Are you a Bright?
Rationally Speaking - September 2003
Massimo Pigliucci

It is time for me to come out of the closet... I am a bright. No, I didn't say "I am bright," that would be too blatant even for my notoriuously inflated ego. Rather, I am following the suggestion of Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert to use "bright" as a noun, not an adjective. Let me explain.

Futrell and Geisert are long-time activists for what most people refer to as secular humanism, freethought, or atheism. They put a lot of effort in defense of the rights of what often are referred to as the "godless," or the "unbelievers." The problem is, look at that list of words I just laid out for you. Most of them have a negative connotation, or sound so threatening that they inspire a knee-jerk reaction from most people, including your neighbors.

"Ubeliever"? But we do believe in a lot of things, except they do not include a benevolent deity looking over our shoulders (and, it seems, particularly interested in what we do in our bedrooms). "Godless"? Would you refer to somebody who doesn't believe in unicorns as "unicornless"? "Atheist"? That, in the classical and most benevolent meaning of the term, means a-theist, without a belief in a deity. But, again, how many people feel compelled (not to mention proud) of labeling themselves as "a-unicornists"?

You get the point. Futrell and Geisert wanted a word to label their beliefs that has a positive feeling, something that could make you proud to say "I am ..." in other people's company, and -- even better -- that would make your company ask: "what's that?" I have to admit that when I came across the bright movement (www.the-brights.net) I was a bit skeptical, and just a tiny bit annoying at the possibility that the word bright would be used to imply that we are smarter than other people. Yet, reading some of the essays posted on the brights' web site quickly changed my mind. After all, not all "gay" people are gay in the sense of being happy, easy-going fellows, right?

Indeed, part of the inspiration for the name "bright" did come from the consciously positive use of the term gay by homosexuals. The idea is that brights are in fact a bashed minority in this country and around the world, and the last such minority -- at least in Western democracies -- that is ok to bash! President Bush the First is on record as saying that he didn't think brights (he didn't use that term, obviously) are real American citizens, and perhaps should not be afforded the rights that go with that privilege. Bush the Second hasn't been more friendly on that respect. Yet, not even the Bushes dear attack gays or African-Americans, or women (the latter, of course, are not exactly a minority...), at least not in public.

As Richard Dawkins put it in an article on the brights movement published in The Guardian (and I don't often agree with Dawkins, so read this!), it is a matter of raising awareness of the problem. Gays did it effectively during the past decades, so did feminists. Most people are careful these days when using words that imply male chauvinism: we now tend to talk of chairperson, no chairman; we use "she" almost as frequently as "he" when referring to a hypothetical individual. This may awkward, or even aesthetically unpleasant, but it means that the problem of sex discrimination has raised to the level of general consciousness, as it should be.

Similarly with brights. A bright is defined simply as a person with a naturalistic worldview. That means a worldview that is free of supernatural and mystical elements, and this worldview extends to ethics and morality. Simple enough, no? Many more people than you think are in fact brights, even though several may not realize it, or may not wish to "come out" (as for gays and feminists). Brights don't have a common political agenda except when it comes to the defense of themselves as a bashed minority. The same goes for gays and feminists, whose range of opinions on any other subject is as wide as the population at large. What brights want is to be as respected by the community, politicians, and authorities as much as anyone who freely lables herself as a Jew, a gay, a feminist, a Baptist, or a Catholic. Nothing more, but -- crucially -- nothing less.

According to a 2002 survey of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, about 27 million Americans are brights. That's a staggering number, and they vote! In other Western countries our numbers are significantly higher, and I suspect there are many of us even in officially "Muslim" countries around the world. What on earth makes it right to deride our beliefs and ethical convictions? Why would anybody feel threatened by meeting or talking to a bright? There is no reason, and it's time to tell the world about it. If you are a bright, go ahead, use the name and talk to people about it. Not in order to "convert" them, but to stimulate their awareness. If you are not a bright, be decent to us, in the same way in which -- one hopes -- you are decent to gays and African Americans even if you are not black and you have a heterosexual orientation. It simply is the decent thing to do.

I'd thought about this a lot. I had a post a while back talking about naming atheists similar to the unicorn example. We are referenced by our lack of belief in a deity, which is stupid. Every name that came to my head to call an atheist wasn't sufficient. Bright seems to be okay.

How mainstream was the source for this article? Would it be something that would sputter out and die due to how entrenched our references regarding belief are? If this is something that could catch on and go somewhere, I'd like to promote it. Good find Chris.

Regardless of the information Chris gave about the origin of the term "bright," it has an unmistakable self-congratulatory ring to it. Is that desirable, appearing to lord one's enlightenment over others?

I'm not sure anyone is lording anything here. They're looking for a word with positive connotations. But your reaction is interesting.

