Digital Humanism – why humanists cannot stay out of it

For Matthias and Alex

Today, Matthias Herlich from the Salzburg branch of the Humanist Association of Austria sent me the latest issue of FIfF-Kommunikation, the journal of the Forum of Computer Scientists for Peace and Social Responsibility (FIfF) . The main theme of this issue is: Digital Humanism for a techno-eco-social transformation of global society . Among other things, it features an article by Julia Neidhardt: Digital Humanism: Foundations, Vienna Manifesto, and Activities .

While reading, a question arose for me: Why is digital humanism primarily discussed in computer science, technology ethics, and science – and so rarely in the organizations of the humanist movement?

Because the issues involved are profoundly humanistic questions.

• Who decides on the rules of digital spaces?
• How much power should platform companies be allowed to possess?
• How transparent do algorithms need to be?
• What role does artificial intelligence play in democratic societies?
• How do we protect privacy, freedom, and self-determination in a world increasingly shaped by digital systems?

Digital humanism attempts to answer these questions. It understands technology not as an end in itself, but as a tool meant to serve humanity. Technological progress alone is not considered sufficient. The crucial question is whether digital technologies promote human dignity, democratic participation, social justice, and ecological sustainability.

These ideas were summarized in the 2019 Vienna Manifesto for Digital Humanism . Underlying this is the conviction that shaping the digital future cannot be left solely to corporations, programmers, or technical experts. It is a societal responsibility. The manifesto gave rise to an international movement that connects research, education, political debate, and concrete regulatory proposals.

This is no longer a niche academic project. Since 2023, the Faculty of Informatics at the Vienna University of Technology has held a UNESCO Chair for Digital Humanism . The chair is held by Peter Knees , with Julia Neidhardt as co-chair . The professorship combines computer science, social sciences, philosophy, law, and human rights, and focuses on topics such as democratic participation, inclusion, AI ethics, and human rights-oriented technology design. Furthermore, Digital Humanism is now linked to the Vienna Doctoral College for Digital Humanism , the AI ​​center CAIML , and numerous international collaborations. This clearly demonstrates the development of a long-term research and societal program.

And this is precisely where it becomes interesting for humanists.

Humanism never originated as a philosophy of technology. Its starting point has always been humanity: its dignity, its reason, its freedom, and its responsibility towards others. When digital technologies increasingly determine how people communicate, learn, work, access information, and make political decisions, this directly touches the core of humanistic thought.

Perhaps this is even one of the great tasks of humanism in the 21st century.

While many debates within the humanist movement revolve around religion, freedom of belief, or ideological questions, new power structures are emerging elsewhere. Platforms are influencing political discourse. Algorithms determine visibility and attention. Artificial intelligence is transforming education, media, and the world of work. The question of how these developments should be shaped is no longer a purely technical one. It is a question of human rights and democratic culture.

The right to freedom of expression, the protection of privacy, equal access to information, the opportunity for social participation, and the democratic control of power are fundamental concerns of humanism. When these areas are increasingly shaped by digital technologies, a humanist movement cannot limit itself to discussing only religion, church politics, or historical enlightenment.

Humanism has always been particularly strong when it has confronted the challenges of its time. The humanists of the Renaissance focused on education and science. The humanists of the Enlightenment fought for reason, freedom, and human rights. Today, major challenges include digital self-determination, transparency of algorithms, data protection, democratic control of AI systems, and limiting monopolistic power in the digital sphere.

This is not about being anti-technology. On the contrary. Digital humanism sees itself as technophobic, but not techno-obsessed. It asks not only what is technically possible, but also what is socially beneficial, democratically legitimate, and compatible with human rights and needs.

That is precisely why I see digital humanism not as a fringe topic for specialists, but as a necessary further development of humanistic thought. The question of how we deal with digitalization and artificial intelligence will be a key factor in determining the kind of society we will live in in the future.

Therefore, humanists should not stay out of this debate. They should help shape it. Because if humanism means putting people at the center, then that must also apply to the digital world.

Digital humanism is therefore far more than a buzzword. In recent years, it has developed into an international research and societal project supported by universities, civil society organizations, and political institutions.

But what exactly does this movement understand by Digital Humanism? What specific goals does it pursue? And what answers does it offer to the challenges of artificial intelligence, platform power, and digital transformation?

A good starting point is the article „Digital Humanism: Foundations, Vienna Manifesto and Activities“ by Julia Neidhardt , which appeared in the current issue of FIfF-Kommunikation . In it, the author traces the origins of the Vienna Manifesto, explains the central tenets of Digital Humanism, and describes how an international initiative emerged from it.

Anyone who wants to understand why Digital Humanism has gained importance today far beyond Vienna and computer science will find a well-founded introduction in this article.

