Welcome to Jan Olof Bengtsson: Spirituality – Arts & Humanities – Europe. On this page is found some general information about me and my work, followed by a few comments on this blog and on my presence in social media. I write in English here and in some posts since I have friends and colleagues in other countries who do not speak Swedish, and since others abroad may also wish to read me.

bengtsson (8)

Jan Olof Bengtsson D.Phil. (Oxon.)


I have tried to defend what I think must be understood as the absolute truth of spiritual reality and the path to spiritual self-realization, in accordance with certain interpretations of several converging traditional teachings, both Eastern and Western, beginning in the late 1970s. It is possible, and perhaps even probable, that I am ultimately a kind of vedantist.

There was nothing pretentious about this. It did not involve any particular claims to saintliness or advanced realization; I was not saying that anyone should regard me as a master or guru and become my disciple. I just happened to see these things clearly. Not to speak them, not to try to live them and to make life, as far as possible, a concrete manifestation and continuous, progressive revelation of them, would, I felt, be to withhold light from the world. A mere scholarly approach would have been irresponsible.

What distinguishes human life is not only the capacity for abstract, conceptual thought and the development of tools for controlling nature. Those are merely the subordinate products of the higher level of consciousness which produces in man a general broader reflection and an awareness of and insight regarding things that are for animals and plants “unconscious”. Further and higher human development, as I understand it, goes beyond psycho-physical evolution, improved material conditions, logic/mathematics, science, technology, morality, humanistic culture, and scholarship, and consists essentially in making conscious what still normally remains “unconscious” also in human life – the nature of death, and what lies beyond it and beyond humanity’s psycho-physically conditioned and confined states of awareness: our spiritual identity, the supreme truth, goodness, and beauty, the reality of the divine life. It leads to spiritual enlightenment and spiritual liberation.

This includes a kind of definitive, ultimate insight regarding the phenomenal world, transcendence, the absolute, and our relation to all of this. Both the emphasis on the need for or at least the desirability of a comparatively high level of precision in this insight, achieved through intellectual discipline in conjunction with the other standard spiritual practices, and the degree of what can be called soft traditionalism, set my use of the term spirituality apart from that of many others today.

I tried to teach these things primarily through direct presence and oral presentation, and I was much preoccupied with the question of the possible language for the expression and communication of this dimension of life under current Western cultural conditions.

Yet I sought also to promote East-West cultural and scholarly bridge-building with regard to spiritual traditions, and among my efforts in this respeect can be mentioned my attendance of conferences on interfaith dialogue and the transmission of Eastern spirituality to and its reception in the West, my participation in many seminars (including my own) at the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies, my teaching of Western philosophy at Bhaktivedanta College in Belgium, and my contributions to the moderated internet forum Vaishnava Advanced Studies (VAST). The latter is probably where most of my writing is found – or at least the most important.

Arts & Humanities

This teaching on spirituality was closely connected to and partly, to the extent that it was possible, expressed in terms of the positions I defend within the framework of Western philosophy. The themes of the relation between spiritual traditionalism and the “institution” of Western philosophy as constituted and defined in large measure in ancient Greece, and of the gradual historical process of differentiation of European or Western culture from purely traditional cultures, were of necessity central for me.

But I also taught the coordination of the levels of spiritual and humanistic insight more broadly and generally, stressing the need for attention to be paid also to the latter. Here I advocated a creative, discerning restoration of the distinctive traditions of the arts and humanities, or humanistic culture in general, in Europe and the rest of the West to the extent that it is European.

I contributed articles to academic journals and other publications since the mid-1980s, and taught the history of ideas at Lund University for many years. I also presented papers at international conferences on idealism and personalism with some regularity. I am best known for my book The Worldview of Personalism: Origins and Early Development (2006). It was favourably received, which led to a lecture tour in the U.S. and panels on it at conferences there, including an author-meets-critics panel at the American Philosophical Association. In 2008, a special issue of the philosophical journal The Pluralist was devoted to the book.

I have sought to defend and transmit the legacy of the thought as well as the art, music, and literature of the West in terms of a philosophical worldview defined by means of the positions of personalism, idealism broadly defined, and value-centered historicism – a worldview in some dimensions confined to the humanistic level, but adjusted in accordance with, and thus coordinable with, the higher level of spiritual insight described in the previous section.

In terms of global perspectives, I have defended what I describe as a qualified pluralism. It represents a vision of unity-in-diversity, a higher cosmopolitanism, which, in addition to the purely metaphysical understanding of universality, views universal values on the humanistic level not as abstractions and uniformities but as concretely manifested in and through various cultures, peoples, and traditions. This view allows both for the preservation of multiplicity and differences, and for bridge-building and new syntheses.

It is also in line with this understanding that I studied comparative (East-West) philosophy, religion, and spirituality. As an integral humanistic level within the comprehensive and ultimate metaphysics of my traditionalist spirituality, the described worldview provided a corrective with regard to the tendencies towards superficial modernist linear progressivism which, elsewhere, sometimes characterize its constituents.


