Going on four years back, a couple of Californians decided the secular/atheist/agnostic/skeptic community needed a catchy name in the same way the homosexual community purloined the term "gay" as part of its evolution toward mainstream acceptance. They came up with "bright," as in "I'm a bright" and quickly won qualified endorsements from the likes of atheist/agnostic/skeptic luminaries Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins. A website was thrown together, and a brief flurry of media attention from the few journalists who pay attention to such things followed. But after that, a whole not of nothing. At times it would seem that the idea was as dead as John Cleese's parrot. But wait -- it could be just resting...
Daniel Dennett is having another kick at the can. In a column just posted on the WaPo/Newsweek On Faith site (the one that gives anti-intellectuals such as Cal Thomas bandwidth; the one that suffers from the absence of an "On Reason" companion), Dennett suspects that "the movement to encourage brights to identify themselves (in whatever terms they like) is on a roll."
There are many more atheists and agnostics in the country than is generally recognized. For instance, we atheists and agnostics are as numerous as Southern Baptists, and we are also the fastest growing category--faster even than the Mormons and the evangelicals.
Why, then, are we atheists in general so unnoticed, and why is this changing? Since atheists, in general, think there are much more important and interesting topics to discuss than whether or not God -- which God? -- exists, we seldom raise the issue.
But recent trends in America have suggested to many of us that this diplomatic reticence has been exploited by sectarian ideologues, evangelists, politicians, and others intent on maintaining the illusion that we are a negligible fringe community, so we are encouraging those who agree with us to come out of the closet .
He's not advocating "outing" anyone still in the closet. Such action would mean certain ostracism and/or bankruptcy from many red-state brights, after all. But he does want to rally the troops because "we can be a powerful force in American political life if we simply identify ourselves."
That's almost certainly true. The question remains, however, as to the wisdom of the choice of the word "bright" to propogate this particular meme.
In its favor is the experience of homosexuals, who encountered resistance at first, but eventually managed to redefine the word gay, an achievement that I agree was a key factor in pulling up acceptance levels to the point where complete legal and social equality is now inevitable.
Working against it is the major problem that, for those who hold to superstitious beliefs, "brights" comes off as rather arrogant, invoking as it does a level of superior intelligence. Dennett suggests countering this problem by appealing again to gay history. Why not "super" as the antonym of bright? It's shorthand for "superstitious" and, says Dennett, people are no more likely to object to being called a "super" than they are "straight."
My own take is that "super" stands even less of a chance of catching on as does "bright." I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea. But I also recognize that stranger cultural ideas have taken root. Besides, if silly names such as Google and Yahoo can enjoy staggering success in the marketplace, it would seem names are less important that what they're selling. So I'm not writing off "bright" just yet.
In the meme's early days, Richard Dawkins asked:
Will it spread, like gay, and basically, the backward baseball cap? Or will it nose-dive into the sand? I'm hoping it will take off. I'm even betting that it will, despite the hostility of those who misunderstand the humble noun as an arrogant adjective, and those who, notwithstanding the success of gay, resent all such coinings out of hand. But mostly, I am simply curious, as a disinterested scientist, to see what will happen.
It occurs to me that this is exactly the kind of thing that we SciBlogging types should be thinking about, and I'm hoping my colleagues here jump in with their opinions. Contrary to what Chris Mooney and some others have argued, it's less important at this point what non-brights think of the term than how the secular/atheist/agnostic/skeptic community feels about it. (Chris wrote in 2003 that "in order to introduce a concept like this, one needs to do polling, message testing, focus groups, the works," but I think that's too cynical. Gays did quite well without the benefit of pollsters and message testing. They just knew what they wanted.)
So let's have at it. What say you? Will 2007 be a Bright Year?
- Log in to post comments
Ugh. I so utterly detest the name "Bright" that I certainly hope that 2007 is not a "Bright" year. On the other hand, I certainly do hope that reason and skepticism make some headway in 2007 against the rampant credulity so ingrained in our culture.
Honestly, what's so bloody wrong with "skeptic" or "atheist"?
