Following on Professor Wael Hallaq’s academically Traditionalist book Restating Orientalism: A Critique of Modern Knowledge (see blog post here), another scholarly article has appeared, in the venerable journal The Philosophical Forum, by Noah H. Taj. This is "On rooting religious studies: The metaphysical proposal of René Guénon," and can be read here. The abstract is:
The present article problematizes current dominating approaches to method and theory in the study of religion by pointing to their inapplicability to theorists working outside secular worldviews. The first section of this article introduces decolonialist narratives by touching on important topics which are subsumed within larger discussions, such as secularism, positionality, and others. This is done by putting René Guénon (1886–1951) in conversation with other theorists, the foremost of whom is Bruce Lincoln. Section two introduces Guénon using Wael Hallaq's categorisation of him as a subversive author, and sections three and four elaborate on his subversion through touching on two key theories. The first relates to problematizations of the term ‘religion’ itself along with a treatment of Guénon's actual theory of religion. The second is Guénon's metaphysical method, which, contrasted against the historical, opens new avenues for our study of the past in manners unrestricted to materialism alone, expanding thereby the academic frameworks with which we come to the table in the academic study of religion.
13 comments:
"The scholar of religion who chooses to embark on the philosophical evaluations of said ‘truth’ must hence do so in accordance with the standards of philosophy proper (i.e. as a philosopher), rather than subjugating it to the empirical method of the natural sciences", p. 22, note 59. I wonder what is "philosophy proper" for Taj. A convoluted way to say that we should study Guénon using a Guénonian framework? Considering that Taj's only "academic" references to Traditionalism are Waterfield, Oldmeadow and Lings...
"The second is Guénon's metaphysical method, which, contrasted against the historical, opens new avenues for our study of the past in manners unrestricted to materialism alone, expanding thereby the academic frameworks with which we come to the table in the academic study of religion."
If only! Academia is not going to be open to this kind of approach, unfortunately. They are too bound to the naturalistic historical method. Introducing other methods would indeed be helpful for shedding light on the study of religion. Imposing a rigid historical method is unhelpful for the same reason that imposing a rigid scientific method is unhelpful to the development of science (see Feyerabend's "Against Method"). However, this just isn't going to happen; what we have in academia is a dominant paradigm and that isn't going to be displaced. For those of us who research and write in an academic context, the best we can hope for is to disguise metaphysical influences in terms of developments in the history of ideas. This can be done fairly effectively. For example, instead of saying that the interaction of the metaphysical principles of essence and substance has, as it reaches its end point, produced modernity and the "reign of quantity", as Guenon does, we can show how modernity organically unfolded as a dialectical development from medieval nominalism, producing "the reign of quantity". In this way, we avoid talk about the underlying metaphysics but only their expression in the field of ideas. This is not an incorrect explanation, it's just an incomplete explanation, but it's as far as we can go in academia. And it can be guided by metaphysical insights; we're just not allowed to mention them but only to hint at them.
I often wonder how many people do what Anonymous suggests.
How ironic to write that "imposing a rigid scientific method is unhelpful to the development of science" from a PC connected to the Internet, while millennia of "Traditional method" created 99% of illiteracy and 1% of savants scratching goat skins.
Unfortunately, academia is filled with crypto-Traditionalist like the author of the article who proposed their religious (pardon, "metaphysics") beliefs in a pseudo-scientific form. How such a reactionary approach has polluted the study of certain religions (above all, Islam) is a well-known fact, see James W. Morris, ‘Ibn’Arabī in the “Far West”.
The irony exists only in your imagination, Asinus. I was born into the technological society I inhabit. I didn't choose it. I have to live and function within it. That doesn't mean I have to accept it as beneficial. If you enjoy the dehumanizing bland commercialism where everyone is glued to their iPhones, sits watching mass "entertainment", and brand names and advertising slogans are forced into our consciousness every few seconds, overhung by the sword of Damocles of nuclear and biological weapons provided to us by science, then good luck to you! If you are unaware of the richness of other societies, well in my opinion you are very impoverished as a human, but we will just have to agree to disagree I suppose. You enjoy waiting for the latest iPhone to get released, and I will seek spiritual realization. Each to their own!
As for academia being filled with "crypto-Traditionalists", as someone who publishes in academic journals regularly I know that this is laughable, but maybe you should reflect on why these few of us feel the need to be "crypto" Traditionalists if academia is so open to different ideas and viewpoints.
