Traditionalism: The Radical Project for Restoring Sacred Order

by Mark Sedgwick

Traditionalism is the shadowy philosophy that has influenced so much of the twentieth century and beyond: from the far right to the environmental movement, from Alexander Dugin to Prince Charles. It is a new way of seeing the world: one that rejects modernity and instead turns to sacred truth, perennialism and tradition as its guide.

This major new study peels back the curtain on Traditionalist philosophy and the thought of its proponents - René Guénon, Julius Evola and Frithjof Schuon - and their many and varied followers. Examining the Traditionalist critique of modernity, Traditionalism's unique ideas about self-realization, religion and politics are set out here clearly and comprehensibly. Traditionalism's projects in art, nature, gender and interfaith dialogue are also analysed here, showing how wide and pervasive this little-known movement has become.

Mark Sedgwick is the world's leading historian of Traditionalism and this is an expansive and mind-expanding guide to understanding this missing puzzle-piece of our intellectual world.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Religion, History, Art

432 pages, Hardcover

Published June 1, 2023

About the author

Mark Sedgwick graduated with an MA from the Honour School of Modern History, University of Oxford in 1986. He gained his PhD in the Department of History at the University of Bergen in 1999. He has been a Professor in the Department of Culture and Society, Aarhus University, Denmark, since 2011.

Reviews

[Maru Kun · Rating 4 out of 5]

Traditionalism. The belief in a primordial Sacred Order, a body of truth that is at the heart of all spiritual practice from Hinduism to Buddhism, Islam to Christianity, Shamanism to Zoroastrianism - the core of any religion you care to name. This Sacred Order, once you have the holy insight to discern the esoteric from the exoteric, is the only path to a human understanding of the divine, and therefore the only path to human knowledge of the ultimate nature of reality.

The Sacred Order has only ever been known to the few - a secretive spiritual and intellectual elite who have handed it down, person to person, from the forgotten dawn of civilization in an unbroken history of oral instruction, with each individual an essential link in the chain of meaning.

Only a few of the names of these bearers of sacred truth are known to the uninitiated: Pythagorus, Laozi, Hermes Trismegistus, Ibn Arabi, Thomas Aquinus, Marsilio Ficino, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Paracelsus, Agrippa von Nettesheim, Jacob Boehme, Robert Fludd, Thomas Vaughan, Rudolf Steiner, René Guénon - until now, in our internet age, when two new bearers of the flame of sacred truth have emerged: Steve Bannon and Pepe the Frog.

Traditionalism posits an unknown spiritual dimension, a transcendent reality that is beyond human comprehension which is the source of the Sacred Order. This transcendent reality is ineffable and ultimately unknowable, and humans can only glimpse aspects of this reality as its full essence remains beyond human understanding.

But what do these glimpses tell us? What is the primal teaching of these broken shards of ultimate reality? The remarkable message bestowed on us when, for a few brief moments, we draw aside the veil of unknowing and look deep into the spiritual dimension is this: women belong in the kitchen. Meanwhile men can hang around getting the drinks in, talking metaphysical bollocks until dinner is served.

That's handy. Think I might leave a a few copies of Julius Evola by the wife's bedside and take it from there.

[Tim · Rating 2 out of 5]

Poor, jumps around like someone filling a word count . The narrator also has an annoyingly ironic tone even when no good point has been made.

[no.stache.nietzsche · Rating 3 out of 5]

While discussing the Graham Rooth text on Guenon in a group chat, a fellow who claims to have studied with scholars in direct lineage of Guenon told me that Mark Sedgwick was entirely useless. I would beg to disagree.. somewhat, as this text offers one the chance to be informed as to how mainstream egghead eternally agnostic scientific materialists are currently reacting to contemporary currents generally termed Traditionalism.

Of course, such people want to be able to tie up thought and thinkers into tidy little conceptual boxes with a bow on top. That's basically what this text sets out to do. It seems to us quite a reach to try and put Jordan Peterson in that box.. as Peterson has never read or referenced Guenon or Evola, or really any of the topics discussed by them, and so Sedgwick's persistent attempt to lump in Peterson really comes of as an attempt to give his area of study relevance.

There is also the frustrating theme of his always trying to square Guenon's thought within the circle of recorded history. Yes indeed, Guenon (and Evola) cite some historical examples such as Philip the Fair to illustrate their points about the involution and caste revolt- but neither ever intended these to be paramount events, but only available illustrations. Guenon especially emphasized that metaphysical principles are guiding historical cycles, and that any events such as those in our recorded historical epoch are but typical examples of an exacerbated sort- not THE definite occurrence.. Sedgwick, in a typical materialist manner, seems to have either ignored or failed comprehend this point in his reading of Guenon.