The third level of my modest activity has been that of helping to save Europe, and it is wholly dependent on the first two levels. By saving Europe I mean three different but related things. First, I have in mind simply teaching spirituality to Europe, or the creative supplementation and modification of the constitutive European cultural, moral, and intellectual traditions, the legacy of Athens, Rome and Jerusalem, as combined with early Germanic and other influences, by the spiritual traditionalism described above, including much of the essence of some of its Eastern manifestations. This is a process which includes the strengthening and further development of the elements of Western thought that represent and express more or less of the same spiritual insights.

Second, I mean the saving, through selective restoration and renewal based on critical discernment, of the mentioned constitutive legacy in itself, as modified by and thus harmonizable with the new spiritual impulse. Here I move on the level of humanistic culture, stressing the central importance of the creative restoration of Europe’s traditions of the arts and humanities for the meaningful articulation and preservation of its identity.

The third aspect I have in mind when I speak of saving Europe is the political. The worldview described above also includes political philosophy, which accounts for much of my interest in politics and some aspects of my interest in political history. My political positions are completely and exclusively determined by the insights on the spiritual and humanistic levels briefly indicated above.

Politically, I sometimes describe myself as a European post-paleoconservative. Paleoconservatism is a humorous term introduced by Paul Gottfried for the purpose of distinguishing a more genuine form of American conservatism from neoconservatism, but I use it as applicable, and needed, also in the European context. The term post-paleoconservatism too was first used by Gottfried. By this designation, I mean to say that, having gone through and assimilated most of paleoconservatism, I find it lacks political representation today and seems to be no longer politically viable as such. The conservative parties of Europe have long ago relinquished meaningful traditional conservatism altogether, and never even seriously tried properly to renew and develop it. Instead, we have seen a wholesale adoption on their part of the “neoliberalism” of the last few decades, of finance capitalism, of globalism and mass-migrationism, and of the pseudo-moralism of a general “political correctness”.

Liberals have sometimes, like the left, been justified in rejecting the right as oppressive and too rigid and inflexible in the face of new historical circumstances and scientific and other developments. Yet at the same time liberalism has for the most part been inseparable from the underlying, problematic cultural dynamic of Western modernity in its main form. It has effected needed, beneficent reform, but quite as often it has been an unscrupulous and violent instrument of mere centralization and control. As such it has rather enslaved the peoples and nations in new and insidious ways in the name of liberation, equality, and a base conception of democracy. It has systematically destroyed much of their cultures and traditions for the benefit of what can be called new pseudo-elites, i.e., of people who do not make creative use of the partial truths of modernity but affirm its stark ideological falsehoods, and whose work is thus predominantly anti- and countertraditional, in a general sense.

The truths in the historical left’s analysis of capitalism are of decisive importance. Each of the major, epochal revolutions in Western history has envisioned in its own way the correctives of real wrongs engendered by the existing order, and thus necessarily contains valid elements even as, as a whole, it takes history still further from traditional normativity. The truths of the modern left thus need to be disentangled from their false theoretical setting (there is no historical, material, rational, metaphysical, theological or other necessity about the left’s particular conceptions of the processes of modernity or their implications), and related to the larger and deeper analytical whole in which alone their meaning can be fully understood. In this way, they will today be seen to be integrated in a new, dynamic form of social conservatism. But it is important to note that the left-right paradigm implied in an explanation of the process in such terms can easily be exploited today for general ideological obfuscation, for dividing critics of the neoliberal hegemony, and for thus consolidating problematic current power structures.

While some of the theoretical as well as practical achievements of the left should thus be affirmed and accepted, a viable creative supplementation of what has, at its best, been a meaningful conservatism cannot come from the left itself, as such. It must still be part of a creative traditionalism, but it must constitute a new moment in its creativity, allowing it to develop more innovatively, in fresh and sometimes surprising ways, and to become more assertive. It must free conservatism from the tired spirit of undue compromise and drift that has so long dominated its mainstream. Not least, it must intelligently restore and renew some essential things which conservatism has relinquished and rejected in the course of that problematic development.

One of the significant political possibilities in Europe today that I explore in this blog is that essential elements of true conservatism, as identified in terms of the criteria of spiritual traditionalism, and abandoned by, or indeed never truly assimilated by the formerly conservative parties, might be transposed into their own political framework by some of the broadly, and more or less, populist nationalist parties of Europe, and that this could provide some of the needed supplementation. If so, such a development could signify a sound reaction against and corrective to the ideological distortion and the exploitation and manipulation on the part of problematic interests of the idea of Europe and European unification (it seems to me all of the – very different – main twentieth-century visions of European union are more or less flawed in such respects, including those of the Paneuropean Union and personalist federalism). It would presuppose at least a potential, partial return to the legacy and a renewal and potential further development of the insights of the alternative modernity of the nineteenth century.

Yet the radical nationalism of that century, although in some cases a historically understandable and inevitable phase in the development of Europe, contributed to some extent to the calamities of the twentieth. While national as well as regional distinctiveness and diversity have obvious and central values, nationalism must be replaced by the realization that the affirmation of such values is historically legitimate and sound only within the framework provided by a proper, historically informed idea of Europe. This was so in the nineteenth century, and it is even more so today. This alone can prevent and forestall ideological experimentation of the kind that obscured the legacy of the alternative modernity and interrupted the realization of its true potential.

