Main Edition
US
FR
July 28, 2023 - 6:00pm
Traditionalism is an ancient philosophy, a mystical doctrine said to have a growing influence on the Right. Long associated with fascism, in recent years it has been said to inspire the likes of Steve Bannon, Brazil’s Olavo de Carvalho and — most notoriously — Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, otherwise known as “Putin’s brain”.
But what is Traditionalism, and why is it considered so dangerous? Professor Mark Sedgwick, author of Traditionalism: The Radical Project for Restoring Sacred Order, visited the UnHerd Club — making the trip from Denmark, where he teaches at Aarhus University — to explain.
The primary insight of Traditionalism, according to Sedgwick, is that there is a sacred order, a primordial tradition beneath organised religion which should dictate the way society is structured. He stated:
Traditionalism, unsurprisingly, abhors modernity, which has deviated drastically from this primordial order. There is, in Sedgwick’s view, “a theoretical welcoming of the apocalypse as the start of the new age.” Following the apocalypse, Traditionalists believe that the old order will make a triumphant return, after what they would consider a centuries-long decline:
If Enlightenment and modern values are the antithesis of the Traditionalist understanding of how a good society should operate, followers of the latter movement “envisaged a very stratified social system, which took from the Hindu caste system and then mixed together with the pre-revolutionary French system of estates”.
Sedgwick went on:
What should a Traditionalist living in the present day do in the face of progress? Sedgwick explained that Traditionalist thinkers have been divided on this, setting out various different paths. One can choose asceticism and isolation in the wilderness, hoping that the world self-immolates as it pursues modern values. Alternatively, there is the “warrior path”, also known as the path of action. As Sedgwick describes it in his book, “the follower of the path of action evokes in himself the transcendent power of destruction. He takes it on, becomes transfigured in it and free, thus breaking loose from all human bonds.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“Traditionalism” in this guise is a complete rejection of the Catholic Christian world order that has defined the West 1700 years. In other words, it is a bunch of pagan nonsense. The Medieval order was based on a rational God, and a rational order to the universe, so bears no realtion to what these people are talking about. If they like the Hindu caste system, that only reinforces my view that this is pseudo pagan nonsense.
There were Catholic and Sufi Traditionalists but the apocalyptic, caste-conscious Hindu wing seems to have taken over. Traditionalism was once gentle and thoughtful. The Orthodox composer, John Taverner, was one (his works are regularly played at great state occasions in the UK). King Charles was very influenced by the Christian and Sufi strains.
KC1, KC2 or KC3?
I’m assuming your question is joking, but just to be clear – KC3. The Traditionalist movement started in the 20th century.
I’m assuming your question is joking, but just to be clear – KC3. The Traditionalist movement started in the 20th century.
KC1, KC2 or KC3?
Could you simplify that for us?
There were Catholic and Sufi Traditionalists but the apocalyptic, caste-conscious Hindu wing seems to have taken over. Traditionalism was once gentle and thoughtful. The Orthodox composer, John Taverner, was one (his works are regularly played at great state occasions in the UK). King Charles was very influenced by the Christian and Sufi strains.
Could you simplify that for us?
“Traditionalism” in this guise is a complete rejection of the Catholic Christian world order that has defined the West 1700 years. In other words, it is a bunch of pagan nonsense. The Medieval order was based on a rational God, and a rational order to the universe, so bears no realtion to what these people are talking about. If they like the Hindu caste system, that only reinforces my view that this is pseudo pagan nonsense.
I see the Western influence here of this myself through the prism of “crisis of masculinity”. It’ll probably come to how severe the culture war will become.
Judging by the other article of today, a man can get away with punching a feminist as long as he’s Woke enough.
So I wonder whether there’ll come a time when European Right, or at least parts of it, will discover Islam which would allow them to assume a Woke identity and be Right-wing at the same time.
As for Ukraine, Greece can happily exist as an eccentric Orthodox country within EU, I don’t see why Ukraine wouldn’t.
“I see the Western influence here of this myself through the prism of “crisis of masculinity”.”
