From the Sentiment of Humanity to the Concept of Humanity

In 18th-century Western Europe the phrase "sentiment of humanity" was quite common. A classical locus was in the works of David Hume. Although he used the phrase in various ways, it seems most frequently to be employed in connection with the notion of "sympathy." The notion of the sentiment of humanity connected to that of sympathy and the latter, in turn, to benevolence provides the nexus of meaning for the phrase. In this nexus we find Hume's components of morality.

Thus it was perceived by Hume's contemporaries. Writing to him in 1761, the Frenchwoman Hippolyte de Saujon congratulated Hume on his History of England and added that his work "fills the heart with sentiments of humanity and benevolence."¹ Later scholars, analyzing Hume's work, see his idea of humanity as "fundamentally dependent on sympathy."² Sympathy was one of the most prevalent words in the 18th and early 19th centuries.

Adam Smith, an admirer of Hume, wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments, emphasizing that there was in each of us an "impartial spectator" who constantly asked, "What will my actions look like to others?" Smith also discussed the sentiment of humanity, which he equated with benevolence. Needless to say, Smith is better known for The Wealth of Nations, in which he puts benevolence aside (though it is assumed to be necessary for the system to function) and analyzes the workings of self-interest, in the process establishing the classical foundations for the "science" of economics.

What is clear—and an entire book could be written on the subject—is that the "sentiment of humanity" was an ontological statement about human nature. Was the notion of a "sentiment of humanity" unique to Western culture in the 18th century?

I have consulted experts in Chinese, Indian, and Islamic studies on exactly this point. One broad-ranging scholar of China responded that "sentiment of humanity" could be rendered into renqing, something like "human emotions." He noted that the concept of humanity, renlei which translates literally into something like "humankind," is a modern one. Anthropology, for instance, is translated as renlei xue, study of renlei. This scholar was not aware of any premodern term that would be the equivalent of humanity as a concept, "which did not exist."³

In the case of India, it appears that there are "various iterations of both the sentiment and concept of humanity in Indian society and history. The most common synonym for humanity used in modern times is manushtayta, even though there are other terms, such as Tagore's bhuma, evoking a sense of universal humanity."⁴ I confess that my own sense of the use of humanity in India involves a kind of mystical mingling with the cosmos and others, with little to do with the concept of humanity as I am trying to develop it.

A print of David Hume. From David Hume, The History of England: From the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Revolution in 1688 (New York, 1889).

With regard to Islam, an eminent scholar informed me that the Koran uses different words to describe human beings: (1) Adam, a genealogical term; (2) Bashar, a physiological term; and (3) Insan, an Aristotelian term, as opposed to animals. He did not think that Islam recognizes the concept of Humanity as we know it today. Islam uses the term umma, not Humanity.⁵ And I must add that umma is restricted to the community of the faithful.

Are the roots of such a sentiment, if not a concept, of humanity to be found in the West in its classical period? There we appear to encounter a fateful union of Stoicism and early Christianity. As one scholar puts it, "both Stoicism and Christianity occupied some ground in common, and both adumbrated an all-inclusive order for a world citizenry. Each from its own premises sought to include all the peoples of the earth in a single community, a single humanity."⁶ In general, however, in antiquity humanitas was mostly a personal and individual quality. This supports my assertion that it is...