---

People at the heart of digitalization

In her article „Digital Humanism: Foundations, Vienna Manifesto and Activities,“ Julia Neidhardt first describes a development that many of us experience daily without consciously noticing it: Digitization is no longer a specialized technical issue. It permeates almost all areas of our lives. Communication, education, work, political participation, media consumption, and even interpersonal relationships are now influenced or mediated by digital technologies.

According to the author, this also changes the question of what we actually need to talk about. It’s no longer just about which technologies are possible. It’s about which technologies we want.

Digital humanism therefore begins with a simple but far-reaching consideration: technology is not an end in itself. It should serve humanity, and not the other way around.

This may sound obvious at first. In fact, however, this perspective stands in stark contrast to some developments of recent years. Too often, digitalization has been portrayed as a natural process to which societies simply had to adapt. Platforms were built, algorithms introduced, and AI systems developed, while the societal consequences were frequently only discussed after the fact.

Digital humanism reverses this perspective. It does not primarily ask what is technically feasible, but rather what impact technological decisions have on people, society, and democracy.

What is particularly interesting is that the approach is explicitly interdisciplinary. Shaping the digital future should not be left solely to computer scientists, businesses, or political decision-makers. Rather, social sciences, philosophy, law, education, and civil society should be equally involved. Digitalization is understood as a societal project, not a purely technical matter.

From this perspective, many current debates appear in a different light. Questions about data protection, platform regulation, artificial intelligence, or digital sovereignty are no longer specialized topics for experts. They become questions of democratic self-determination.

This becomes particularly clear when looking at the power of large platforms and technology companies.

• Who controls the digital spaces where public debates take place?
• Who decides which information becomes visible and which does not?
• Who is responsible for automated decisions?
• How can democratic societies ensure that technological innovations serve the common good?

The Vienna Manifesto for Digital Humanism , to which Neidhardt refers, therefore calls for transparency, accountability, democratic control, and the protection of fundamental rights in the digital sphere as well. Digital transformation should not be shaped solely by economic interests, but should remain oriented towards people’s needs.

It is noteworthy that Digital Humanism does not argue against technology. On the contrary, digitalization and artificial intelligence are explicitly seen as opportunities. At the same time, however, it is insisted that technological progress alone does not guarantee societal progress.

This distinction is important. A society does not automatically become more just, freer, or more democratic simply because its technologies become more efficient. Progress is more than innovation. Ultimately, it must be measured by whether it improves people’s lives and strengthens their freedom, dignity, and self-determination.

It is precisely at this point that Digital Humanism touches upon central concerns of humanism itself. The question of human dignity, freedom, responsibility, and the capacity to rationally shape the world runs like a red thread through the humanist tradition. Digital Humanism applies these questions to the 21st century.

Perhaps that is precisely where its true meaning lies: It reminds us that even in the age of algorithms, platforms and artificial intelligence, the focus should not be on technology, but on humanity.

---

A task for the humanist movement

At this point, however, another question arises: If the concerns of Digital Humanism are so closely linked to the fundamental values ​​of humanism, why has the topic played only a comparatively minor role within the organized humanist movement so far?

Humanist organizations advocate for human rights, religious freedom, education, science, democracy, and social participation. All of these issues are increasingly shaped by digital technologies. Nevertheless, debates about artificial intelligence, platform power, digital surveillance, and algorithmic decision-making often take place outside of humanist contexts.

These developments touch upon fundamental humanistic questions.

How can human autonomy be preserved when decisions are increasingly automated? How do we protect individual freedom in a world of constant data collection? How do we safeguard democratic processes against manipulation by digital platforms? And how do we prevent technological power from becoming concentrated in the hands of a few corporations or states?

These questions don’t just concern computer scientists, politicians, or lawyers. They concern all people who are interested in an open, democratic, and human rights-oriented society.

This is precisely why digital humanism could become an important future topic for humanists. Not as a replacement for classic issues such as freedom of religion or the separation of church and state, but as a necessary expansion of humanist thought in an increasingly digitalized world.

The humanists of the Enlightenment had to grapple with the power claims of the Church and the monarchy. Humanists of the 21st century will additionally have to contend with the power structures of digital platforms, global technology corporations, and machine learning.

People remain the focus. Only the challenges have changed.

---

Excursus: Vienna as a center of Digital Humanism

Anyone who delves deeper into Digital Humanism will quickly come across a remarkable fact: Vienna has developed into one of the most important international centers of this movement in recent years.

