Conservatives complain very forcefully, but aren’t as good at saying what they want. Unless we can say what we want, however, it will be hard to make clear to others or even ourselves what we’re doing or why anyone should go along with it. So here, for comment, is an initial sketch of an answer to the question, what does a traditionalist want?
In brief, traditionalists want a society in which the attitudes, habits and relationships that join men together and order their lives reflect the needs of human nature and so permit a fully human life. Man is a social and rational animal. He therefore needs society, and he also needs authoritative principles that establish an order of things by reference to which he can make sense of his situation and actions. He needs relations to specific individuals, to larger social groups and their culture, and to the transcendent (that is, he needs relations to family, people and God). Those relations must be reliable, substantive and comprehensive enough to live by.
Traditionalists therefore believe that a tolerable society requires:
- An effectively established religion. Free and fruitful cooperation that goes beyond commercial relations and repression of crude physical threats requires common orientation toward goals that transcend choice. To be enduringly effective, that orientation must be authoritatively defined and articulated. An authoritatively defined and articulated transcendental orientation is in effect an established religion.
- A principle of genuine, but limited and devolved, authority. “Genuine” means that it is not based on consent, except perhaps willingness to remain within the society. If authority is not genuine, if social rules are simply a matter of what people want, the transcendent has no social existence but remains a matter of personal preference. Unless authority is limited, however, it stops being transcendent—beyond the grasp of any of us—and becomes instead a this-worldly totalitarianism. And to limit authority is, among other things, to devolve it.
- Sufficient local coherence and stability to foster enduring loyalties and permit tradition (which includes the habits, attitudes and presumptions that make life less crude and more social and rewarding) to develop, maintain and propagate itself in its distinctiveness.
The alternative, traditionalists believe, isn’t creative individualism, limitless growth and freedom, or universal solidarity. Instead, it is a mixture of anarchy, tyranny, stupidity, brutality and manipulation resulting from the effective absence of authoritative principle and lack of continuing human connections.
So how do we get there from here? First, it should be noted that societies that exemplify all three principles can exist within a larger society that rejects them and can, in a sense, be self-constructed. Historical examples include the Church before Constantine and during the Dark Ages. Current examples include such self-contained religious groups as the Amish, the Mormons and strictly orthodox Jews. So if traditionalists are right about what’s needed for a tolerable—in the long run, a self-sustaining—society, then arguments that their demands are impossible, out-of-date, nostalgic or whatnot are really arguments that they should change focus from public life to building up the defenses and inner life of particular communities.
And that kind of building up has to be done in any event. As consideration of the three points reveals, life in accordance with tradition is not a matter of administration or mass political movements but a form of life with ramifications from the most personal and domestic matters to grand public institutions. Each level depends on all the others, but the personal and local are most important of all. If tradition is dead within, among and around us we will never be able to retrieve it through politics. For now, it seems that the main public tasks for traditionalists are to articulate and present their concerns so they can be understood and seen as serious, and to fight to change those aspects of public policy that attack traditional ways and the settings in which they exist. The main constructive activity, however, must be closer to home.
Comments
I found Mr. Kalb's ideas
I found Mr. Kalb’s ideas interesting and helpful to understanding his other writings. The reference to Christianity before Constantine made me think the Internet is similar to the catacombs. Traditionalists have been barred from speaking their ideas in the major media as the Christians were barred from preaching their ideas in the streets of Rome. Perhaps the Internet, like the catacombs, has served and is serving as a place to speak forbidden ideas. I look forward to Mr. Kalb’s and Mr. Auster’s future writings.
Cut the sugar coating. What
Cut the sugar coating. What your type really wants is a boot on the neck and gun to the head of anyone who differs from yourselves. You people live in a state of perpetual fear that everyone is out to get you when in fact you are the ones who seek to trample over the rights of others to live as they choose.
