TEHRAN - Professor Kevin Richards says tradition can be used for “potentially dangerous conservative agendas”.

For example, Richards, chair of Liberal Arts Department at Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, tells the Tehran Times that “a number of far right political groups have co-opted Traditionalism for their political gain.”

Following is the text of interview:

Q: A central concept of the Traditionalist School of thought is that of the perennial philosophy based upon an ancient belief that all the world’s great religions share the same origin and are, at root, based on the same metaphysical principles. Do you agree with this view?

A: While I think there are a number of interesting ideas and important questions raised by the Traditionalist School of thought, I am not wholly convinced by their concept of a primordial origin to the ideals shared by all the major religions. It is not so much a question of the points of commonality between major religions that I question, but the concept of a singular origin. In part, my position is influenced by the thought of Jacques Derrida, who always questioned the notion of a singular, pure origin. For Derrida, the origin hides an originary violence, a violence that may only be conceptual, but that marks a repression of a previous time, a past before the ‘pure’ origin. So if Traditionalism posit a singular origin leading to the diversity of belief systems today, I would suggest that these different systems emerge out of different historical situations, evolving in the particular manners that they have come down to us. At the same time, this does not discount the importance of finding where there are points of connection. The question then is to not mitigate the importance of the different contexts out of which the world’s different religious and belief systems emerge.

Q: What does “tradition” mean in Traditionalism and what things does it refer to?

A: One of the compelling aspects to Traditionalism is the concept of tradition expressed in this school of thought. While for many the English word ‘tradition’ implies a conservative nostalgia for a world of the past, Traditionalism transforms the idea of tradition, pointing less to the content of tradition, the figures of tradition, and pointing more to an understanding of tradition. In this way, tradition, properly understood, reveals something timeless and transcendent within the belief system under consideration. It represents a deep engagement with the concepts embedded in the texts of tradition. It also poses a confrontation with tradition that I think can be valuable and can be found in more radical Western thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche. Indeed, we could compare the notion of ‘tradition’ in Traditionalism with Nietzsche’s ‘trans-valuation of values,’ a process for Nietzsche where we take traditional values and challenge them, question them. If the traditional value holds up after such a form of analysis, Nietzsche suggests that the value may be re-affirmed. Where the value does not hold up to such a process, it gets transformed, replaced.

Q: What are the roots of traditionalism in the West?

A: Traditionalism in the West emerges out of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, a time of incredible change due to the rise of modernity, the society produced through the modernization of means of production and consumption. The process of industrialization in the West led to a dramatic shift in the nineteenth-century, a transformation from an agrarian society to an urban society. This also entailed the gradual disappearance of the vestiges of aristocratic European society as a new society built on speculative capital came to prominence, reflected in the ascendancy of the bourgeois class and its values.

The rise of modernity was not met without opposition. Marx, for instance, develops his critique of capitalism through observing the changes brought about by industrialization, while artists of the avant-garde present their commentary on the changing social fabric through their works of art and literature, from Manet’s painterly exploration of the contingent identities formed in the public spectacles of speculative capitalism to Flaubert’s literary investigation of the alienation produced by ennui within the private world of the bourgeoisie.

In this historical context, we see large sectors of culture interested in universal ideals as a reaction to modernity. For instance, a number of progressive artists and thinkers became fascinated with theosophy, a system like Traditionalism that sought universal values beneath the major belief systems of the world. Moreover, across an array of different European cultures, a desire to find universal forms of expression and values emerges, as both a reaction to the new world and also from a desire to preserve something of the past in the midst of this change. So, in part, it is the historical context of early modernity in Europe that provides insight into the roots of the Traditionalist School. While some of these cultural phenomena embrace the modern, the Traditionalist School rejected the perceived corruption of the modern world.

At the same time, Traditionalism, in its emphasis on ideals and what is shared by all universally, reflects a continuation of principles found in German idealism of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. In this regard, Traditionalism, like German idealism, focuses on how things ought to be, instead of necessarily considering the particularity of the ‘here and now.’ While I think it is important to consider how things ought to be and what we share universally, I think it is critical to keep an eye on material reality as a means of understanding the present, even if tradition is important in providing the framing contexts to understand the present. I also worry about how tradition can be used for potentially dangerous conservative agendas, something that has happened with Traditionalism in Europe, as a number of far right political groups have co-opted Traditionalism for their political gain. At the same time, a number of the leading figures, Guenon in particular, have done an excellent job of affirming the progressive ideals of their way of thinking.