That said, I'm not sure I like "bright" either. It seems too contrived, not very descriptive, and ultimately the word doesn't seem to apply to a person with a naturalistic worldview. Neither does "atheist," by the way, which describes only the absence of belief, certainly not the most important aspect of this worldview.

So, yes, it's a dilemma. A similar one exists in the skeptic community because the word "skeptic" also has negative connotations.

I'm personally not at all fond of the term "Bright," as it seems to imply that anyone that doesn't adhere to a naturalistic worldview isn't very bright. While this is true...atheists have to learn to bite their tongues.

I think "Bright" is geneologically appropriate: as children of the Enlightenment...that great movement in human history that brought us freedom of thought, speech, and alliance...the maturation of intellect from submission to ecclesiastic control...the courageous rejection of royal decree...and the hopefilled assertion of the inalienable individual rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't think the term "Bright" carries the right sort of aesthetic punch: it lacks gravitas and resolve that recognizes the long and difficult history of its development...a lack of imagination worthy of the sacrifices made by freethinkers and enlightened citizens have struggled to bring these freedoms into existence.

I do not understand the need for a label. I doubt very much that all these 'brights' have the same beliefs, nor do they want to. So perhaps they should call themselves, somewhat brights, very brights, wanna-be brights. Do they have a book? Rights for Brights?

The problem realiz, is that the label of atheist denotes a lack. I lack a vagina, but I'm not an awomen. To truly move forward into the post Christian Era, we need to do away with terms with negative implications such as that, created by theists. Humanist, perhaps?

The label isn't needed by atheists, it's needed by theists who label heretics thus. I certainly don't want a label, especially one that implies that I'm not part of the in-group. If theists need a label to reference us, I'll be damned if I accept the negative term they come up with.... well, I will for now. 8P

So why do you need a label? I don't believe in a lot of things, but that doesn't mean I need a label.

Sorry, posted before finishing. Read above.

The problem with Humanist is that it traditionally implied (i.e. in the renaissance) a different method of approaching God.

Secular Humanist is a sort of movement, but even that is both a mouthful and implies a separate movement that not everyone follows. Similarly freethinker has a good sound to it, but rather implies that other groups are incapable of freethought, which we can see historically is rather untrue.

It's rather hard to define a group of individuals governed by lack of belief, especially when you consider that every other group is named based on a shared characteristic, which in most cases is the belief in a particular religion.

That is the point...there is no 'group' and these individuals are not 'governed' by a lack of belief, so they do not need a label.

I believe in, and try to practice consistently, calling people by the labels they use to define themselves and prefer for me to use. If anyone here would like to be called a Bright rather than an Atheist, I will be perfectly glad to call him or her or hir, a Bright.

I think it's valuable to use positive terms to speak about myself and others as much as possible and I don't think there's anything wrong with "Bright" having positive connotations. If you wanted to call other people "Dulls," that would be different and I wouldn't do it.

It sounds like some people here who fit the category don't fully feel comfortable with the specific word. If you think of one you like better, just let me know and I will call you that.

I do take exception to one point Chris made, though.



The Bushes attack these groups all the time by advocating discriminatory policies that take away their equal access to power and policies that seek to bring their level of access up to that of other groups. They openly characterize gays as people committing a "sin," making an implicitly wrong choice that puts them in a separate power category from African Americans or women, for example, because it's not "the fault" of the latter two groups that they ("unfortunately") differ from white males. The last Presidential election results were analyzed to reflect a widespread explanation that Bush won based on a "moral" platform that discriminated against gays and women, being against gay marriage and other legal rights and anti-choice, anti-birth control, anti-feminist.

"Minority" in the context of cultural competency, refers to minority power, meaning that the majority identify with and uphold the myth of inherent superiority and individual greater merit in the group that thus has the majority power. So women are a minority power group even though there are more of them. We even learn to internalize this so that when a book says, "The reader does x...he," we consider it means us. We identify with a perspective that isn't ours even when it oppresses us because of so many little details that remain transparent in the mainstream mode of representation.

In conclusion, there is still rampant and demonstrable: 1) institutionalized, 2) person-to-person and 3) internalized oppression for each of the groups you named. To say Atheists are the only ones who still experience open oppression, reflects a significant blind spot in your perspective.

Bright does not capture the need for faith. Naturalism is too naked. My own view is that what Dawkins and co are grappling with is a way to describe how knowledge is replacing belief as a basis for human identity. Interestingly, and in a way hard to accept for those who reject all faith, this shift from belief to knowledge aligns with the cycle of cosmic time from the Age of Pisces to the Age of Aquarius. 'Aquarian' was the Roman term for the engineers who built the aqueducts - the water bearers. Wetting the world is a modern Aquarian project.

I say bring back the word, "heathen."

"a person who does not belong to a widely held religion."