“Hard” and “Soft” Traditionalism

I have mentioned Mark Sedgwick’s distinction between “hard” and “soft” traditionalism. In order for it to be of real value for other purposes than his (in other respects somewhat dubious) historiographical one, however, his definition of “soft” traditionalism needs to be replaced by another one.

For Sedgwick, the “hard” traditionalists are the original and most important figures of the “school”, Guénon, Schuon, and a few others. The “soft” traditionalists are those, like Mircea Eliade and Huston Smith, who while decisively inspired by the “hard” traditionalists, do not make reference to them in their own works, and somehow even seek to play down the influence received; and whose works are not, like those of Guénon and Schuon, published by the specifically traditionalist publishers.

I suggest a “soft” traditionalist be defined rather as one who, on the one hand, has a somewhat less strict conception of the “primordial Tradition” than does Guénon, and on the other, has a different relation to, and to a certain extent accepts, the partial truths of modernity, a possible “alternative” modernity that is compatible with the looser concept of tradition. Such a “soft” traditionalist will have no problems with citing Guénon and Schuon and their “hard” followers.

The question of publishers I find irrelevant for this purpose of definition.  I doubt that the specifically traditionalist publishers are reluctant to publish “soft” traditionalists in my sense, and I think they have already published “soft” traditionalists in Sedgwick’s sense. The main editions of Guénon’s works are the Gallimard ones, and in Sweden, Tage Lindbom’s equally “hard” traditionalist works were published by the non-traditionalist Norstedts, and later Norma; the English translations were published by Mercer University Press and Eerdmans.

Perennialistiskt minimum

Mark Sedgwick on Sylvain Lévi’s Criticism of Guénon’s Thesis

Traditionalism and Academia

(See the Contents and References pages for more traditionalism-related posts.)

0 Responses to ““Hard” and “Soft” Traditionalism”



  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Categories

Jan Olof Bengtsson D.Phil. (Oxon.)

Musae

Recent Comments

Viktor on En självständig europeisk…
Jan Olof Bengtsson on Den politiska kulturens k…
How To Properly Unde… on The Face of Global Modern…
Shiv Singha on Behovet av ett Bhaktivedantasä…
Kristo Ivanov on Ryszard Legutko: The Demon in…
Jan Olof Bengtsson on Hegel och panteismen
Engelbrekt on Alice Teodorescu
Jan Olof Bengtsson on The Mythology Discussion
Krishna Kshetra Swam… on The Mythology Discussion
Tyrgils Saxlund on Hegel och van der Heeg
Jan Olof Bengtsson on Dylan och akademien
Jan Olof Bengtsson on Om förintelseförnekelse
Jan Olof Bengtsson on Om förintelseförnekelse
Non serviam! on Om förintelseförnekelse
Jan Olof Bengtsson on Dharma Pravartaka Acharya…

Archives

All original writing © Jan Olof Bengtsson
"A Self-realized being cannot help benefiting the world. His very existence is the highest good."
Ramana Maharshi