I agree with Asinus Caput. The positive scientific revolution has done a lot for the world practically more than the traditionalists, who are/were out-of-touch elitists, that believed the people they abused and ruled over for so long would never go for better options. The hypocrisy of modern day traditionalists is that they utilize so many things that came from it, such as modern medicine, but at the same time criticize it, even violently. Building on that, I think turning to academia as an exclusive source of information is somewhat outdated, since thanks to modern science, anyone can access information of almost any kind and this access can come outside of the lens of interpretation a few individuals might otherwise impose on everybody else.
Anonymous, as I pointed out in my reply to Asinus, there is no hypocrisy in living your life in the society into which you were born and which you do not choose. This is just a cynical objection with no validity at all. It is like someone who cuts off your legs and then criticizes you for using a wheelchair.
And sure, open access where anyone can say anything is such a blessing. That is why YouTube is such a reliable source of information. So much more reliable than peer-reviewed academia. I think your comments here just prove the Traditionalists' point about egalitarian "dumbing down".
I think the main problem here is that Traditionalists (like many critics of modern academia) do not understand that the aim of modern scholarship is not to discover "the Truth", but simply to analyze phenomena as they appear. It is religious/dogmatic people (Traditionalists included) that hold such a claim. Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with religious/dogmatic worldviews. When Catholics argue that the deliberations of their councils are "the work of the Holy Spirit" they are not making a rational statement, but a religious one and, as such, their point of view is totally legitimate. Problems start when you try to justify, in an academic context, that The Council of Trent was the result of the work of the Holy Spirit.
The same applies to Guénon. His metaphysical speculations are fine, and even deep at times (my favourite book remains Le Symbolisme de la Croix), but his depiction of "Oriental" traditions is just the product of late 1800s occultism and, cannot but be described as such by anyone who actually took the pain of studying Sanskrit, Arabic, Chinese etc seriously. But again, scholars do not (should not) say "the Truth of Hinduism\Islam\Daoism\Christianity is not what Guénon believed", but "Guénon's depiction of Hinduism\Islam\Daoism\Christianity looks like that of 1800s occultism and not like the historical appearance of these traditions". Maybe Guénon is right, and in some weird metaphysical fantasyland the Arabic letter Nûn really looks like a Sanskrit Na, and this fact has a lot of deep meanings. However, scholars look at the texts, and they can just conclude that Guénon never saw a Na in his life, but that he read Saint-Yves d’Alveydre and repeated his occultist theories. Who knows, maybe Saint-Yves d’Alveydre's alphabet is more real than the real Sanskrit, but this seems outside the scope of modern scholarship.
Again, if people find meaning in Guénon's ideas, it is all fine and well: in the end, that is why his books are so popular. But this has nothing to do with the pluralism of modern academia. Pluralism means that, WITHIN A SET OF GIVEN RULES, many interpretations of a specific phenomenon are allowed. I can say "Catholics believe that The Council of Trent was the result of the work of the Holy Spirit" but, since I cannot posit the existence of the Holy Spirit, I cannot (should not) affirm that "The Council of Trent was the result of the work of the Holy Spirit".
Lastly, if our Traditionalist Anonymous prefers Youtube to modern Academia... good for him! There are excellent Youtube Channels (Check out "Esoterica" by Dr. Justin Sledge), this is the beauty of modernity, where knowledge is available for everyone who wants to learn!
Thanks for your comments Asinus. Let me explain where I think you fundamentally go wrong. You write, "I think the main problem here is that Traditionalists (like many critics of modern academia) do not understand that the aim of modern scholarship is not to discover "the Truth", but simply to analyze phenomena as they appear." In fact, I and many others do understand that many naive moderns such as yourself think that this is what modern scholarship is doing. However, we also know from 20th century philosophy and neuroscience that this is self-delusion on your part. "Phenomena as they appear" are already conceptually structured according to our existing linguistic conceptual system. If I see a cow in a paddock, I do not think, "I see a black and white spatially extended area, and from this, I infer that there is a cow". Rather, I immediately see it as a cow as a component of my very perception. That means that my perception already has embedded within it a pre-existing linguistic concept of mine (i.e. "cow"). All perception is conceptually structured, so as a consequence we only see the world through the lens of our existing conceptual framework, we do not see the world as it is. In the context of science, we can say that all observation is theory-dependent.
