Callum G. Brown, David Nash, and Charlie Lynch's The Humanist Movement in Modern Britain: A History of Ethicists, Rationalists and Humanists charts the organizational and ideological history of the humanist movement in Britain. The work is technically a retrospective history of the organization Humanists UK, formerly the British Humanist Association. But it is also a history of how British society has been transformed over the twentieth century from a dominant Christian society to one that is increasingly nonreligious and indeed humanist.

Despite the relatively small membership numbers for much of the twentieth century—hovering around a peak of 5,000–6,000 until the twenty-first century, when the membership ballooned to around 100,000—the authors argue that the movement has punched above its weight. Humanist values that were considered radical in the past “now in the 2020s have become in many regards the ethical values of British society” (xi). As the authors note, the study of atheism and humanism is an emerging field, particularly in the past decade or so. But in Britain, most of the literature focuses on the nineteenth century. What was missing, then, and what the book contributes, is a unified history of the humanist movement since the end of the nineteenth century. Their work differs from others which are written by major figures within the movement itself, or ones which chart only the philosophical history of ideas behind humanism.

The book traces the gradual transition from the ethical movement in the late nineteenth century to humanism by the middle of the twentieth century. But the distinction is not as stark or as simple as it would appear. The authors do a good job of bringing out the complexities, and even note how people in the mid-century grappled with what precisely “humanism” meant. They also track the head-spinning name changes of various associations and societies. There were many tributaries flowing into the river of humanism, as they show.

In the waxing and waning of humanism over the course of the century, political winds seemed to matter—from the boom years and the “liberal hour” of the 60s, to the plummeting membership and conservatism of the 80s. So did the quality of the leadership and, something that can be forgotten, the humdrum tasks of administration and even simple record-keeping. Another change the authors note is the medium itself: from the platform lecturing of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, to periodicals and later radio and television in the twentieth century, and then to the internet in the twenty-first century.

The story is marked by perennial debates among humanist and other nonreligious groups about their exact purpose. Should they be trying to convince people to stop being religious, or should they be campaigning on various political and social issues? One writer in 1976 wondered, about recent campaigning on homosexuality, “Sir, Has the BHA [British Humanist Association] gone sex mad? … The BHA seems to be losing sight of its main purpose which should be to fight religious influence and belief” (173, ellipses in original). This kind of question could have really been written in any year, since there has been no definitive resolution to the question, even though the authors do note that religion-bashing is much less a part of humanism today.

The extent to which humanists should cooperate with religious people was another ever-present issue. Of course, the explicit church–state separation activism was more naturally done by the National Secular Society, which the authors discuss from time to time, but not in detail. But it is clear that humanism is far, far more than simple criticism of religion. Campaigning on social and political issues—from racial and gender equality, to educational reform, to nuclear disarmament—were central to humanism and show its depth.

The book uses archival, newspaper, and web sources to chart the history, but is particularly engaging when talking about the personal experience of the individuals involved in the movement, drawing upon two dozen oral history interviews conducted with humanist leadership. The book is also interspersed with biographical side panels of important figures in the movement.

One question I was left with is whether the movement was riding on the wave of social changes already happening, or was it, in part, causing the wave? Another question is the future of the movement: at several points in the history, for example in the 1960s, the movement was somewhat a victim of its own success. After achieving many victories, some wondered if the movement had fulfilled its purpose and thus became complacent. Likewise, today, with humanism seemingly triumphant, will fewer and fewer people see a need for an organization advocating humanist values? As the authors note, citing the current Humanists UK leader, Andrew Copson, trying to close the gap between people who profess to hold humanist values (about a third of the UK population) and people who identify explicitly as humanist (about 7%) is the challenge ahead (246).

This book will appeal to scholars of (non)religion most obviously. But why should a historian of Britain in general care? I think it is because the book describes a phenomenon that has seemingly happened right under our noses: the transformation of British society to one that is now majority nonreligious, and which largely holds humanist values.