question: What is Humanism? The chapter discusses definitions of Humanism. It synthesises such definitions in order to provide a philosophical understanding of Humanism. This understanding has epistemological, ontological and axiological dimensions. The chapter points out that Humanism is transcultural. Common objections to Humanism are discussed by engaging with the works of the historian Yuval Noah Harari. Based on the general understanding of Humanism, the approach of Radical Humanism is introduced. Radical Humanism is a particular form of Humanism. Its epistemological, ontological and axiological aspects are outlined. The chapter discusses four examples approaches of Radical Humanism (Karl Marx, Erich Fromm, Wang Ruoshui, David Harvey).

The purpose of this paper is to articulate an ontological anarchist approach for an engaged post-human politics and present insurrection training as a pragmatic tool for researchers to directly transform the world.

The paper analyses how post-humanism has been criticised for dissolving political agency. It shows that this is due to the way post-humanism has been framed as sensitising and including non-humans into liberal politics. Instead, the paper examines anarchist-influenced post-humanism and combines this with the notion of multiple ontologies and ontological interventions. The paper presents the notion of insurrection training as offering the possibility for researchers to become emotionally sensitised to ontological difference. A case study of the “Seeds of Hope East Timor Ploughshares action” (1996) is used to illustrate what insurrection training and ontological interventions look like in practice. Finally, the paper makes suggestions as to how post-human researchers can apply this approach in their everyday lives.

The paper suggests that beyond a liberal framing of post-humanism as inclusion, there is also an ontological anarchist post-humanism that can support transformative impacts in the world. This form of post-humanism offers specificity of intervention and reflexive training practices. Insurrection training can offer new possibilities for post-humanist researchers: experience ontological difference, de-trivialise the everyday, connect to social movements, make post-human politics “doable” and offer “direct” change.

The paper addresses discussions that claim post-humanism is disabling political change. Its contribution is to map an anarchist post-humanism and extend this with concepts of multiple ontologies. It proposes the notion of insurrection training which places attention on the role of the researcher as an active agent that needs to be sensitised to ontological difference to carry out interventions. A case study of direct action illustrates what ontological intervention and insurrection training look like in practice. The case study suggests that insurrection training is an everyday performative practice that integrates and negotiates the personal, material and political. Finally, the paper suggests how researchers can adopt such an approach in their everyday lives.

This chapter explores the potential for and value of imagining a humanist paradigm for tourism studies. It explores how the idea of a “paradigm” in tourism can be conceptualized, arguing that dominant thoughtlines in other fields regarding the meaning of a paradigm are not sufficient for making sense of this idea in the context of tourism studies. The chapter introduces humanism as a philosophical position in the academy and as a lived cultural practice, explores examples of extant work in tourism studies that might be seen to provide the seeds of a humanist paradigm, and offers reflections on the value of imagining such a paradigm for our field.

In recent years, scientific research on humanistic perspectives and their impact on management has grown exponentially. This study aims to explore the overview and its essential features of humanism management and its precursors (i.e., humanism). Bibliometric findings on the advent and current developmental patterns of humanistic management publications are described.

Terminology confusions (e.g. humanism philosophy vs humanistic management) are identified and addressed in bibliometric analyses using the 160 peer-reviewed articles on humanism in management for the duration between 2000 and 2020. Four metrics such as citation analysis, co-citations, bibliographic coupling and keywords co-occurrences are measured.

This study presents a new methodological approach by identifying the most significant authors, articles and journals and determining the three thematic clusters, such as empirical humanism research, humanistic in practice and humanism philosophy.

While humanistic business management is a discipline in its infancy, the attention of management researchers has expanded considerably in recent years as numerous literature streams emerge. The three keywords that appeared the most in the analysis are human (18), humanistic (17), and human dignity (16), and these keywords seem to consist mainly of three thematic clusters. Studies on humanistic management have progressed from an earlier focus on philosophy subjects (oldest keywords) to more practical studies on humanistic management, leadership, and dignity.

This essay asks: How can we understand and theorise the impacts of robots and Artificial Intelligence (AI) on everyday life based on Radical Humanism? How can Lefebvre's ideas be used to reveal the ideological character of contemporary accounts of the impacts of robots and AI on society? It engages with rather unknown works of the Radical Humanist Henri Lefebvre on the sociology and philosophy of technology such as Vers le cybernanthrope (Towards the Cybernanthrope). Foundations of a Lefebvrian, dialectical, Radical Humanist approach to the sociology and philosophy of technology are presented. This essay introduces Lefebvre's notion of the cybernanthrope and sets it in relation to robots and AI in contemporary society. Based on Lefebvre's critique of the cybernanthrope, this chapter develops foundations of the ideology critique of robots and AI in digital capitalism. It discusses examples of technological deterministic and social constructivist thought in the context of robotics, AI, and cyborgs and argues for an alternative, Lefebvrian, dialectical approach. This essay situates Humanism in the context of computing, AI and robotics. The chapter advances a Lefebvrian Radical Humanism by engaging in analyses of AI and robots in Post-humanism, Transhumanism, techno-deterministic approaches, social construction of technology approaches, techno-optimism, techno-pessimism, acceleratonism, the mass unemployment hypothesis and Spike Jonze's movie Her. This chapter shows that the major lesson we can learn from the Radical Humanist sociology of technology and Henri Lefebvre's works on technology is that Radical Humanism helps creating and sustaining technologies for the many, not the few. This insight remains of high relevance in the age of digital capitalism, smart robots and AI.