This legacy and potential can now, with the right intellectual and political leadership, be renewed and developed in terms of its own proper understanding of freedom, humanism, the moral order, and the identity of Europe. This, in turn, will be the necessary basis for the badly needed alternative European cooperation, the truly European union into which the current, to a very considerable extent anti-European EU must be developed and transformed.

These positions imply that an alternative, higher internationalism of sorts possible, an alternative along the lines suggested above, which rejects the heretofore predominant, controlling ideologies and interests behind internationalism. Because of my different philosophical presuppositions, I disagree in this and other regards not just with reductionistic racial identitarians but also more broadly – although I acknowledge some important partial truths – with the European nouvelle droite and its American counterparts. The variety and distinctions to which they point are not unimportant. Being an idealistic personalist and “spiritualist” does not imply that I deny there is also a dimension of nature and biology that must be taken into account, and, more generally, an ethnic diversity in humanity that, while certainly not absolute or wholly changeless, is important and has a value in itself; its significance in world affairs can only be denied by those who have lost contact with reality through radical ideology. Thus I of course affirm this obvious dimension in my defence of what I consider central elements of the culture and history of the European peoples, to one of which I belong. Yet I also affirm that humanity, and indeed all life, is interrelated, and in a deeper sense than the globalists of the currently predominant variety think. It is certainly possible to achieve greater peace and harmony etc., on the condition of a higher degree of humane cultural development and spiritual enlightenment within a framework of renewed traditionalist recognition of the constitutive elements of order.

Because of his significant career as a leading intellectual in Swedish social democracy turning conservative due to growing doubts about socialist ideology and the moral, social, and cultural realities of modernity, as well as, later, under the influence of spiritual and religious experiences and insights, the traditionalist thinker Tage Lindbom became one of my most important theoretical inspirations in this field in the first half of the 1980s. We stayed in contact for the rest of his life, and in the mid-1990s, I was one of those who organized the evening meetings with Lindbom where mainly younger but, on occasion, also some prominent older intellectuals gathered to hear him speak about his life.

But the creative traditionalism I have sought to defend differs from Lindbom’s position – including his version of European federalism – precisely in affirming the possibility of the alternative, partial, selective modernity as one of its integral parts, a modernity defined in terms of the worldview outlined above, and thus making possible the higher, qualified forms of democracy and freedom within the framework of the Rechts- and Kulturstaat and its corresponding principles on the European level. This is, admittedly, partly an adaptation to the needs and conditions of the present age. But such adjustment is in fact approved or even enjoined by some traditionalists. And the political forms mentioned can in fact, through the broader traditionalist perspective, be accepted as no longer exclusively limited to the historical features once acquired through their bourgeois origins. If the described synthesis and accomodation in terms ultimately of a “soft” traditionalism seem incongruous or historically arbitrary, it might be recalled that at the terminus of the historical revolutions, a perhaps not entirely nominal counterpart was, by necessity, at least momentarily attempted also by Soviet communism. Bonapartism, fascism, and social democracy offer only incomplete and inconsistent alternatives to the bourgeois state and capitalism, or simply alternative ideologies for them. A new social conservatism should, not least by force of a traditionalist understanding, as far as possible defend the state as genuinely independent of such particular interests. Spiritual traditionalists have taken different positions with regard to the political present, and not all of those positions have been convincing or proved successful. Taking that into account too, it seems to me the one I have briefly indicated might at present be the best.

I have taught the history of political philosophy at the City University in Stockholm, and lectured for the Swedish conservative party and related organizations. In 2015-16 I was a member of the party board of the Sweden Democrats in Stockholm.


There are five other Pages listed in the header or, in the mobile view, in the menu. Contents contains clickable titles of posts with my own writing, by category and in order of publication, with the most recent ones first. Publications contains information about some of my scholarly and other non-web publications. On the References page are found clickable titles of posts with other content than my own writing, or with only minor comments by me; it includes, in the last sub-category, a bibliography with selected titles of relevance for my posts, by category, and with links, for those who wish to go deeper. Finally, there is information about Comments and Contact.

Social Media

I share articles by others – mainly on politics – on Facebook, and on occasion make comments and engage in discussions. On Twitter, I post primarily links to my own publications. On Instagram I publish photos of Europe.



Recent Comments

Sverige Först on Enhetslinjens förlust
Jan Olof Bengtsson on The Significance of Franklin…
AS on The Significance of Franklin…
Bas on The Significance of Franklin…
Bas on The Significance of Franklin…
Jan Olof Bengtsson on Salvini, SD och EU-reformismen…
Jan Olof Bengtsson on 10 år
RB on 10 år
Jan Olof Bengtsson on 10 år
axelwkarlsson on 10 år
Jan Olof Bengtsson on 10 år
sui generis on 10 år
Victor on 10 år
Jan Olof Bengtsson on Moderat omprövning
Irminsul on Salvini, SD och EU-reformismen…
All original writing © Jan Olof Bengtsson
"A Self-realized being cannot help benefiting the world. His very existence is the highest good."
Ramana Maharshi