The illusion that you, and naive moderns, have, is that there is some sort of "neutral" or "unbiased" point of observation, a "God's eye-view" of things (or what Nagel called "the view from nowhere"). This is just self-deception. There are no such thing as "phenomena as they appear" independent of the observer's broader concepts and beliefs. In fact, the religious people are just more honest than people like yourself, because they are being explicit that they are analyzing phenomena from a particular dogmatic point of view. Whereas you are engaging in the hypocrisy of modernity in pretending to be objective, when in fact you are presupposing a dogmatic position just as much as is any religious person. You are pretending to neutrality, when you are just as committed dogmatically as anyone else.
If you understand this, I hope you can see why my comments in previous posts above make more sense. Academia should welcome all points of view, provided that the assumptions are made explicit, and they carefully and respectfully consider all the other viewpoints and evidence. Much more is learned when different viewpoints engage with each other, than if everyone approaches a subject from the same viewpoint. A person with what I think is a crazy religious viewpoint, might nonetheless notice some phenomenon that is interesting which I would have overlooked, because it is significant in the context of their beliefs but not mine. I would encourage you to read Feyerabend's "Against Method", because it discusses just how such an anarchistic approach to knowledge could work in the sciences to advantage.
Finally, I didn't say there was nothing reliable on YouTube. However, what is the percentage of reliable videos on YouTube where anyone can post, as opposed to the percentage of reliable information in peer-reviewed academia? What is going to happen when non-experts are let loose in the unfiltered abandon of YouTube? We have seen what happens. QAnon is what happens. Conspiracy theories of all kinds is what happens. These have real-world effects, and will increasingly do so.
If I am not wrong, years ago, Dugin affirmed that Traditionalism is a form of post-modernism. Reading the message of our Anonymous Traditionalist I think he was right. It seems they have learned from modern philosophy in the last decades after all!
However, dear Anonymous Traditionalist, you continue to perpetuate 1800s stereotypes about modern scholarship. No serious contemporary scholar will argue for a ""neutral" or "unbiased" point of observation, a "God's eye-view" of things", we well know that such a point of view does not exist. It is religious people (and Traditionalists more in particular) who continue to argue for "the Truth", poisoning the discussion with their theories based on "Allah\the Pope\a vision after eating peyote\Guénon said so".
Again, I gave a very specific example (but there are hundreds): the letter "na" does not look like the letter "nun". Scholars look at the manuscripts and see how this letter is written in Sanskrit. Guénon read pseudo-oriental literature and proposed a very bizarre theory in line with his occultist worldview. You can argue that "all observation is theory-dependent", but the shape of the letter "na" doesn't change, and Guénon's argument doesn't become less outlandish. Again, do people want to believe in 1800s occultism? Fine! Humans believe in all sorts of shenanigans! The problem is that Traditionalists will never admit that their beliefs are based on a subjective and irrational preference. On the contrary, they go around teaching Islam to the Muslims, Daoism to the Chinese and Christianity to the Pope! And they do so by claiming that they know how "these traditions really are" based on an (invented) Tradition, mainly constructed by cherry-picking and deforming ancient sources.
I think you/they should pick a side
1. You can be a radical subjectivist/deconstructivist but in this case you cannot appeal to the Tradition, and the only criterion of truth is the impressions of the self (and Guénon, QAnon, Umberto Eco and Asinus Caput are all on the same level).
2. You appeal to the Tradition but, in this case, you need to be able to defend your interpretation of the Tradition from those who observe historical religious phenomena and tell you where Guénon got them wrong.
You cannot have both.
Alternatively, and more modestly, we can continue to use the imperfect (but self-aware) tools of modern academia, and try to find a common language based on the observation of visible phenomena, with all the limitations of the observer's implicit bias
Lastly, you seem worried about "conspiracy theories of all kinds". Well, Traditionalists circles are imbued with conspiratorial thinking (mimicking Guénon's well-known obsession about people wanting to kill him using magic). I will restrain myself from posting here what Traditionalists have said about vaccinations, the Jews, mass media etc over the years... Have you ever wondered why Guénon is so popular in certain reactionary circles?
I also recommend you a book about these themes: The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth by Jonathan Rauch.
I just wanna clarify that I'm the anonymous that praised modern science in support of one of Asinus' statements. I'm not a traditionalist, I believe in the enlightenment philosophy and am a progressive liberal. I also don't support the idea of censoring people or controlling information because of the fear that it might inspire radical people from Q-Anon to Islamic terrorists who read the Quran in a certain way. I think it's good that information is freely available, that's all I was saying and the way to combat bad information is not to censor it, but to confront it with good information. Let's not go back to the days of Galileo being jailed for telling us the earth revolves around the sun, just because the big shots of the day had a problem with this, ok?