Despite that, a few other pot shots, and the typical pearl clutching about race and gender, the book was okay, did introduce us to a few other thinkers we weren't aware of (the sections on nature and art were interesting), and provided an introduction to some we are aware of but haven't read yet, such as Nasser and Coomaraswamy. So for that.. it will still get a solid 3/5 from us. Though we likely will not be purchasing a physical copy any time soon.

[Jason Malone · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good overview and introduction to the subject, but not much more than that.

The structure of the book — topics divided into individual chapters, with the contribution different Traditionalist thinkers made to the topic — was good,as it made it readable and easy to comprehend and follow. However, I failed to understand why Jordan Peterson was included among these thinkers as a “fellow-traveller,” when every summary of Peterson’s views often served to explain how his ideas contradicted the ideas of the core Traditionalists. The author might as well have included Donald Duck as a “Traditionalist fellow-traveller.”

[Tim Pendry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Twenty years ago Mark Sedgwick produced an interesting if limited monograph on traditionalist thought when it was more marginal than it has become in recent years. I reviewed this five years ago finding it useful but perhaps lacking in depth of historical analysis.

The general public has since become a little more aware of its existence. This latest review of the 'ideology' by Sedgewick is more along the lines of Matt Goodwin's analysis of populism, a serious but popular account for Pelican books ultimately designed for the curious paperback market.

The book is not an enormous advance on his initial work although it contains new material, more analysis and it brings matters up to date. It still centres on very disparate characters each claiming a traditionalist mantle - Guenon, Evola and Schuon above all.

As a scholar of Islamic studies he is the right person to link traditionalism to Sufism. He extends his analysis (which is always fair-minded) to cover Coomaraswamy (in aesthetics), Dugin (in politics) and even Jordan Peterson and a passing mention of Steve Bannon.

He is good also on the link with perennial philosophy and is able to unentangle perennialism and traditionalism when required. He works his way through the ideology and its critique of modernity thinker by thinker to the degree that each is relevant.

He reviews what he calls traditionalism's core projects ('self-realisation', religion and politics) but also looks at its aesthetics, conservative attitudes to gender, concern with nature and its more benign side's strong engagement with inter-faith dialogue. Two strong impressions emerge.

The first is that it is profoundly esoteric in its organisational approach, working on the minds of the few with a rather pessimistic view of the ability of modern humanity to comprehend or care about its concerns.

As a result it is 'movement' that has no true ideological centre. It spreads through an almost cultic initiation process where each element of it has different attitudes to what is important and how to interpret tradition and its relationship to existing religious systems.

The second is that much of it seems like the last gasp of moderately depressive and introvert 'right brain' people in their attempt to rescue what is now merely tolerated, coming up with a range of competing essentialisms that meet their own psychic (they would say 'spiritual') needs.

Rapid industrial and technological change has always driven conservative reaction amongst those who feel left behind - today it is perhaps those who read books rather than view screens. The reaction tends to be various in the arts and culture, in reactionary religion and in politics.

Our time is no exception. Perhaps the only area of public concern (given that it is widely accepted that people can believe or create what they wish as a part of what is to be modern) might be the emergence of a traditionalist politics that has come seen as 'Far Right'.

This is a complex area. Sedgwick (who is strongest on religion and culture) is perhaps analytically weakest here, drawing our attention to the link between traditionalist ideology and radical politics but swiftly moving on because it is (and this is right) only part of a conservative whole.

When you explore other political ideologies, there tend to be continuities between thinkers so that you can trace lineages forward and back that aid understanding. Traditionalism is not quite like that. There is a core way of seeing and then thinkers leap up as if out of nowhere with their own ideas.

Most traditionalists are not particularly political, being concerned much more with what older cultures might call the 'soul' or the inner person but those who political are tend to be particularly intense about it. The 'big names' of course are the very different Evola and Dugin.

Traditionalists are essentialists even when they flirt heavily with late Heidegger. Their way of seeing tends to be that of Neo-Platonism or the implication of a God underlying Tradition or the philosophies of South Asia. This necessarily affects their politics.

On the one hand we have the fascist Evola with his influential concept (on the Radical Right) of the political soldier which is not a million miles from the self image of a serious neo-pagan Schutzstaffel intellectual. It is not averse to terrorism if it actualises the political self.

On the other hand, we have the post-Soviet Eurasianist Alexander Dugin whose essentialist world view is one Huntingtonian civilisations that clash but not on terms necessarily requiring war or disrespect - quite the contrary. Indeed, its coherent civilisational empires are not 'imperialist'.

The former's influence remains marginal but perhaps dangerously so to liberal society insofar as the young anomic males who listen to the sometimes wise advice of Jordan Peterson may slip over the line in their frustration towards aggressive and disciplined 'soldierly' radicalism and terrorism.

