Western and non-Western traditionalism
Vivek G. writes:
Suppose that countries other than the USA, that is, other than those comprised of Christians-whites, take up traditionalism. And the traditionalists want to run their country with their own traditional majority culture. Further suppose that in other aspects they remain largely similar to Western democracies.
For example, suppose India becomes a traditionalist (traditional culture being that of Sanatana Dharma) nation. The traditionalists allow Christians, for example, to practice their religion, but expect them to behave largely similar to what a traditionalist government in USA, that is, any traditionalist Christian-white democracy, would expect of a non-Christian person.
What would a traditionalist like you say to that?
I think the answer to the above question would be very important. Most of the accusations that non-traditionalists hurl at traditionalists are based on assumptions about the traditionalists’ answer to such a question.
In all fairness to you, I believe that this kind of traditionalism practised in other countries will be absolutely acceptable to you and many other traditionalists like you. Further, if Indian traditionalists employed you as their political consultant, even though you are a Westerner, you may advise them to uphold traditionalism in the way described above, i.e. Sanatana-Dharma-Indian traditionalism.
LA replies:
Yes, of course. Why would a traditionalist Westerner have any problem with a non-Western country having a traditionalist majority culture?
Also, you write:
I think the answer to the above question would be very important. Most of the accusations that non-traditionalists hurl at traditionalists are based on assumptions about the traditionalists’ answer to such a question.
Are you saying that liberals accuse Western traditionalists of not respecting the traditionalist cultures of non-Western countries? I’m not specifically aware of that.
- end of initial entry -
Ben W. writes:
LA: “Why would a traditionalist Westerner have any problem with a non-Western country having a traditionalist majority culture”
That was not the view of 19th century Western culture. Countries such as Spain, France and England sent missionaries to convert native populations to Christianity. How does one accept another tradition when one’s own religion says that “there is no other name than Jesus Christ given under heaven for salvation?” How does one accept that Islam or any other religion can be an essential part of an individual or society? Doesn’t the gospel command the believer to teach ALL nations in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?
Mark 16:15 “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”
That doesn’t appear to be a sentiment accepting other traditions. And that’s how the disciples behaved—not respecting national limitations on that command.
LA replies:
The question I was addressing did not have to do with of Christ’s mandate to evangelize mankind, but with the co-existence of different cultures, and with the survival of traditional humanity in the face of the transformations of leftism and the modern world. The immediate issue we in the West face is extinction. If we need to evangelize anyone, it is, first and foremost, ourselves.
Further, assuming that we reached the point once again where our own civilizational existence was secure, and we were re-Christianized, and Christians had the energy to evangelize people in other cultures and nations, there would be no necessary contradiction between supporting evangelization abroad, and respecting traditional cultures. Respecting the majority rule of traditional cultures is not a moral blank check. It doesn’t mean, for example, approval of suttee. Also, evangelization takes place on an individual level. It is not an imperialistic takeover by one country of another, though at times it has taken that form.
Obviously there is a tension between the universalist claims of Christianity and the actual co-existence of different civilizations, religions, and cultures in the world, and I cannot resolve that tension here.
Also, I’m not speaking here of Islam. Islam is sui generis. While some people have the calling to evangelize among Muslims and I wish them luck, we can’t count on that. For everyone’s safety, Islam must disempowered and quarantined from the rest of humanity.
Kevin V. writes:
In this post, you ask Vivek G.: “Are you saying that liberals accuse Western traditionalists of not respecting the traditionalist cultures of non-Western countries? I’m not specifically aware of that.”
I think that what Vivek G. is getting at here is that most liberals view traditionalists as nothing more than advocates for people like themselves. That is, the root of the traditionalist conservative’s passion is the advancement of and the protection of white European Christians. Thus, the liberal would expect a traditionalist to object to a hypothetical traditionalist-governed India because that government would disfavor Christians.
On the contrary, as you properly responded, any traditionalist would recoginize that other people have the same right the European-American traditionalist is claiming for himself: the right to live in a society in which one’s culture, history, language and traditions are honored and respected.
What’s going on here is the typical liberal assumption that politics is nothing more than an identity-driven zero sum game, where each non-liberal group is interested in advancing only its narrow interest.