Thanks to Monnica for her
Thanks to Monnica for her insightful explication of Mr. Kalb’s essay. I must admit that I’ve sometimes had trouble grasping the import of Mr. Kalb’s obscure meditations, but now, thanks to Monnica, they’ve become crystal clear: What Mr. Kalb wants is a boot on the neck and a gun to the head of anyone different from himself. It’s so simple! Why didn’t I see this before?
Care to elaborate,
Care to elaborate, Monnnnicaaaaaa?
If you right-wingers think
If you right-wingers think you’re going to just march over the rights of everyone else in this country and contnue to drag us to the right, you’re in for a rude awakening. We, the non-white, non-male, non-kristian, non-rascist, non-homophobic citizens of this country will not give up without a fight. I’d suggest that if you want an all white kristian nation that only tolerates a narrow portion of humanity that you all pack your little bags and move to the south pole. This country needs LESS people like you, not more.
Then it it you who are
Then it it you who are intolerant hahahaha! Maybe you would be more comfortable reading some Rousseau than our posts!
Monnica is right. Clearly,
Monnica is right. Clearly, the just solution to group and class conflict in this country is that America must be run by and for the benefit of that large and representative (though so far woefully underrepresented) portion of humankind: nonwhite female pagan lesbians. Meanwhile, the rest of us, all 279,999,999 of us, should be expelled to the South Pole, like the Irish in the 17th century being expelled to the West of Ireland to live on grass.
Dear Monnica, My guess is
Dear Monnica,
My guess is that your comments come out of your notion of what’s good and how human life can be better than it is. If so, you are to be praised for paying attention to such things.
Still, I think the actual effect of what you’ve written is to add to the growing impression on the Right that their opponents have nothing humane or intelligent to say. I don’t think your comments are likely to make those in the middle think well of the Left either. Is that what you want?
It’s important to understand the ideas you object to. Otherwise the objections will miss the mark. That’s bad for you, if only because it means you’ll say stupid things in public. It’s even worse for us, though, because we need above all to know what weaknesses there are in our positions. So I urge you, if you want to comment, to make an effort to understand what we’re saying.
P.S.—Mr. Auster and others, was the entry obscure? Don’t let Monnica dominate the conversation!
I suppose we could curse and
I suppose we could curse and taunt one another, but that would be useless and boring. People that curse should be ignored as any noise is ignored.
I have many questions about Mr. Kalb’s article, but I will ask only one for now. Does a traditional society suppress the non-established religion?
What happens to views in any
What happens to views in any society that are fundamentally at odds with those the society is based on? There’s no simple and uniform answer, but one way or another such views and those who hold them find themselves at a disadvantage. That seems true in every society. Think of the situation of racists, sexists, homophobes, fundies or whatever in America, or still more in Europe. The question you are asking has no special connection to a traditionalist society.
Prior to Mr. Kalb's deleting
Prior to Mr. Kalb’s deleting several of Monnica’s comments and cutting her off from further communication with VFR, I had copied the exchange between them and sent it to him in an e-mail with a brief comment. Here it is, with Mr. Kalb’s permission:
To: JK
From: LA
Hmm, I guess Jim Kalb-style sweetness and light is not getting very far in this case!
Dear Monnica,
My guess is that your comments come out of your notion of what’s good and how human life can be better than it is. If so, you are to be praised for paying attention to such things.
Still, I think the actual effect of what you’ve written is to add to the growing impression on the Right that their opponents have nothing humane or intelligent to say. I don’t think your comments are likely to make those in the middle think well of the Left either. Is that what you want?
It’s important to understand the ideas you object to. Otherwise the objections will miss the mark. That’s bad for you, if only because it means you’ll say stupid things in public. It’s even worse for us, though, because we need above all to know what weaknesses there are in our positions. So I urge you, if you want to comment, to make an effort to understand what we’re saying.
Posted by: Jim Kalb on November 11, 2002 08:21 PM
Oh don’t try to pull that “you just misunderstand me” crap. I understand perfectly what is being said here by the overall tone of the posts and message board. You people are racist, homophobic, xenophobic and misogynist. People with your kind of mentality are why this country is in the deep mess it’s in now with the rest of the world hating us for our colonial and paternalistic ways, for our overbearing interference in the governance of sovereign nations in order to benefit wealthy white Americans.