The starting point was the Vienna Manifesto for Digital Humanism , published in 2019 by scholars from various disciplines. Its aim was to align digital transformation more closely with human rights, democracy, social responsibility, and sustainability. This manifesto led to the development of the international Digital Humanism Initiative (DIGHUM) , which today connects researchers, policymakers, and civil society actors from many countries. ( University of Vienna))

The Faculty of Informatics at the Vienna University of Technology plays a central role in this. The UNESCO Chair on Digital Humanism was established there in 2023. The chair is held by Peter Knees, with Julia Neidhardt as co-chair. The professorship focuses on the human rights-oriented design of digital technologies, issues of democracy, participation, inclusion and diversity, as well as the ethical development of artificial intelligence. It also serves as an international networking center, connecting research, teaching and political debates. ( University of Applied Sciences BFI Vienna))

Closely associated with the UNESCO Chair is the Center for Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning (CAIML) at TU Wien. This center consolidates the university’s AI research and explicitly considers digital humanism one of its key areas of focus. Its aim is to combine technical excellence with social responsibility and to develop AI systems that support rather than manipulate people. ( FH des BFI Wien))

Since the winter semester of 2024, the Vienna Doctoral College on Digital Humanism has also existed , a joint doctoral program of TU Wien, the University of Vienna, and the Vienna University of Economics and Business. Funded by the City of Vienna and the Vienna Science, Research and Technology Fund, the program investigates topics such as democracy in the digital age, disinformation, data protection, the transparency of AI systems, digital ecosystems, and human autonomy. Its consistently interdisciplinary approach is noteworthy: computer science collaborates with social sciences, law, philosophy, and economics. ( TU Wien))

The University of Vienna is not only a partner of the doctoral college. Several research projects in journalism, computer science, philosophy, political science, and linguistics are now underway there through the WWTF’s Digital Humanism focus area . The approach explicitly aims to examine digital technologies from a societal perspective and to bring together the humanities, social sciences, and engineering. ( University of Vienna))

Another important component is the AK-endowed professorship for Digital Humanism at the University of Applied Sciences of the BFI Vienna . Since the winter semester of 2024/25, this professorship, funded by the Vienna Chamber of Labor, has been held by Alexander Schmölz . The professorship addresses the question of how technological development can be linked to humanistic values, social responsibility, inclusion, education, and democratic participation. The explicit aim is to integrate technical and humanistic perspectives in research and teaching.

The focus is not solely on how technologies should function or be regulated, but rather on how people can be empowered to participate critically, autonomously, and responsibly in shaping the digital transformation. Digital humanism is understood here not only as technological ethics, but also as an educational, democratic, and societal project. Topics such as autonomy, participation, co-creativity, trust, critical thinking, and the social consequences of digital technologies play a central role. In this way, the professorship directly connects to classic humanistic concerns such as education, enlightenment, self-determination, and democratic responsibility. ( University of Applied Sciences BFI Vienna))

A distinct field of research is now developing around the professorship. This includes, among other things, the work of Pia-Zoe Hahne on the philosophy of technology, AI ethics, the digitalization of work, and trust in AI systems. Here, digital humanism is examined particularly strongly from social, cultural, and educational perspectives. ( University of Applied Sciences BFI Vienna))

In addition, there are international lecture series, summer schools, public events, open-access books, research collaborations with universities worldwide, and partnerships with institutions such as the Institute for Human Sciences (IWM) , the Web Science Trust , and the Digital Enlightenment Forum . Many of these activities are supported by the Digital Humanism Association , which serves as an organizational platform connecting research, education, policy advice, and public debate. ( University of Applied Sciences BFI Vienna))

Another initiative in the field of Digital Humanism is the Humanist Academy of Austria (HAÖ) .Founded by Alexander Schmölz and Andreas Gradert , the Humanist Academy of Austria sees itself as a platform for education, research, societal debate, and dialogue between humanism, science, and digitalization. While many institutions of digital humanism focus on computer science, AI, or regulation, the Academy pursues a broader humanistic approach. Its central themes are human rights, democratic participation, education, ethics, sustainability, and the societal consequences of technological developments. In doing so, the Humanist Academy of Austria connects to a tradition that understands digital humanism not merely as a technological or scientific challenge, but as part of a comprehensive discussion about how people can live together in a digital society in a self-determined and responsible way.

Looking at this development as a whole, it becomes clear that digital humanism is no longer a fringe topic in Vienna. An entire ecosystem of research, teaching, policy advice, and public dialogue has emerged.

While the public often associates the term „digital humanism“ primarily with artificial intelligence, the Viennese approach presents a significantly broader picture. The movement now unites at least four closely interrelated strands: computer science and AI, human rights and regulation, social and democratic issues, and education, civic engagement, and participation.

It is precisely this last area that makes digital humanism particularly relevant to the humanist movement. Here, the primary focus is not on algorithms or software, but on a classic humanist question: How can people be empowered to shape their lives and their society in a self-determined, rational, and responsible way – under the conditions of an increasingly digital world?

Anyone in German-speaking countries who deals with Digital Humanism today can hardly ignore Vienna .