Q: How can traditionalists fulfill our needs in the modern world?

A: While I am skeptical about some of the tenets of Traditionalism, I think the principle of understanding tradition is critical to the fulfillment of our needs in the modern world, especially in areas experiencing rapid modernization such as the Middle East. Tradition is not sufficiently understood, on a number of levels. First, we may not have a strong enough understanding of the tradition to which we adhere. Our understanding of the tradition to which we attach our identity may always be marked by a lack of understanding, of something that remains to be understood. Our understanding of tradition is built upon the possibility of misunderstanding. Misunderstanding is the condition of possibility for understanding. Secondly, we do not understand the traditions of others well enough. If we cannot ever truly know the other, how can we understand the tradition of the other. This is a condition that today is exacerbated by the media. For instance, a recent report from the Center for American Progress, titled “Fear, Inc. 2.0,” focuses on the construction of Islamophobia in the United States. Tragically, this report appears in the midst of the killing of three Muslim students at the University of North Carolina and an arson attack on an Islamic center in Houston, Texas, the grave, material evidence of what the report covers, a strategic misunderstanding of the tradition of Islam that leads to violence. Conversely, in the Middle East and North Africa, we see how ISIL uses modern means of communication and the anxieties of the modern world to foreground their misreading of the tradition of Islam. Given how dangerous the misunderstanding of tradition is today in our world, it seems important that time is given to understand tradition and its relevance to the contemporary moment. The stakes posed by the willful abuse of tradition makes the authentic confrontation with tradition posed by Traditionalism almost a prerequisite to engaging the modern world.

Q: Traditionalism is reflection to modernity. How can traditionalism reconcile between tradition and new age (such as technology)?

A: Traditionalism, at one level, responded to the rise of modernity by turning to tradition, to what endures beyond the material changes of history. In this regard, traditionalism, while never embracing the present, looks to what still endures through tradition, even if it privileges a primordial past as bearing the ideal. The ideal is shared by all the different religions universally, at least when understood in the way proposed by the Traditionalist School. While questioning our understanding of tradition remains important, we have to think about the particularity of the here and now, especially given the impact of technology. In this regard, one could compare the Traditionalist School with the work of a philosopher proximate in time to their intellectual movement, Martin Heidegger. Heidegger’s philosophy questioned the dangers of modernity in the form of technology and the way modern technology challenges the earth. Heidegger’s thought, interestingly, is also built upon an idea that tradition has not been properly understood and that to properly understand our present fallen state, we must move from our contemporary understanding of philosophical concepts to a more truthful understanding to be found in pre-Socratic thought.

While Traditionalism may place faith in the endurance of a proper understanding of tradition, one that will ultimately win out over time by enduring, I would suggest that there are other ways of thinking about tradition and its role in helping us come to terms with the present. Again, this more reflects my own investment in a material practice of deconstruction, rooted in a close reading of texts, often traditional texts, as opposed to a faith in forms of idealist thought. Likewise, I am suspicious of the singular origin posited by the Traditionalist school and what can seem to be an erasure of difference in the name of the primordially pure.

Q: Traditionalism puts emphasis on pluralism. But pluralism in the mind of traditionalism is different from pluralism in the view of John Harwood Hick. What are the similarities and differences?

A: While Traditionalism and the work of John Harwood Hick both incorporate pluralism, there are significant differences in how pluralism is treated. In the Traditionalist School, pluralism leads back to universality, to shared ideas that form a common origin. While many of the figures share an interest in different religious systems, in a number of cases opening up Eastern forms of thought, such as Sufism and Buddhism to Western audiences, ultimately these bridges lead to one connected path. Hick, who also shares an interest in non-Christian traditions, arrives at a position where universality gives way to an emphasis on the different spiritual paths taken around a similar ideal. Hick offers a greater emphasis and respect for the role of difference in forming our different belief systems, respecting the different ways we travel spiritually around the globe. In this regard, Hick’s work is more proximate to Derrida’s own work on theology with its emphasis on difference. Hick also materially put his ideals into practice, helping to build communities structured upon a progressive concept of pluralism that is markedly different than what we see in Traditionalism. At the same time, both ways of thinking offer opportunities to think about the challenges posed to religious traditions within the contemporary world.


[highlight]


In the Middle East and North Africa, we see how ISIL uses modern means of communication and the anxieties of the modern world to foreground their misreading of the tradition of Islam.