How about "Free"? That lacks the seeming arrogance of "Bright", and while it's shorter and perkier than "freethinker" (and it seems that short and perky was part of the aim of the label "Bright"), it still shows its origins. Plus it plays nicely off the term "saved", as in, "I used to be a prisoner of theocracy, but then I was Freed."
Orac sez:
And I couldn't agree more.
I agree with Orac and Kurt. Frankly, I don't really like the name "bright." I don't "utterly detest" it, but I still don't like the term. "Free", on the other hand, sounds so much better. I think I'll start using it around the house now.
Bright is an arrogant term. But, I am not sure whether there can be a less arrogant term because it all boils down to "you are wrong, delusional, etc. and we are not." Skeptic lacks conviction. Perhaps we should just make up a brand new word.
Why bright is a terrible idea, but inf (like gay, it is cute and modern sounding) works,
in: RU12?
I've also always despised "bright" -- it has no history, no style, no cultural heft, and it's a hammy attempt at doing a cosmetic makeover. I'm with Joshua: we've got a perfectly good word, "atheist", and we should just use it. If you want something more inclusive that encompasses agnostics and deists, too, use "freethinker". We didn't need "Brights", and I think part of what rankles is the way a few people decided to artificially insert this absolutely useless term into our vocabulary.
I should mention, though, that I am an old fart. My daughter ran across the term independently, and liked it very much -- it might have more weight with a younger generation.
'Brights' sounds like a family surname to me, and not very easily identifiable to someone who isn't very familiar with the term... as opposed to atheist, freethinker, skeptic, humanist, etc. I don't find the term arrogant, just imprecise.
Actually, I don't particularly like the term "freethinker" either, for many of the same reasons I don't like the term "bright." I don't detest the term the way I do the the term "Bright," but it always grates on me to hear someone describe himself as a " free thinker," because it implies that everyone else is not (and I've come across my share of atheists and agnostics who don't deserve the appellation). I do confess, though, that I'm at a loss to come up with a better term.
naturalist (in a metaphysical sense)
I think everything falls under the heading of naturalist.
I think "gay" is how gays referred to themselves at first and it spread to the straight lexicon as acceptance led them to use a neutral term to refer to their friends.
As for us, I kind of favor "scientist". It has the right "ist" ending already, and describes what we believe quite nicely.
Yeah, but to be a scientist you have to have some graduate degree, lots of work in an academic environment, and a presence on Scienceblogs. Lots of people don't have that and yet still don't believe in gods. Humanist is the best term, as it is a "human-centered existence" rather than a "fake deity-centered existence."
Oh, and where I come from, "gay" is a derogatory term; it doesn't have much positive connatations with it anymore. You see something break, and you say, "Dude, that's gay!" But that's high school, not the real world, so maybe it is positive in some way.
Well, while I don't hold an advanced degree, I do think of myself as a scientist (little 's'?) because that's the way I look at the world and life. Anyway, who says you have to hold yadda, yadda...? I'm not applying for a job.
And yes, the "that's gay" epithet is unfortunate. It seems to fall into that crack where Gyp and Jew and Indian giver fell and never got fished out.
Let's celebrate our commitment to rationality and call ourselves rats!
I thought of two suggestions, one on my pre-caffeinated bus commute to work this morning, and the other while writing this comment.
"redoubt", "redoubter".
Sure, it doesn't have the single-syllable-soundbite that "gay" possesses.
But it is good, strong word - able to withstand any assault from the superstitious!
Plus it encompasses the root of our concept: one of a free-thinking seeker of natural truths.
In addition, its etymology is from middle latin: "reductus", which has its own proud scientific paradigm.
Now how about "seeker"?
Wouldn't it be fun to steal away the word from its current usage and evolve it into our own? The right-wing has been doing this with many concepts during the days of pre-Iraqi politics.
Imagine, it would no longer refer to a wandering pilgrim searching for a megachurch firebrand revivalist, but for a humanist, natural philosopher: one who observes, learns, teaches and understands.
Seeker. Redoubter.
A whole heck of a lot better than Bright.
I really, utterly, loathe that word.
"Redoubter" may indeed be, er, redoubtable - but your other suggestion would likely fall victim to (among other unkind comments) an observation I first encountered while observing "new agers" in California:
There's a seeker born every minute.
