Is Dugin a Traditionalist?

In a new article, Anton Shekhovtsov and Andreas Umland ask whether Alexander Dugin is a Traditionalist, and conclude that he is not--or rather, that he is not an "Integral Traditionalist," a term that they use and he does not. The article, "Is Aleksandr Dugin a Traditionalist? 'Neo-Eurasianism' and Perennial Philosophy" was published in The Russian Review 68 (October 2009), pp. 662–78.

The basic argument is that "Integral Traditionalism" can be defined as Guénon's own Traditionalism, that Evola differs so much from Guénon that he is not really an "Integral Traditionalist," and that Dugin differs from Evola, let alone Guénon, and so cannot possibly be a Traditionalist, even if he says he is.

Whether one accepts this argument or not depends on one's terminology. If by "Integral Traditionalism" one means "Guénonian Traditionalism," then Dugin is clearly not a Traditionalist, and neither are many other people who consider or considered themselves Traditionalists, probably including Schuon. If by "Traditionalism" one means a whole school of thought, in which are found disagreements and developments, then Dugin clearly has an important relationship to Traditionalism, as well as to other schools of thought.

Although they do not put it in quite these terms, Shekhovtsov and Umland question whether Traditionalism so defined (that is, as defined by me and some others, and not as defined by them and some others) is sufficiently coherent to be characterized as a school of thought in the first place. Their view is evidently that, taken together, the difference between Guénon's lack of interest in politics and Evola's interest in politics, the differences concerning initiation, and the difference between Guénon's rejection of modernity and Dugin's approval of some varieties of modernization, produce contradictions too great for one label to have much meaning.

This view certainly has merit, especially with regard to attitudes to politics. With regard to modernity, one might argue that Dugin is simply being more honest than Guénon in recognizing publicly that Traditionalism is not actually traditional--that it is a product of modernity, and in a sense a form of post-modernism. With regard to initiation, one might note that emphasis on initiation was a late addition to Guénon's own work. But surely a movement cannot be apolitical and political at the same time? Or perhaps it can... one can think of other examples of the apolitical being also political. What about Christianity, for example? "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." And yet Christianity has not always been apolitical. Should we argue that many popes and bishops were not really Christian?

I am not totally convinced by Shekhovtsov and Umland's argument, then, even though the article does raise important questions, and their examination of the relationship between the thought of Guénon, Evola, and Dugin is most interesting. Whether or not one allows Dugin the right to call himself a Traditionalist, it is useful to see how he fits in with others who call themselves Traditionalists.

One last word in what is becoming rather a long post. Shekhovtsov and Umland do me the honor of devoting a section of their article to my work on Traditionalism, and even giving me my own sub-heading. Mostly, they refer to views of mine that support their argument that Dugin differs from Guénon in important ways--which, of course, he does. Sometimes they are complimentary about my Against the Modern World, for which I thank them. They also, however, repeat charges made against me and my work in reviews that, as they recognize, "sometimes seem to be driven by nonacademic motives." Indeed! Which is why I have never responded to them--as a scholar, I welcome scholarly debate, but not mud-slinging.

Rue René Guénon

Just discovered: rue René Guénon in his native Blois! On the south side of the Loire....

Another origin of Traditionalism

"Traditionalism" was being discussed in the Universal Gnostic Church as early as 1905, before Guénon joined that church in 1908.

A young French lawyer, Déodat Roché (1877-1978), shown here in 1911, had left the Gnostic Church after disagreeing with its then chief theologian, Dr Louis-Sophrane Fugairon. In "Gnose antique et Pensée moderne," Roché reproached Fugairon for his dogmatism, and argued against a concept of tradition that placed traditionalism in opposition to modern science and thought. Modern science and thought, argued Roché, could and should be used to evaluate tradition.

Before this disagreement, Roché and Fugairon had together edited a journal that was at first called Le Réveil des Albigeois and then called La Gnose moderne. Guénon's own first journal, La Gnose, was a revival of Roché's and Fugairon's. Guénon's first recognizably Traditionalist article, "La religion et les religions," published in La Gnose, not only reflected the views of de Pouvourville, but also--to some extent--a pre-existing discussion within the Gnostic Church.

The original title of La Gnose moderne, Le Réveil des Albigeois, reflected Roché's conviction that the true ancient esoteric religion was the so-called Albigensian heresy, better known as Catharism. This was a thesis that Roché promoted for the rest of his life, and to which Guénon objected in Études Traditionnelles in 1949, referring to Roché's 1947 book Les Cathares. Roché responded to Guénon in his own journal, Cahiers d'Études Cathares.

Roché's career is an interesting parallel to Guénon's. His early trajectory was much the same, from provincial France through Martinism and the Gnostic Church to promoting his own understanding of perennial religion while remaining an active and influential Mason. Unlike Guénon, Roché led a small formal group of disciples, but like Guénon he was most influential through his writings, which were--especially in the 1960s and 1970s--a major source for the renewal of interest in Catharism that fed on the one hand into The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (1982) and thence into The Da Vinci Code (2003) and on the other hand into the official "branding" of the French département of the Aude (where much of Cathar history had taken place) as "Cathar Country." Roché's house (shown here) is now a museum, a street in his native village is named after him, and a recent biography (Audouy's, see below) carries a preface by the president of the General Council of the Aude.


Although Roché was in a sense the first critic of Traditionalism for its ahistorical methodology, his own work has been subject to criticism by mainstream scholarship for precisely this reason, and is now little read. It is not even available in his own museum.

For Roché, see Jean-Philippe Audouy, Déodat Roché « Le Tisserand des Catharismes » (Carcassonne: Impressions du Pays Cathares, 1997) and José Dupré, Un Cathare au xxè siècle: Déodat Roché (1877-1978), sa vie, son œuvre, sa pensée (Chancelade: La Clavellerie, 2001). Available online: Jean-Pierre Bonnerot, "Déodat Roché et l'Église Gnostique," Cahiers d'Études Cathares 2nd series 4-5 (1982).

Against the Modern World in paperback

My history of Traditionalism, Against the Modern World, is now available in paperback, at $22.45 from Amazon.com (US) or £13.99 from Amazonm.co.uk (Europe). The paperback edition is basically the same as the hardback (though a few minor errors have been fixed), but is rather cheaper than the hardback (now $40-$50 or £39).

Has American academia begun to accept Traditionalism?

Once again, Traditionalism has come to mainstream academic attention. Generally, when this happens, the result is clear rejection--but this time time the rejection was rather more cautious than usual.

Professor James Cutsinger reports that an outside review team noted the presence of two perennialists at the Department of Religious Studies at the University of South Carolina, and stated "as a committee we have no intellectual issue with perennialism per se," before making rather clear their reservations in practice about what they called a "somewhat esoteric approach to religion that is of interest primarily to a small and committed group of followers."

In comparison with previous rejections, this might even be seen as a sort of grudging acceptance.