A Blog for the study of Traditionalism and the Traditionalists
moderated by Mark Sedgwick
There is a page devoted to the “The Philosophy of Harmony” on the website of The King’s Foundation, available here, which refers to the film and also to the 2010 book Harmony: A New Way of Looking at Our World that was published when the king was still Prince of Wales. The book and film both showcase environmentalism, but the Traditionalism is visible in the background, as I argue in an article just published in British magazine The New Statesman, available here.
Our response defended Religiographies and took issue with two claims in Strube’s article, “that ‘scholars of esotericism played a key role [in the translation and dissemination of Evola]’, and that ‘this affected not only political ideologies, but also parts of the academic field of “Western esotericism”, which remains a major obstacle to critical engagement with politics to this day.’”
We argued that in fact only two scholars of esotericism, Hakl and Joscelyn Godwin, both now retired, had played a key role in the translation and dissemination of Evola, and that “while two persons is indeed plural, the phrase ‘scholars of esotericism played a key role’ implies rather more than two persons, and this is not the case.” Neither Strube nor Asprem contested this in their rejoinders, though Asprem did describe our argument as “advanced exegesis of how many persons are required for a plural ending.”
We also argued that this had not had any significant impact on the academic study of Western esotericism, though Traditionalism in general has indeed had a significant impact on other fields. This point was important because Strube had named two scholars of esotericism, Wouter Hanegraaff and Marco Pasi, neither retired, in a way that associated them with the Far Right, and we felt it important to defend them against guilt by association.
In his rejoinder, “Distractions, a Contested Legacy, and Hidden Intentions: A Rejoinder to Sedgwick & Piraino,” Asprem dealt mostly with Hakl, repeating his criticism of the way that Religiographies handled him, and noting that his activities had “contributed to a politicized perception of the field [of esotericism scholarship], especially in the German-speaking world.” Whether one prefers the more forgiving view of Hakl’s activities of Piraino, Pasi, and myself or the harsher view of Strube and Asprem, it may well be true that his activities indeed contributed to a politicized perception of the field in the German-speaking world. This is unfortunate, but perception is not the same as reality.
In the end, I think, the two sides are actually not so far apart. We all agree that Hakl, for example, published with politically engaged publishers like Hohenrain Verlag, which Pasi described in Religiographies as “well known for its right-wing political stance,” while Asprem objects that it is in fact “known… for disseminating extremist content, including antisemitism and Holocaust denial.” There is disagreement about exacctly how to label Hohenrain, then, but not about what it stands for.
Strube’s short note on “On the Vilification of Critics and Quality of Scholarship: A Critical Juncture in the Study of Esotericism and Far-Right Politics” deals primarily with Hanegraaff, who is criticized for having defended Hakl. Strube mentions our objection to a methodology that assigns guilt by association but does not really respond to it, instead contrasting our criticism of his methodology with our defense of Hanegraaff.
Those with access to Aries can read the original articles, the response, and the rejoinders and make up their own minds. In the end it seems to me not so much a critical juncture in the study of esotericism and Far-Right politics as a question of what one thinks of one scholar, Hanegraaff. I continue to see his work as fundamental to the whole field, and his views of Hakl as relatively unimportant. Perhaps we scholars would get further with the study of esotericism and Far-Right politics if we avoided making accusations against each other.
De Vitray-Meyerovitch was brought up in France as a Catholic, abandoned Catholic practice as various doubts crystalized, and married a Jew in a civil marriage. She turned to Islam through Louis Massignon (1883-1962), reading Muhammad Iqbal (1877–1938), and translating Rumi, who she came to see as her true shaykh. In addition to this she joined the Boutchichiyya, which discovered through the Traditionalist Boutchichi Faouzi Skali (born 1953).