A number of people have expressed concern about the noun âbrightâ but they still want to be included among us. You may be interested to know our thoughts.
ââââââ
From day one (April 19, 2003), the word Bright has referred to the Enlightenment, a time when reason and science offered a hope for humanity to move toward a better world. Never have the Brights claimed superior intelligence to supers ("supers" are Daniel Dennett's suggestion in "Breaking the Spell" and they are individuals who believe in supernatural forces). âBrightâ refers to a worldview, not to the intelligence of individuals who hold that worldview. In addition, most of the over 44,000 Brights in 181 nations like the word Bright (if not for self-identification, then for organizational purposes).
The word Bright continues to give us media and Internet exposure as few other words would do. One can Google ---Brights Net--- and we are first on their listing, with over 135,000 references to the website. . Change the name â lose the contacts.
Even so, we are not opposed to a change. After all, the Brightsâ Netâs concept is what is important, not the vocabulary â individuals with a naturalistic worldview working together for social and civic change. Regarding the charge of arrogance, read on for some other views from the Brights:
Ravi: âThe criticism that comes up again and again is on the meaning of 'bright' that means intelligent. I can see the force of the objection, but I doubt it is as bad as it is made out to be. Most religions allow their leaders to pass off with ludicrous titles like 'Honorable', 'Venerable', 'Worship', 'Holiness', 'Grace', âYour Eminenceâ, âMost Reverentâ, and other such nonsense. It seems that we are so used to this kind of prattle that we no longer even notice it. 'Brights' goes nowhere as far. So what is the problem?â
Paul (Brights Co-Director): âIf you think âBrightâ carries a lot of semantic baggage, please consider the cornucopia of secondary meanings given by society to the words atheist, agnostic, freethinker, and secular humanist. Such terms carry eons of baggage and multiple meanings that cannot be shed. In addition, worse, think of the negative meaning associated with what religionists use to refer to the community of reason: godless, irreligious, nonbelievers. The movement needed clean and neat new words that represent those who have a naturalistic worldview. I believe the word will become a part of the standard lexicon, in a manner similar to gay.â
Colin: "I have come all the way from "What a stupid idea" to my present thoughts that Bright is a very good idea â¦. So one can change in spite of my 75 years!!"
Ken: âI wanted to let you know that as I've spent time with that topic my interest has shifted to the main idea, the movement itself, and my appreciation for that has grown. I love the simplicity and clarity of the definition ("naturalistic worldview") and the structure (no bureaucracy or authoritarian rules). You've designed it to utilize perfectly its main means of propagation, the internet. I believe its simplicity and lightness will help it spread and become established.â
Michael Shermer (who writes the skeptics column in Scientific American) conducted a series of skeptic focus groups on the subject of the name âBrightâ (the Brights are Chapter 2 in his book Science Friction). Although the term admittedly did not fare well, no one has come up with a better word â yet. As Michael writes, âall things considered, the word is Bright.â Dawkins, Dennett and many others concur.
Stranger memes than the word bright have become commonplace expressions (zine, blog, prequel, grok, and even scrooge) and are now accepted.
One thing bright does not mean -- âwe are more intelligent than you.â From day one we have stated that Bright is designed to remind people of the Enlightenment - a time when reason and science were viewed as the means to a better world - and not with the intent of equating bright with intelligent. Daniel Dennett, in âBreaking the Spellâ presented the appropriate contrasting terms as brights and supers.
The antonym of bright is not dim. The contrast is brights and supers (Daniel Dennett's suggestion in "Breaking the Spell").
The Brights' Net is neither an atheist nor an anti-religious organization. It is a civil action group, working to create a level playing field for all worldviews, both naturalistic and religious.
Notice is hereby given that a human being in the real world created this noun, and as such, its imperfection is stipulated. Your suggestions on for a replacement are, as always, welcome.
The Brights' Net is quite willing to cooperate with religious groups on topics of common interest, such as the separation of church and state and keeping creationism out of public schools.
Bright Regards
Paul
==============
Paul Geisert, Associate Director for Constituency Services
Elevating the Naturalistic Worldview