The only alternative to liberalism

Vivek G. writes:

After reading your talk on Islam, and many other VFR entries, I have come to understand the undesirability, nay the evil and suicidal nature, of this supremacy of the principle of absolute non-discrimination.

It occurs to me, that almost all traditional belief-systems (religious, cultural, etc., sans Islam) teach that humans should learn the right kind of discrimination, or what we may call, wise-discrimination.

Could we therefore say that this is how traditionalism (traditional values, traditional education, essence of the traditional cultures) is the only workable alternative or solution to liberalism? For anything falling short of wise-discrimination is merely another path to liberalism.

LA replies:

Yes, exactly. I believe that in the final analysis traditionalism will turn out to be the only true and viable alternative to modern liberalism—because traditionalism is the opposite of modern liberalism. Traditionalism is the articulation and defense of that which liberalism opposes. It is by identifying the good, the true, the beautiful, the natural, and the normal, which liberalism, all around us, demonizes and seeks to destroy, that we begin to understand what traditionalism is. The truth of traditionalism emerges from the darkness of liberalism.

Traditionalism is not an ideology. It doesn’t have a formula of truth. It doesn’t have a formula for the organization of society. It is an orientation toward the order of being, a recognition of basic facts about existence which are universal to all cultures, but which take different forms in different cultures. (Which, by the way, doesn’t mean that all cultures are equal.) So traditionalism is not, contrary to what a couple of misguided individuals have said, a gnostic ideology. It is more like the common sense of mankind, articulated in terms of first principles.

- end of initial entry -

April 24

Bill Carpenter writes:

Your excellent comments on traditionalism also reveal that the name is somewhat constraining, suggesting a preoccupation with the past and with preserving traditions. What traditionalism preserves from the past is the orientation towards truth and towards an integrated—rational, intuitive, educated, scientific, religious, and non-dogmatic—approach to apprehending it. Realism would be at least as accurate a label for this approach, though that would have its own difficulties. In adopting the label traditionalism, we should make clear that we are not hoping to return to the past, but to build a future “attuned” to truth, in the Voegelinian language, instead of to the reigning destruction delusions of gnostic liberalism.

April 25

Vivek G. writes:

I agree with Bill Carpenter that we need not return to the past. But what if true wisdom leads us to a life very similar to that of the past? Why should we explicitly rule that out? Though, it may be important to stress that we won’t insist on returning to the past in every which way.

Moreover, liberalism too ascribes to itself the term realism, while it assumes some kind of matter-only realism. It also claims that it has proven what in fact it has merely assumed, namely matter-only realism.

Further, one of the facets of modern liberalism is to make almost the whole of distant past as either superstition born out of fear at worst, or interesting practices of merely entertainment value at best! So even if there is a liberal talk about preserving the practices and the culture, it is from the perspective of making a museum of it, bereft of any real respect for its substance.

On the other hand, though the term traditionalism seems to be somewhat of a constraint, it also reflects a truer picture than any term which would mean only a really working solution. The term traditionalism shows a recognition of a fact besides offering true and due respect to the intelligence and wisdom of people of the past which they deserve from us as much as the respect we may deserve from our posteriority.

Traditionalism, in my understanding, is not denial of truth; rather it is assimilation of knowledge in terms of true wisdom. So whatever truth there is in the knowledge acquired in modern times will remain. Traditional wisdom is not so much of an upholder of the past, as much as it is the upholder of timeless truths. I believe that is the main point, and that is why it is the valid opposite of liberalism.

I must add the confession that I am not a philosopher so I do not understand what Voegelinian means. So I may be saying the same thing as what Bill is saying.

LA replies:

But I don’t think traditionalism is just about timeless truths. It’s about feeling oneself as a member and heir of an actual thing—a community, a civilization, a people, continuing through time.

April 27

Vivek G. replies:

Yes. Yes. I was juxtaposing an abstract traditionalism as opposed to abstract liberalism (or is liberalism always abstract?). In concrete terms traditionalism will be particular expressions of these truths. So a working solution will be an understanding of this abstraction with a concrete practice of the particular which you have mentioned as “It’s about feeling oneself as a member and heir of an actual thing—a community, a civilization, a people, continuing through time.” May be this is why traditionalism in real terms is intimately related to a particular tradition.

I mentioned the abstract for two reasons. One, generalization is often an important aspect of intellectual understanding. If understanding of traditionalism could not be generalized, it can be alleged that the idea suffers from intellectual weakness. Second, to emphasize, contrary to any potential liberal criticism of any emphasis on the particular as xenophobia; traditionalism, in principle, is as universal in nature as liberalism claims for itself; and yet as non-destructive of one’s particular culture as desirable. For example, when you wrote, “It is more like the common sense of mankind…” aren’t you mentioning mankind as a universal? But the moment we take a sub-collection of the whole of mankind (say Americans), we get a particular expression of the common-sense, is it not? In my opinion, seeing the universal and the particular as mutual opposites is a liberal construct. Traditionalists have the common sense to view these as mutually complementary. The sticky point (which liberals quickly try to slip in) is that therefore we (let us say Americans) have the duty and responsibility to understand and to assimilate all other particulars however suicidal this accommodation might prove; while its other extreme (which supremacists will wedge in) is that therefore we must exterminate or subjugate all other particulars. Now a traditionalist needn’t fall prey to such tricks. For example, a traditionalist like you does propose a healthy balance called separation, doesn’t he? We (still speaking of Americans here) don’t need to exterminate or subjugate, but we have no obligation to assimilate and accommodate others, and we have the right to exist, to defend ourselves from aggressors, and live the way we have been living. It makes common sense. Not just for Americans. It makes common sense for everyone else too (except liberals). LOL.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 23, 2009 04:55 PM | Send