Dugin on the other hand may be more of a threat to the West because he may be right - that the West does not have a coherent 'civilisation' based on tradition like Islam, Hindu South Asia, the Communist-Confucian Chinese hybrid and so forth. It could collapse from 'modernity'.

The greatest threat to the 'West' (an invented concept created in opposition to the rise of self-conscious neo-traditionalist and 'anti-imperialist' counter-civilisations) is the internal contradiction implicit in its inability to build a secure liberal civilisation without becoming increasingly illiberal.

In other words, the West does not need an enemy to destroy it because it will destroy itself. Illiberal 'liberals' are busy creating a mass of internal discontents with no centre to hold everyone together short of an existential war of defence which its opponents are careful not to give it.

Political traditionalism is also drawn to populism but the two are not identical any more than perennialism and traditionalism. The Hungarian experience suggests that populists are happy to dump the minority appeal of theory to gain power. Dugin does not sit in the Kremlin.

Populism is a 'threat' to the liberal West not because it is traditionalist (which it is not) but because its very existence drives the process that exposes liberal elites as profoundly illiberal when they are existentially threatened - it strips away the illusion of their moral superiority.

All in all, this book is a solid guide to the main thinkers of traditionalism. It will steer the interested towards new ideas cloaked in old clothes. Some will find them attractive but most will merely find them interesting. A few may be ignorantly frightened but that is their problem.

[Semih · Rating 5 out of 5]

A solid, balanced, and careful introduction to Traditionalism in relation to its historical and current tendencies

[Michael Nguyen · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book is quite similar to his previous work Against The Modern World. One of the differences to this and his previous book is that this work also features passages about Jordan Peterson, as a “traditionalist fellow traveller”.

I found the connections between Julius Evola and the terrorist activities of the Nuovo Ordine intriguing, however, I think that this would have been better if the connections were fleshed out further, as the connection between the two entities seemed somewhat loose. I was getting the sense at times that Sedgwick was cherry-picking evidence in order to attempt to convey a seemingly scholarly and neutral perspective on the authors. Simultaneously, I also find that Sedgwick inserts moral opinions against the more controversial Traditionalists and their ideologies, which entirely unnecessary, as his work here I believe should not be to denounce reprehensible thinkers, but to speak about their philosophies and history. This aspect of denunciation I believe is most likely due to cancel culture, and criticisms made against Sedgwick for being a crypto-Traditionalist, and thus has lead him to pick and choose a side. It is not really necessary for someone who is supposed to be a neutral scholar to have to choose a side in order to appease the moralists of the day.

What I found helpful in the book is an explanation on the polemical mislabelling done towards certain thinkers. For example, that of, Jordan Peterson, being called by detractors as “white supremacist”, a label which Sedgwick rejects as inaccurate to Peterson’s actual beliefs and statements. Sedgwick also explains Evola’s unique form of racism known as spiritual racism, and describes Evola’s associations with high ranking nazi officials, and how Evola fits in within that spectrum of Italian Fascism, Nazism, and Political Traditionalism.

The art chapter had some bits that were interesting to me, whereas other segments weren’t as enjoyable like the talk of Roccoco of it’s being influenced by Chinese art, and other modern forms of art which focused on mass production and technique; or the development of modern art and the technology and materials that were used. Quite boring to read through to be honest.

Other than the more mundane sections in the art chapter, I enjoyed his writing on the relationship between art and the spiritual, which were felt profound. The particular styles of art philosophy which he covers that focus on the spiritual include Ancient Greek with its emphasis on the beauty inherent in Platonic Forms; Medieval Art which was understood by Hugh of St Victor, to have a focus on the metaphysical; Indian Art, which was argued by Ernest Havell to be understood through the framework of the Vedas; and Islamic Art with a critique Titus Burckhardt’s essentialisation of it.. The chapter on art also makes a foreray into the music of John Tavener – and out of my curiosity I had a listen to his work and quite enjoyed it.

The chapter on Gender has a segment about Kabbalah unexpectedly placed in there, a pleasant surprise. It only goes for two paragraphs, but it details the ten sefirot which emanate from the Ein Sof. The emanations include keter(crown), binah (understanding), hokhmah (wisdom), and malkuth (kingdom) from which the physical world emanates and the identification of malkuth with Shekhinah (dwelling) the divine presence on earth. It is intriguing how this is brought up by Sedgwick, but it makes sense as he then goes on to explain that in Kabbalah the female Malkhut receives the male Keter, in a divine male-female union, which is relevant to the topic of gender. Later on in the Gender chapter there is a summary on Schopenhauer’s notorious essay “On Women” which featured unfavourable views of woman, stating “nature has endowed woman with the art of dissimulation for her protection and defence.” I found that quite an entertaining tidbit of Schopenhauer. Evola’s The Metaphysics of Sex is also mentioned, and his views of spiritual masculinity and spiritual femininity.