Agreed. One of the fundamental insights of Traditionalism is there’s a natural order. Currently, the West is relentlessly denigrating men and technology has destroyed many of the jobs traditionally filled by men. Some elements of society seem to think this is progress and will lead to a better place, but I’m very skeptical. In the space of a generation or so we’ve largely displaced men from the role they’ve held for millennia as fathers and providers. I do not think that experiment will end well.
In fact some of the first Traditionalists (early to mid 20th C) were European converts to Sufi Islam.
One reason might be that the Greeks are merely lazy tax dodgers, the Ukrainuans are more yer corrupt, N¤z¡, racist murderers? I think that the differences are relevant..
“I see the Western influence here of this myself through the prism of “crisis of masculinity”.”
Agreed. One of the fundamental insights of Traditionalism is there’s a natural order. Currently, the West is relentlessly denigrating men and technology has destroyed many of the jobs traditionally filled by men. Some elements of society seem to think this is progress and will lead to a better place, but I’m very skeptical. In the space of a generation or so we’ve largely displaced men from the role they’ve held for millennia as fathers and providers. I do not think that experiment will end well.
In fact some of the first Traditionalists (early to mid 20th C) were European converts to Sufi Islam.
One reason might be that the Greeks are merely lazy tax dodgers, the Ukrainuans are more yer corrupt, N¤z¡, racist murderers? I think that the differences are relevant..
I see the Western influence here of this myself through the prism of “crisis of masculinity”. It’ll probably come to how severe the culture war will become.
Judging by the other article of today, a man can get away with punching a feminist as long as he’s Woke enough.
So I wonder whether there’ll come a time when European Right, or at least parts of it, will discover Islam which would allow them to assume a Woke identity and be Right-wing at the same time.
As for Ukraine, Greece can happily exist as an eccentric Orthodox country within EU, I don’t see why Ukraine wouldn’t.
Sounds like the Nietzschean /Wagnerian underpinnings of National Socialism. Scary. Unhinged. Quixotic, but in a perverse way.
Me too. Everybody I disagree with is a Nazi.
Have you come across the idea of the ‘boomer truth regime’?
I agree. SS officers were keen neo-paganists looking to revive pre-Christian vitality.
Just because some degenerate matches me or you in one aspect of their thinking doesn’t discredit the overall thrust of the case.. no one was trying to “sell” Traditionalism. Ge was merely explaining it and its influence.. for that it was well worth listening to in my opinion. We need to know what motivates people like Dugin and Bannon, who motivate (?) Putin and Trump in order to determine what we’re up against. No point point in throwing the toys out of the pram!
Just because some degenerate matches me or you in one aspect of their thinking doesn’t discredit the overall thrust of the case.. no one was trying to “sell” Traditionalism. Ge was merely explaining it and its influence.. for that it was well worth listening to in my opinion. We need to know what motivates people like Dugin and Bannon, who motivate (?) Putin and Trump in order to determine what we’re up against. No point point in throwing the toys out of the pram!
Me too. Everybody I disagree with is a Nazi.
Have you come across the idea of the ‘boomer truth regime’?
I agree. SS officers were keen neo-paganists looking to revive pre-Christian vitality.
Sounds like the Nietzschean /Wagnerian underpinnings of National Socialism. Scary. Unhinged. Quixotic, but in a perverse way.
Have just finished watching the video, and find it most interesting and revealing.
Me too.. ‘not saying I’d go along with it entirely but some intriguing thoughts there.
Me too.. ‘not saying I’d go along with it entirely but some intriguing thoughts there.
Have just finished watching the video, and find it most interesting and revealing.
This is the worst kind of drivel masquerading as some kind of viable position. A sacred order? Gimme strength! Critiquing it much further would be to give it greater credence than it deserves.
Can’t say i’m surprised by it though. Human gullibility is nothing new.
Simple abuse isn’t really a critique though, is it? Perhaps you could say more.
I’ve said plenty in Comments about such things, and i’m not abusing any one individual (ad hominem) but a system of thought that requires the suspension of critical faculties.
You need yo speak for yourself.. what you assert is crass ignorance and an inability to see beyond you own nose.. My dear old mum RIP used to say: “‘no point in being ignorant unless you an show it off”. You’re the living proof of her wisdom!