Tazi Hemida and Abdelli both note the similarities between de Vitray-Meyerovitch and the Traditionalists. She read René Guénon, and occasionally cites him, for example on the nature of the Vedanta and for his argument that resemblances between different "traditional forms" were to be expected "because Truth is one" ("L’âme et le visage du soufisme," Planète 18, septembre 1964). She also cites Titus Burckhardt, and on one occasion recommended someone to read a book by Frithof Schuon. But her own mature understanding of that universal truth is soundly Islamic:
For Islam, divine revelations, which are all repetitions of a single, universal message, descend at various moments in history upon those whom God has chosen as His messengers. And since there can only be one Truth, in all times and in all places, Revelation can only be essentially the same for all of humanity. If there are differences between religious traditions, they are attributable to erroneous transmission or to purely human interpretations of the divine Word, which can lead to an alteration or even a distortion of this Revelation. ("Une doctrine de l’unicité," Le Magazine littéraire 181, février 1982).
De Vitray-Meyerovitch differs from the Traditionalists in that she was not a critic of modernity (she even welcomed Iqbal’s modernity), and did not refer to esotericism, despite her Sufism. Her universalism was in some ways in the tradition of what might be termed Massignon’s spiritual sensibility, and also followed Iqbal. In her own words (following a citation by Abdelli)
You have to be prepared for a meeting or a book to turn your life upside down. I was already on a path of free inquiry, personal interpretation, and individual research, and I found all of that concretized in a great thinker [Iqbal]. And then I was happy to realize that I was not alone, lost on a side road, but that I was, without knowing it, part of a great tradition. And that without having to renounce anything. I did not renounce the Torah or the Gospel. I simply left aside what had always annoyed me: the conciliar, dogmatic decisions of gentlemen gathered in Rome to decide that God is this or that. (Islam, l’autre visage, 1991).
De Vitray-Meyerovitch was more of a universalist than a perennialist, then, arriving at a similar destination by a different route. The title Universalité de l'Islam (The Universality of Islam) in the picture above ws not her own; it was chosen by others for a posthumous collection of her writings.
This post has been updated to correct the initial mis-statement that "She does not, so far as I know, ever cite the Traditionalists," and also to note that De Vitray-Meyerovitch recommended a book by Schuon (thanks to Samir Abdelli for that information).
The reception of Traditionalism has been better studied in some contexts than in others. This Call invites proposals for chapters in a forthcoming multi-author book to be entitled The Reception of Traditionalism in Eastern Orthodoxy: Mysticism and Politics, edited by Mark Sedgwick. Contributors will be invited to an authors’ workshop in Belgrade in March 2027 to discuss pre-circulated drafts (expenses covered by the organizers).
Topics to be covered include: Traditionalism in interwar Romania: Mircea Eliade and his circles; Traditionalism in Yugoslavia and Serbia; Eastern Orthodox Traditionalism in the West: James Cutsinger, Philip Sherrard, and John Tavener; Traditionalism in late-Soviet and early post-Soviet Russia; Traditionalism in Ukraine, Belarus, post-Communist Romania, and b; Aleksander Dugin and the development of Traditionalist Eurasianism; and perhaps also Traditionalism in Bulgaria, Moldova, and/or Georgia.
Chapters should cover the reception of Traditionalism in the country(ies) and period(s) in question, explaining who transmitted and developed Traditionalist thought, what aspects were stressed, glossed over, and further developed, and how this relates to the context of the place(s) and time(s).
Brief proposals (500 words), including a proposed title, should be sent to Mark Sedgwick (mjrs@cas.au.dk) before midnight CET on February 15, accompanied by a biographical note that mentions relevant prior publications. Feel free to send more than one proposal. On the basis of these proposals, actual chapters will be commissioned as soon as possible, to be researched and drafted before March 2027.
The authors’ workshop will refine the drafts and allow us to discuss how the reception and development of Traditionalism in Eastern Orthodoxy differs from what happened in the Catholic and Protestant West, and in Latin America, and to explore what this tells us about Traditionalism, mysticism, politics, and Eastern Orthodoxy.
“Traditionalism” as used in this Call refers to those working with the idea of an esoteric primordial tradition as developed by René Guénon. The book will not cover forms of traditionalism that have no connection with Guénon.
This project is funded by the Templeton Religion Trust through the Program in the Study of Mysticism (PRISM) at Tampere University, Finland.