I understand your kind perfectly and you disgust me.
Posted by: Monnica on November 11, 2002 08:27 PM
P Murgos asked the
P Murgos asked the interesting question of whether a traditional society suppresses the non-established religion.
I think historically the short answer is yes. For most of European history there was only one established religion. Even when the Reformation occurred, it was still thought important that there be one established Church in each state, whether Catholic or Protestant.
Anglican conservatives were opposed to the Glorious Revolution in England in 1688, when there was a partial acceptance of a multi-church society.
No doubt it’s hard for many people now to understand why the traditionalists of the past sought to uphold the ideal of a single established church. You have to remember though that such a church could exercise both a powerful spiritual influence and a powerful unifying influence in society. In contrast, to have 100 churches is effectively to have no Church.
The situation now for traditionalists is of course considerably changed. We don’t exist in a situation where we have to consider whether or not to uphold an established church. What can be considered is whether a traditionalist community can be built around a single church - with membership of the community being voluntary, but with an agreement within the community to maintain church unity.
Mr. Kalb has admirably
Mr. Kalb has admirably outlined three components of a traditional society: an established church; non-consensual but limited and devolved state authority, e.g. a constitutional monarchy; and ethnic coherence. When I visited England in the 1990s, the presence (vestigial though it may be) of all three of those things made me realize that they were the ideal elements of a truly meaningful social existence. The monarchy and the established church gave ordinary social life a transcendent dimension that is quite lacking in America. It was a glimpse of the way things ought to be.
I have no idea what role that glimpse of an ideal social order can play in America, except as a standard with which to criticize our own order and to remember that a different kind of existence is possible.
To qualify my last comment,
To qualify my last comment, our admiration for things such as monarchy and established church that lie outside the American experience doesn’t change the fact that America is OUR country, and that it has had an order and goodness of its own that are still worth loving, defending, and restoring.
Actually, I tried to present
Actually, I tried to present the characteristics in less concrete terms to aid reflection how they might reappear in different sorts of settings. The traditional European polity led to a wonderful florishing of civilization but life can also go on otherwise. I commented, for example, that those characteristics have also been found among certain religious groups. Also, they have only been comprehensively rejected in America since the middle of the 20th c. Before then there was an informal religious establishment, it didn’t seem monstrous that not everyone had the effective right to vote, and there were some remaining federalism concerns.
It really does seem to me that the characteristics are necessary elements of any tolerable or enduring society. So to my mind to say they have no possible relevance to public life in America today is to say that public life in America—or what passes for public life—has become in essence something to fend off. It is to say that America has truly died and from the standpoint of social loyalties we should go on to something else.
Which "established religion"
Which “established religion” do “traditionalists” want?
Depends on the tradition.
Depends on the tradition. It’s a somewhat abstract term.
I understand Mr. Kalb's
I understand Mr. Kalb’s further explanation that he is speaking of a set of general orientations toward truth and tradition, not of some specific system; that America had those orientations to a certain degree up to the mid-20th century; and that if there is now no hope that America can ever have them or something like them again, then America has truly died, in the sense of being a polity to which we can have any genuine loyalty.
However, I did not mean to say that America is utterly without such qualities or that something like them cannot possibly be brought back. In a fundamental sense, it is true that America is dead, as I have written. In another fundamental sense, America is still alive and has the potentiality of being brought back to fuller life. I think it is Mr. Kalb who has given up on America, or rather, he has given up on it more than I have.
"A principle of genuine, but
“A principle of genuine, but limited and devolved, authority”.
Is there some principled way to know at what point genuine authority ought to be limited? By what standard can it be judged excessive, too pervasive, or whatever?
WW
A good question. At what
A good question. At what point does too much of a thing become bad instead of good? Offhand, I’d say the inquiry would depend very much on the local situation—the history and traditions of the society, how things have been working and so on.