Tradition is one of the most misunderstood words in common use today. Those on both sides of the political and philosophical spectrum have become quite accustomed to discussing it. To the liberals and communists, Tradition is the ever-looming impediment that separates us from a utopia of equality and liberty. It is responsible for oppressing minorities and women; it promotes hierarchy and other systems of social inequality, they claim. Thus, the whole body of Tradition must be ripped out by the roots and forever resigned to history books (if even there). To the conservatives and the right in general, however, Tradition represents the legacy of the past, and connects us to it; it provides an objective set of principles which can be used to designate the identity and purpose of a nation. Thus it should be defended, even if it is not fully understood or appreciated.
In reality, both approaches to understanding Tradition, and the resulting attitudes towards it, are erroneous, each for their own reasons. As for the left, which holds the individual and subjective as the ultimate truths, their hatred of Tradition is understandable, because Tradition is community-based and objective. The right, on the other hand, at least in the mainstream and diluted form with which we are most familiar with today, Tradition is blindly taken as a basis, without concern for its origins, virtues and true meaning. Therefore, although they revere Tradition, their thinking is not deep enough to understand why it is worthy of reverence, and thus worthy of defending. In this article, I will be evaluating each viewpoint in order to establish what Tradition is, and what its true meaning is, because that truth has been diluted to such a ridiculous extent over the past century.
First, as with anything, it is best to understand a concept by looking directly at its origins and fundamental meaning. When one studies to become a doctor, the first thing he acquaints himself with are the cells and their various subcomponents. Without this knowledge, how could he understand the heart or liver? The same applies to concepts such as Tradition. Thus we would be wise to analyze the composition of the word and its etymological origins. The English word Tradition is derived from the Latin `traditio`, which is in turn derived from the verb `trado`, meaning literally `I hand over, hand across`. Here `across` (delivered by the element `trans` reduced to `tra-`) is in the sense of `across generations` or `across time periods`. Thus, `traditio` refers to that which is passed on from one generation to the next. That is why we find in the Latin dictionary of Lewis and Short (1879) the definition: `A teaching, instruction` and `A saying handed down from former times, a Tradition`. Speaking from an Eastern perspective, the Chinese word for Tradition (which exists also in Japanese, Korean, etc.) is 傳統 (chuan2tong3), the first element meaning `to pass on (something), promulgate, transmit`, and the second element meaning `to unify`. Thus we understand the whole word as a unified body of doctrines, concepts and viewpoints which are passed on from one generation to the next.
What this means is that Tradition represents a strand of thought which stretches many thousands of years into the past. Like all things which perpetuate themselves across time (such as languages and bloodlines), Tradition mutates and evolves, splitting into multiple branches and subfamilies. Tradition, therefore, is something which exhibits both singularity and multiplicity. We may speak of Russian tradition or Japanese tradition, but we may also speak of Tradition as a single, intangible body of ideas which manifests itself across the world, and which serves as a prototype upon which various traditions are based. Furthermore, we may also logically assume that Tradition originates in an extremely ancient state of humanity. It therefore contains buried within it vestiges of extremely archaic practices, beliefs and ideas, which emerged at a time when man was in a highly natural state, as a body of social practices which were suited to a particular community. This is an essential part of understanding Tradition, because it illuminates the objective and immutable foundation of Tradition. Tradition ultimately arises from nature; it is not something that develops randomly or at the whims of individuals. For those cultures which are descended from the ancient steppe races, for instance, many aspects of their tradition were shaped by the realities of the nomadic steppe lifestyle. When we lose sight of this, Tradition seems arbitrary and pointless. This causes two problems: first, it is all the easier for progressives to convince people to give up Tradition; and second, it is all the harder for conservatives and traditionalists to justify their support of Tradition.
Here the fatal flaw of conservatism is revealed. While they understand that it is best to preserve Tradition, as all people think by default, since Tradition has been diluted extensively in this time period, it is not immediately obvious that Tradition is not arbitrary. Conservatives therefore find themselves defending something which they know to be correct, but are unable to prove to be correct. In the past, an argument which appealed to Tradition would pass with flying colors. However, conservatives are up against a beast known as Modernity, for which only materialist and subjective arguments are permissible. A mere appeal to Tradition is no longer enough, because the very principles of modernism invalidate Tradition.