You need yo speak for yourself.. what you assert is crass ignorance and an inability to see beyond you own nose.. My dear old mum RIP used to say: “‘no point in being ignorant unless you an show it off”. You’re the living proof of her wisdom!
I’ve said plenty in Comments about such things, and i’m not abusing any one individual (ad hominem) but a system of thought that requires the suspension of critical faculties.
Just because you don’t “get it” doesn’t make it drivel.. you cannot write off several philosophers with your crass dismissal ..like, wtf are you to pronounce on minds far superior to your own?
Oh, I write off several philosophers practically every day.
They are the one’s who are most gullible and delusional.
Sort of like Seymour Hersh’s use of “the poor waif in his underwear” as his source for the Nordstream attack.
Oh, I write off several philosophers practically every day.
They are the one’s who are most gullible and delusional.
Sort of like Seymour Hersh’s use of “the poor waif in his underwear” as his source for the Nordstream attack.
It depends on what you mean by ‘sacred order’.
Arguably we already do have a sacred order in western liberal societies, with it’s own priestly caste at the top, which generally calls the shots — it just happens to be devoted more to modernizing forces and chimeras such as ‘progress’ than to values considered timeless, time-tested, or socially & culturally sustaining.
If you read someone like Rene Guenon, he’s actually quite interesting.
Simple abuse isn’t really a critique though, is it? Perhaps you could say more.
Just because you don’t “get it” doesn’t make it drivel.. you cannot write off several philosophers with your crass dismissal ..like, wtf are you to pronounce on minds far superior to your own?
It depends on what you mean by ‘sacred order’.
Arguably we already do have a sacred order in western liberal societies, with it’s own priestly caste at the top, which generally calls the shots — it just happens to be devoted more to modernizing forces and chimeras such as ‘progress’ than to values considered timeless, time-tested, or socially & culturally sustaining.
If you read someone like Rene Guenon, he’s actually quite interesting.
This is the worst kind of drivel masquerading as some kind of viable position. A sacred order? Gimme strength! Critiquing it much further would be to give it greater credence than it deserves.
Can’t say i’m surprised by it though. Human gullibility is nothing new.
This is confusing human nature with a Primordial Order.
Yes, there are innate traits in humans that society is unlikely to ever get rid of. Very little of the woke agenda will ultimately survive, because humans are just not naturally like that. The war in Ukraine is already making most of it irrelevant, just as WW2 made many aspirations between the wars irrelevant.
The important point, however, is that human nature is adaptable. There will always be differences within human groups, but we’ve got along without three estates for several hundred years.
There are important lessons from the past.
But never any blueprints for the future.
..” we’ve got along […] for several hundred years” – really? Are you sure?
Don’t see them in any constitution.
But, Liam, there is always the HIDDEN HAND of “the poor waif in his underwear!”
Don’t see them in any constitution.
But, Liam, there is always the HIDDEN HAND of “the poor waif in his underwear!”
..” we’ve got along […] for several hundred years” – really? Are you sure?
This is confusing human nature with a Primordial Order.
Yes, there are innate traits in humans that society is unlikely to ever get rid of. Very little of the woke agenda will ultimately survive, because humans are just not naturally like that. The war in Ukraine is already making most of it irrelevant, just as WW2 made many aspirations between the wars irrelevant.
The important point, however, is that human nature is adaptable. There will always be differences within human groups, but we’ve got along without three estates for several hundred years.
There are important lessons from the past.
But never any blueprints for the future.
The key point is “there is a primordial tradition beneath organised religion which should dictate the way society is structured.”
Er, what tradition? Who determines that? Organized religions have rules and beliefs that structure how society is organized, and where we are headed. They present a coherent view of man and his place in the universe. They are also the product of centuries of debate, informed by how a particular society evolves over time.
On the other hand, this idea just gives people like Dugin and Bannon the ability to pick and choose those things they most like–and far more worryingly–obfuscate about all the holes in their logic.
As Bannon said so succinctly: “cover the zone with s&*t.”
And most of this really does turn out to be “s&*t.”