The chapter Dialogue quite boring, other than it’s mention of Samuel P Huntington’s book Clash of Civilizations which I read and liked. In the final chapter The Radical Right, the author makes an clarification on Alexander Dugin, that the media portrayal of him being the “Putin’s Rasputin” and “Putin’s Brain” is inaccurate. He explains the “In fact, Dugin has never been one of Putin’s close advisers, and there is no evidence that he has ever had any influence on day-to-day decision making.” This was a new revelation to me.

On a final note, I think it would’ve been worthwhile for the author to have mentioned Yukio Mishima, who was not exactly a Traditionalist but did talk a lot about tradition and the erosion of Japanese culture – somewhat peripheral.

[Toby Martin · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was only meant to be an accessible introduction to Traditionalism and its peripheral relevance, and I guess that's what it succeeded in being. I still feel that there were areas that Sedgwick didn't give as much attention to, however, ones which I felt left an incomplete impression of certain things I wanted to learn about. Notably, other sources have suggested that Sedgwick has designated seven individuals as the most important Traditionalists. Of all of these, Mircea Eliade has by far the least coverage in the book, despite his relevance to both political and religious applications of Traditionalism (and both together, given that he considered the Iron Guard important to 'reconcile Romania with God', which also has relevance to the modern Radical Right), and the fact that Sedgwick gave a decent coverage of Jordan Peterson's connection to Traditionalism, apparently after having read the works of Eliade.

I'll come clean about my personal biases - as a secular humanist and metaphysical naturalist, I have very limited use for Traditionalism, given its critique of modernity is based on its declinist view of history, which in turn is based on an anti-positivist perennialism, almost deliberately not accessible to an empirical analysis. Nevertheless, I'm grateful to Sedgwick for presenting the Traditionalists and their views as neutrally as possible so I can understand the mindset behind these ideas. Perhaps it would have been wrong of me to expect Sedgwick to become more opinionated about the foundations given this - even so, the ideas adjacent to Traditionalism are ones that need their own deep analysis, and with this one of the few unopinionated books on Traditionalism, it felt like we were sometimes with a dearth of information. How much were the Traditionalists influenced by other declinists and pessimists? How did theology - particularly mystical theology - develop in response to Traditionalism beyond just interfaith and ecumenical discourse? I think we also could have done with more information on those who were opposed to and criticised the views of various Traditionalists, particularly as I feel that the attempt to blame modernity to 20th-century atrocities can almost count as a form of psychological projection, given that the foundations of fascism were laid by Romanticists and the Volkisch esotericist movements in Germany, and born of a nation-specific declinism.

Sedgwick does engage with the Radical Right's approach to Traditionalism in a very nuanced, effective way, pointing out both the similarities and differences between the views of, say, Guenon, Evola, de Benoist, and Dugin. And these are worth knowing - the lack of an explicit perennialism in de Benoist for example. But whether this discounts him as a Traditionalist is difficult to be sure, given that the fundamental nature of the perennial tradition differed among the Traditionalists anyway, as Sedgwick noted - Guenon seemed to believe that the West, especially Western religion, had little to offer, Evola saw monotheism as not perennial but a symptom of modernity, whereas Shuon conversely tried to argue for the importance of all religious tradition, echoed by Eliade but with a particular emphasis on Christianity in contrast to Evola's antipathy toward it. With this in mind, one has to wonder whether the focus on perennialism as defining Traditionalism instead of the anti-modern, anti-materialist declinism is simply hair-splitting, and preventing important connections to be made between the views of the Traditionalists and the related-if-not-always-directly views of the modern far-right.

Having said that, this wish for a different kind of book was definitely personal in nature, and for a brief, largely neutral (Sedgwick is no fan of fascism and neo-fascism at any rate, which I really don't object to) overview of this rather underlooked philosophical view, it's pretty good.

[Ethan Rogers · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is useful intellectual history. It describes the work of "traditionalist" thinkers from Rene Guenon to Mircea Eliade. What groups these thinkers together is their belief that the ancients had meaningful, they would say "metaphysical", way of being in the world that made their lives worth living. Modern society, by contrast, is said to be decadent, meaningless, replacing value with quantity, and getting worse. Unsurprisingly, traditionalism has supporters with very extreme political views who wish to take extraordinary measures to restore the sacred order. So it is a potentially explosive strand of modern thought that is worth having on one's radar.

Sedgwick's book is mostly useful as an introduction, since he does not analyze traditionalist arguments in detail, but merely presents their opinions. But he does helpfully introduce and contextualize a number of surprising influential and little-known thinkers. Would recommend.

[Ali Jones Alkazemi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Et fint oversiktsverk