As for the modernists and the liberals, their hatred of Tradition stems from their fundamentally humanist worldview, which is a direct inversion of the Traditional worldview. According to Tradition, God is the ruler of the universe, and the laws of Nature, which are His decrees, are impossible to surpass. However, according to humanism, Man should take the place of God, and the laws of nature are breakable given sufficient technology. With humanity as the most important thing in the universe, the only logical course of action is to maximize human `liberty` and `happiness`. This is seen as `progress`. Tradition, then, becomes a limitation to the `progress` of Man. Indeed, if, for the sake of human `liberty`, we elect to dethrone God Himself, what is wrong with trashing even the most sacred and ancient traditions? The problems with this line of thinking could not be more obvious.
The success of the derivative of humanism known as modernism in recent centuries is the result of a `perfect storm`, so to say. On the one hand, the ancient Tradition has been diluted and eroded over millennia, and its virtue has become latent. On the other hand, the emergence of modern technology in an event known as the industrial revolution, in bringing human capabilities to extraordinary heights, has convinced the zeitgeist that nothing is outside of Man`s grasp. This offered confirmation of what was for the original flavor of humanism purely theoretical. Modern technology and industrial society appealed to and exploited what is perhaps human nature`s worst trait: vanity. It increased the amount of physical things Man was capable of. Now we can fly across oceans, make trillions of calculations in a matter of seconds, and even send people to space. This went hand-in-hand with the progressive movement, which sought to continue the trend in the social sphere, increasing the amount of things Man can do without incurring societal consequences. Now, women should be allowed to have abortions, the poor should be given free food and lodging, and homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
We must also understand the relationship between Tradition and culture. In the modernist view, culture is something that develops inversely to Tradition. In the past, they say, humanity was in a state of extreme Tradition, but was completely uncultured. As time went on, and Tradition diminished, culture increased. Culture is thus seen as the triumph of humanity over Tradition, which was something backwards, unnatural and inimical to the human condition. It is no wonder that modernists are so full of praise for abstract, vulgar and pointless modern art, and of apathy or even straight-up disdain for the master painters and composers of the past. According to the Traditional view, however, culture and Tradition change in a direct fashion. In other words, as Tradition increases or decreases, so too does culture. Today Tradition has almost entirely disappeared, so culture has become degenerate and backwards. In view of today's world, it is the Traditional view that seems to be accurate.
However, this is something that the mainstream right tends to outright ignore. They do not understand that their enemy is not the liberals themselves, but rather the ideological modernism that spawned them. Nor are they aware that industrialization and the mass consumer capitalism that was born of it have anything to do with it. They are insistent in, and complacent with, simply attempting to `defend` what little remains of Tradition, without understanding the reasons why it is on the decline in the first place. They simply do not see modernism as an enemy; instead they somehow see it as compatible with their `Traditional values`. Somehow, they think, the Traditional ways of a nation can be reconciled with `liberty and equality` that the left wants. With this kind of attitude, it is no wonder that the conservatives` track record for defending Tradition is so poor. The past century was nothing but concession after concession of ground to the liberals. Virtually every single showdown between Traditional values and modernist, liberal values--whether it took place in the courts, in the media, in the academia, or in the hearts and minds of the common people--concluded in favor of the latter. In order to stay relevant, each new generation of conservatives, rather than doubling-down on their principles, would instead shift their views in favor of the liberal worldview, at the expense of more and more Traditional values every time. Modern conservatives revere Ronald Reagan to no end, even though he is the one who legalized no-fault divorce. Now what are the conservatives up to? They are busy defending statues in the South. Is this really `conservatism`?
This at last brings us to one fundamental truth about Tradition. Tradition must be continually watered at the roots, or else it will die. The conservatives have elected to ignore the roots and focus merely on the leaves and fruits--the finer parts of our civilization that Tradition furnishes us with, among them liberty, safety, wisdom and temperance. Is it any wonder that Tradition is dying on their watch? The things they claim to hold dear are vanishing before their very eyes, yet they don't seem to notice or care. Because they are unaware of the nature and origins of Tradition, as discussed earlier in this article, they do not recognize that Modernity is its mortal enemy and is actively killing Tradition.
If Tradition is to survive, we must accept that means Modernity must burn. If there is to be a Traditional future, that future must also be Archaic. Further, if Tradition is to survive, we must actively be implementing it in our lives and communities. For Tradition is much like a flame. A flame must be continually fed wood or charcoal, or else it will go out. The reason Modernity has become as powerful as it is now is because for years people have been neglecting the flame of Tradition. Modernity attracted the people with its empty promise of utopia, and so they abandoned that flame. When that flame is once again roaring, then Modernity will be on its last leg.