Ben W. replies to LA:
LA: “The question I was addressing did not have to do with of Christ’s mandate to evangelize mankind, but with the co-existence of different cultures.”
According to Christ’s mandate there is no co-existence with other cultures. Jews are to be converted. Muslims are to be converted. Therefore there is no other culture to respect because that other culture is not respectable. It is dying and degenerative according to Scripture. Paul says as much when he tells the Romans that they were degenerate before Christ. What was there to respect among them individually or socially? Evangelizing means cultural change. There will be no minarets when Muslims are converted.
LA replies:
Christ told his followers to convert mankind. That doesn’t mean they will succeed. And this is in fact the reality of the world in which we live—a multicivilizational, multi-religious world. So, that being the actual reality, how do we deal with it? Simply repeating Christ’s mandate to evangelize mankind is obviously not an adequate answer.
Palahalli S. writes:
Hello Shri Auster,
I think Vivek G. brings up a very valid question, an answer for which might not be easy with respect to India.
The way I see it, Western Christian Traditionalism would warrant Hindus in the U.S. who are citizens of that country to imbibe Western Christian Values although perhaps not its theology. How different or related are these values is perhaps best exemplified by the levels of friction we might observe between Hindus and white Christians in the U.S. My information is there is no friction but this is in need of validation. If this is true, we might also benefit from a study of why there is no friction.
In India, the position is slightly different. Here we have Christians of many denominations some of whom have imbibed Sanatana Dharmic values. For instance, they are not interested in converting Hindus. Their method of worship and living has been Hinduised of their own accord and they live in harmony with their Hindu neighbors. However, there are also Christian denominations that insist on spreading the good word in order to convert Hindus. This translates to an assault on Sanatana Dharmic values since it presumes these values to be false.
I have been in favor of a dialogue between leaders of the Church and leaders of Sanatana Dharma in order for them to find ways to come to terms with Sanatana Dharma in India. This is the only way forward in my view. (It is because there is no rigorous dialogue mechanism current, that we witness Hindu on Christian violence.)
You ask, “Are you saying that liberals accuse Western traditionalists of not respecting the traditionalist cultures of non-Western countries?”
No. Liberals in India are more prone to asking, “What would Hindus in America do if U.S. Christians behaved like Hindus in India do, toward Indian Christians?”
My response has always been that Hindus in the U.S. do not behave like Christians in India do.
Namaste,
Palahalli S
Ben W. writes:
I fail to see where in Western civilization and culture there is grounds for a traditionalist to say there is respect and acceptance of other cultures. Historically that is not the case and a traditionalist supposedly respects history. In fact a case can be made concretely that Western history does not have a built-in acceptance of other cultures. Christian missionaries were escorted by government officials to Christianize other lands. Western medical procedures displaced native processes. Western merchant culture replaced means of financial trade and exchange throughout other continenets. So how can a traditionalist argue that Western civilization and culture entails a respect for other traditions? On the contrary we have Westernized most of the world one way or another, replacing tribal customs.
LA replies:
Ben seems to be advocating, not just evangelization, but Western civilizational war and civilizational imperialism directed against all non-Western nations.
Palahalli S. writes:
Shri Auster,
You write: “Ben seems to be advocating, not just evangelization, but Western civilizational war and civilizational imperialism directed against all non-Western nations.”
Yes, it does seem like it.
But my position is precisely the point that Christianizing is not necessary nor is it a required basis for knowledge sharing, which is what his examples speak of. If Sanatana Dharma is open to accepting “good produce” from Western Civilization and vice versa, then why should there be any evangelizing?
After all, ancient Rome and Greece traded and shared with ancient Hindus without evangelizing each other.
On the other hand, there is little evidence to say that Christianizing per se has guaranteed better medical procedures and trade practices.
LA replies:
Well, obviously, the kinds of “knowledge sharing” that Ben and you are talking about are entirely different. You’re talking about sharing material knowledge; he’s talking about sharing the Good News.
I certainly agree that different civilizations can productively learn from each other without either taking each other over or blending with each other.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 20, 2009 11:31 AM | Send