Since this is turning into a heated debate, I will dip out, but before I leave, I just wanted to point that out. All the best to the both of you, don't hit each other too harshly lol.
It is hardly surprising to find that the theme explored in the article by Noah H. Taj has sparked a lively debate. The question raised is certainly an important one, and of course it extends beyond the field of religious studies, being equally the concern of anyone involved in the field of traditional culture, including archaeologists and art historians, not to mention philologists. While Guénon’s uncompromising approach might demand a leap of faith which is simply too perilous for the modern day scholar, we should not forget that A.K. Coomaraswamy remains a respected and influential figure for students of Indian art and culture. For this reason I would suggest that Anonymous’s initial judgment, i.e. that “Academia is not going to be open to this kind of approach”, is overly pessimistic, and that questions along the lines of the one posed by Taj will become increasingly urgent as boundaries shrink and the dialogue between east and west becomes more intimate. This of course opens the way to a far deeper discussion.....
Incidently, I note that, despite remaining noncommittal, Mark Sedgwick appears to be aware of ‘rumblings’ within the academic community.
OK thanks Anonymous, I will try to turn the temperature down. Perhaps I should explain to Asinus that I am not a Traditionalist myself, I am merely influenced by Traditionalism (not the same thing). My personal beliefs are a form of Gnosticism and are heavily influenced by Neoplatonism. Asinus, you point out that Guenon engages in very shoddy "scholarship" regarding an alleged relationship between the Arabic nun and the Sanskrit na. I did not address that issue because I think your comments are perfectly correct. Guenon often is hopelessly incorrect in dealing with scholarly matters related to history, linguistics, and so forth. He is not a reliable source on these matters. If you want to know about the relationships between different alphabets, go read the scholarship on that. I do not regard Guenon as infallible. I think he has some interesting ideas and insights, mixed in with a lot of bunkum.
As regards the alleged misrepresentation of religions, I think this matter is somewhat more complex than you portray. You have to understand that according to Traditionalists, the Abrahamic religions in particular have an exoteric aspect and an esoteric aspect. Of course, this alleged esoteric deeper meaning contradicts what ordinary believers in those religions believe, and hence will be seen as a "misrepresentation" by them. In fact, Guenon himself was denounced as a heretic by his Catholic co-religionists. But, whether there is a "deeper meaning" to any religion is itself a question of religious theology, and therefore it is difficult to comment on as being "right" or "wrong" in a vacuum. We can certainly say that Traditionalist claims about hidden esoteric initiatory societies functioning within these religions continuously is not supported by historical evidence. But who is to say whether, say, Christianity has a deeper meaning or not? It depends on your broader theological outlook. As a Gnostic, I think that there are certainly deeper meanings within Christianity that orthodox Christians do not recognize, but that reflects my own particular theological stance. I would not expect anyone to recognize or agree with these meanings if they were not a fellow Gnostic.
Now to your main point. You say that I have to choose either perspectivism or Tradition. I will sum up why I think you're wrong (I think you need both). For reasons I will leave aside (I have actually been hugely influenced by the later Wittgenstein), I think that reason cannot prove anything whatsoever in an absolute sense. If we rely on reason we are left with a radical perspectivism where we can argue for any position at all or its opposite and each argument can be equally "rational". In other words, I think the end-point of modernity is nihilism. Since I do not think that nihilism is realizable, I think that all moderns are hypocrites in that they abandon reason while claiming to uphold it. I think there has to be some other source of knowledge besides reason, and I think that source is mystical intellectual intuition. I have published in the philosophical literature at length on this and I cannot defend my view in such a short space here. The most important key is that I do not think that human language is capable of describing ultimate reality exactly or without error. Everything we say is merely an approximation of a reality that is actually ineffable. Even these statements are themselves merely approximations. As a result, deductive inference cannot always be trusted because the premises are never true in an absolute sense, but always contain hidden (non-conceptualizable) error. Therefore reason has to be guided by intellectual intuition if it is to approximate truth. The role of language is not to come up with a dogmatic description of reality, but to guide the hearer towards spiritual realization - towards gaining mystical insight. I look to the insights of other mystics in relation to their Traditions as a kind of mystical intersubjectivity.
Post a Comment