Who Gets to Speak for Traditionalism? Towards a More Contextual and Relational Perspective on Cultural Development
A few thoughts on developmental stage theory type schemas that have been bouncing around my head as of late… This is something I am personally agnostic about on the whole — the developmentalist frame seems rather noxious as soon as one grasps onto these ideas primarily to identify oneself and others, with all the moralizing that typically comes along with this sort of project, though as a lens to come more deeply into relationship with different facets of the cross-cultural, historical project of “being human” it seems to obviously bear some positive fruits.
However, if we are going to think developmentally about styles and phases of human culture, it’s necessary to take a more relational perspective than is typically brought into this line of analysis. To my eyes, it seems self-evident that as soon as some new episteme emerges with any force, some transformations occur pretty immediately to the existing cultural codes. Yet to ignore this seems to significantly distort the object-phenomena under analysis.
A very basic example of this dynamic is the transformation of traditional religious sensibilities that took place following the emergence of the modernist perspective. Suddenly, many folks of traditional religious persuasion took a reactive stance vis-à-vis this new way of looking at the world, and hence a kind of scriptural literalism came to the fore. The mythic, cosmological, and metaphysical aspects of religion now began being understood and justified according to the dichotomies and epistemologies which the modernist perspective ushered in and valorized. Prior to the introduction of clear dichotomies (subjective vs objective, history vs myth, etc.) which modernity inaugurated, religious sources were not approached in ways that collapsed to either one end or the other of these dualisms — this was simply not possible as there was not yet a clarity of these as distinct domains, modes, epistemic categories, etc.
To look at ancient and medieval hermeneutics of religious texts or cosmological doctrines as either clear scientific history or purely allegorical/mythic is plainly anachronistic. Certainly there were many a sophisticated thinker in the premodern world which grappled with these topics in nuanced ways, so one can always find glimmers of this sort of distinction which shine through to our modern eyes, but on the whole these dichotomies were yet to be disambiguated so we ought to largely bracket this framing.
Of course, with the introduction of these modernist dichotomies, a new layer of complexity and novelty was introduced to human thought — modes of thinking and analysis which simply were not possible previously have now emerged. I think this is a pretty uncontroversial claim.
But there are two additional facts which are far less frequently acknowledged:
- Anytime new dualisms and distinctions are introduced into thought and given compelling epistemic justification, it becomes very difficult to think about a topic in a way that is prior to this dichotomy. Yet thinking something prior to a dichotomy likewise contains certain possibilities for insights which are not possible after thought becomes dictated by such dualities. So, there is also a loss and a decrease in complexity and possibility which happens here. Thankfully, it is of course not fully impossible to either get beyond or behind these dichotomies — but this is something which takes tremendous skill and dynamism. Only a rare few thinkers are truly able to accomplish this task, and it is something which is far less obvious and far more treacherous than simply following the dichotomy or trying to collapse it to a monism or either one or the other terms (i.e. idealism and materialism).
- The existing epistemes, cultural codes, etc. are not static and these undergo transformations as they encounter the novelties introduced by whatever new thing is emerging. This can involve both complexification and reactive reductionism in various contexts, but in both cases these are novel developments, and even the possibilities for these did not exist prior. As such, trying to straightforwardly label something on the contemporary scene as “traditional,” “pre-modern,” “archaic,” etc. without reference to these transformations and the specific dynamics in play (as these are very particular and contextual!) is as likely to distort as much as it is to elucidate whatever it is that is under investigation.
With regard to this second point, contemporary religious fundamentalism is an instructive example. Typically characterized by a thoroughgoing scriptural literalism (accompanied by puritanical moral codes), the fundamentalist is wont to approach their religious texts as operating on the same plane as history and science books. Hence the phenomenon of young earth creationists. But to approach a sacred text in this way is a quintessentially modern approach. Prior to modernity introducing distinctions of myth versus history, and identifying the material uncovered through the methodology of natural science as the most epistemologically secure, these were simply not how people primarily considered their religious texts and how they tried to justify religious truth claims. More forcefully, it was not even possible to think about and justify one’s religiosity in these modes prior to modernity introducing these patterns of thought.
So, if in attempting to describe and identify some “traditional sensibility” someone immediately points to, say, religious movements such as American Evangelical Christianity, Salafism, Hindutva, etc. without reference to or acknowledgement of the dramatic ways in which the epistemology and values of modernity are at work in these religious traditions, they’re missing a whole lot of the picture. Of course, these groups themselves tend to be adamant that they are the most traditional representatives of their given traditions and lineages, yet it is quite easy to poke holes in this narrative. (Also, do we really want to defer authority to define something as significant as a style of human culture or a religious tradition to the folks who seem most reactive and least sophisticated in their thinking? I’m all for giving emic self-descriptions of a group their due and ensuring we are conversant in the stories and modes of justification of a given collective, but certainly we don’t want to stop here and forgo an etic analysis.)
The various forms of fundamentalism are clear examples of hybrid kinds which integrate aspects of the episteme of modernity with certain traditional moral and spiritual values. And of course in our contemporary time, one may identify ways in which postmodernism, too, has caused transformations in and entered into the constitution of various streams of “traditional” religion. This is perhaps most clearly visible in the domain of grappling with intra- and inter-religious pluralism, all while remaining firmly grounded in one’s own tradition with its particular doctrines, sources, and history.
What becomes clear when considering these complexities is that there is not only some “macro” development where certain sensibilities are emerging for the first time on the stage of human history and culture writ large (I’m somewhat skeptical of this frame to begin with — I think these things always feature a degree of parochialism and historical-cultural particularity which is universalized and exported, but as soon as these things are exported to different contexts they take on new flavors and enter into a bi-directional process of transformation with the new context), but also ever on-going development happening “within” the various existing cultural codes, epistemes, etc. as they interact with novel conditions.
Is the religious fundamentalist a traditionalist or a modernist? I don’t think one can clearly label them as either in any straightforward way which excludes acknowledgement of the ways they contain constitutive elements of both of these.
What is needed here, of course, is increased sensitivity to context, relationality, and dynamics of bi-direction transformation. Definitely bad news for the Integralists who just want to slap color-labels on people or behaviors and call it a day! But this of course makes sense — these are all process social kinds which cross-cut one another in complex and individually-specific ways and which are under constant, contested anchoring processes involving myriad actors.
The good news is that there are myriad ways to be positively involved in the ongoing development of sensibilities in all sorts of different niches, all the while without needing to feel beholden to what some self-appointed spokesperson for human socio-cultural development says is the leading edge of thought and complexity we all ought to be movings towards. The transhumanists who have no eyes to see the unique pearls contained in our traditions and lineages need not be granted sole authority for proclaiming what humanity needs or where we ought to be going.
Wonderfully and paradoxically, there are new ways of being traditional, indigenous, archaic, etc. which can be birthed forth in our times, as always. We can think of these either as a continuation and development of some pre-existing ethos which was ever-present in these unique moods of being human, or we can think in an opposite sense and see our contemporary project as responding to the one and the same lure upon the horizon which our ancestors were also in touch with as they laid the groundwork for their worldviews. The real truth of things likely includes and integrates both these ways of seeing things.
In any case, I look forward to the novel emergences coming forth from traditional and indigenous quarters. May these have all the greater capacities for integration, wisdom-generation, individual and communal ethico-spiritual cultivation, and eco-social humanization!