“Race” is a modern concept that appears following Enlightenment. Today any Right-wing idea easily gets tainted with the label “racist”. Therefore it’s not a big surprise some are looking to pre-modern times to find forms of Right-wing thought which would be had to label racist.
“Race” is a modern concept that appears following Enlightenment. Today any Right-wing idea easily gets tainted with the label “racist”. Therefore it’s not a big surprise some are looking to pre-modern times to find forms of Right-wing thought which would be had to label racist.
The key point is “there is a primordial tradition beneath organised religion which should dictate the way society is structured.”
Er, what tradition? Who determines that? Organized religions have rules and beliefs that structure how society is organized, and where we are headed. They present a coherent view of man and his place in the universe. They are also the product of centuries of debate, informed by how a particular society evolves over time.
On the other hand, this idea just gives people like Dugin and Bannon the ability to pick and choose those things they most like–and far more worryingly–obfuscate about all the holes in their logic.
As Bannon said so succinctly: “cover the zone with s&*t.”
And most of this really does turn out to be “s&*t.”
A very satisfying discussion. I almost gave up early on but am glad I persisted. A breath of fresh air on what passes for debate in the public arena these days.
Different countries have different traditions. When it comes to Europe, the Divine Right of Roman Emperors was passed by the Roman Catholic Church to the monarchs who created the new countries, especially Charlemagne. The Celtic missionaries from Ireland, The Vikings nor the Anglo Saxoms accepted the Divine Right of Kings. For the first few hundred years in England monarchs were often elected and ruled through consultation and consent. The English tradition was of upward mobility, serfs owning sheep and buying their freedom or escaping to charter towns and the creation of a class of landowning archers. Criticism of the Church appeared during the Peasants Revolt and was why few opposed the Dissolution of the Monasteries and break with Rome.
Jacob Brownowski said Britain did not have an Enlightement, it had The Industrial Revolution.
The Netherlands was Christian in the mid 17 th century but it’s Potestant priests had a fraction of the power and money of Roman Catholic France or Italy.
What is often a test of mobility is marriage. Sons of aristocrats married wealthy merchants daughters such as when a son of Earl Spencer married the daughter of a director of the EIC whereas in France and much of Europe aristocrats often only married their rank or or the one above or below them. Few dukes sons married barons daughters and this continued in France until the Revolution of 1789 in the German speaking World, 1930s. In fact Hitler destroyed much of the power of the aristocracy in the German speaking world.
A nation such as Britain which depended upon the sea has to create a breed of mariners; who are tough, adventurous, skilled and adaptable- the sea is always changing and so the Captain and crew must be adaptable. The only tradition was survival.
A reason why Napoleon received so much support was that he destroyd Feudalism in much of Europe though it continued in Russia until 1860.
Mussolini’s Fascism was a way of promoting the interests over a feudal aristocracy and Papacy. Mussolini’s fascism was modern in outlook.
Orwell pointed out monarchy and aristocracy was effective in stopping power worship which the basis fror Communism, Nazism, Fascism and Islamicism . In the Middle East many monarchies have been better at stopping Islamicism than republics.
Putin acts as a Czar who believes in Divine Right of Kings.The Czar is an oriental despot and a product of the cruelty and corruption of 250 years of Mongol rule which makes it unique.
Where a country has social mobility, the members have the liberty to speaker to a ruler( the right of any male member in a beduin tribe ), accepted rules impartially enforced, respect between the classes; these attributes can be the traditions of a country and are effective antidote to powership be it Nazism, Communism,Fascism, Islamicism or any form of collectivism.
Sedgewick appears to lack a knowledge of the differences between European countries.
Tradition of what? Wilkes said the English tradition was beef and liberty. Traditional yeoman and franklin life of late Middle ages was unique to England.
The lives of women of 17th century Dutch Republic and Venice were different yet both were merchant Christian republics based upon sea trade. Renaissance Italy was very different to Spain, yet both were Roman Catholic with a warm climate.
The tradition of Robin Hood was uniquely English and there was a record of Henry VIII have a jovial fight with some men playing Robin Hood; something completely incomprehensible to a French or Spanish monarch.
Sedgewick appears to have an indequate grasp of history.