Between Asgard and the Western Paradise

According to Brendan O’Neil in a recent article at Spiked-Online.com, “Western pro-Tibet campaigning is driven less by a passion for freedom, than by disgust with modernity”.  This raises a question, for, if the most vociferous calls for Tibet independence are represented by self-proclaimed “progressives,” it would seem ironic that these people would oppose modernity and love things associated with the past.  Moreover, I consider myself to be a staunch opponent of this “modernity”, but in fact would want little to do with the former group of “progressives”. (On the advise of my legal counsel, I have been told to say that the views expressed on Spiked-Online.com are the sole responsibility of the Spiked-Online.com, its contributors, editors, and administrators, and do not necessarily reflect my own views.  Please also refer to the notice at the bottom regarding copyright information. )

First, what exactly is the problem with modernity?  By modernity, we can limit ourselves to the past 200 years of human history (for the Western world), beginning with the French Revolution and continuing to the modern day.  I think that many people will agree that even though there have been positive effects of industrialization and modernity, there are many consequences that were disasterous for the human race.  Society has become destabilized, life can be unufilling, human beings have been subjected to psychological and physical suffering, and severe damage has been inflicted on the natural world.  In his short work, His Holiness the Dalai concisely summarized some of those ills of modernity in a short work called The Paradox of Our Age, which I will reproduce here for convenience:

We have bigger houses but smaller families;
more conveniences, but less time.
We have more degrees but less sense;
more knowledge but less judgment;
more experts, but more problems;
more medicines but less healthiness.
We’ve been all the way to the moon and back,
but have trouble in crossing the street to meet our new neighbour.
We built more computers to hold more copies than ever,
But have less real communication;
We have become long on quantity,
but short on quality.
These are times of fast foods but slow digestion;
Tall men but short characters;
Steep profits but shallow relationships.
It’s a time when there is much in the window
But nothing in the room.

From the practical side of things, I think that there is a psychological tendency that underlies leftist “anti-modernity”.  This tendency is a feeling of inferiority.  I say this because Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong and successful.  To my knowledge, not a word was said among liberal circles during the Cultural Revolution, when Tibet suffered the brunt of Communist repression.  This was simply because China was merely not ’strong’ enough to be of concern to Western liberals.  Soon after China began to abandon Marxist thought and became successful, Free Tibet groups sprang up throughout the West.  In this regard, O’Neil was not entirely accurate in his assessment: the leftists do not hate modernity, per se, but they do hate something that can be percieved as “successful”.

There are also two attitudes towards modernity that separate the Traditionalists from the social liberals who also claim to be anti-modern. The former is concerned with being, while the latter is concerned with becoming; the former is concerned with identity and the other one with individuality.  These are not the same thing.  Being and identity are concerned with the superior world of stability and quality, while becoming and individuality are concerned with the inferior world of flux and quantity.

Tradition is concerned with the primacy of eternal principles, while liberalism is concerned with the primacy of eternal change.  Where O’Neil’s analysis breaks down is noting that the key difference is that many of the leftists are only concerned with eliminating the most superficial and outward symptoms of modernity, such as technology or industry, without giving attention to the complementary aspect of degenerating spirituality.  Thus superficially they hate cars, factories, and capitalism, but subconciously are reliant on things in the material world.  Moreover, they are inconsistent in their so-called ‘nostalgia’ for the past.  They would care little to resurrect the moral orders of any religious group, much less authentic the warlike times of the kśatra.) Even when an interest in spirituality is present, it is only a reaction to their own traditions (in this case Christianity); they seek Buddhism only because they want to use it to further the goal of individuality, but few would genuinely care for either exoteric or esoteric Buddhist practice — this is obvious when we hear such people say “I’m a spiritual Buddhist” or similar statements.

In examining things which are relevent to religious systems, we may deliminate a few points of commonality which exist among all the major beliefs of the world.  Excluding the notion of the supernatural, all religions possess creeds and decrees for living one’s life - sacred doctrines so inherent to the function of the belief that they are given as a definite known.  Such a creed defines what is acceptable and what is to be forbidden by the practicioners of the religion.  Some religions contain extensive iconography, in the form of gods or goddesses, or in the form of saints and gurus.

Some of the more cult-like aspects of liberalism do indeed derive from certain religious or pseudo-religious “Judeo-Christian” principles (note the quotation marks), however maintains fervent commitment to heresy.  The origin of heresy within the West is nothing new.  As early as the 1100’s, the a Catholic monk named Joachim of Fiore preached a “postmillennial” doctrine in which a “perfect” and sinless world could be achieved through collectivist economics and eglitarian politics.  Such “equality” would be assured by the totalitarian rule of a cadre consisting of righteous believers, presided over by a Messiah-like figure.  With the rise of Protestantism, such heresies expanded hundred-fold.  The German peasant-turned priest Thomas Müntzer led groups of peasants through the countryside under the rallying cry “omnia sunt communia”; his doctrine would later be repeated by Friedrich Engels, and his persona would later be given nearly saint-like status in East Germany.  Today, many liberals might use religion to justify certain hedonistic aims, even if they are ultimately against religious texts.

Western rhetoric since Age of Enlightenment has consistently seclarized itself, and societies have followed this pattern.  Today, with a few noble exceptions such as the Dragon Kingdom of Bhutan, or the Saud’s Arabia, we can find few instances in which faith plays a role in everyone’s life.  In other words, Western society has “abandon[ed] the religious myths and doctrinal mysteries that once permeated their fiber” (Gottfried, p. 134).  However, this is merely a oversimplification.  It may be true that many Americans or Europeans don’t believe that an omnipotent God created the world in seven days, but many elements of religion still permeate even secular doctrines.  Thus, there are martyrs and great men, as well as persecutors and heretics.  Gottfried states that “the substitution of designated victims for the older adoration of religious martyrs” is prevalent even among the most postmodern and atheistic communities.  Thus, instead of the remembrance of the early Church, we are reminded of the plight of the persecution of the Trotskyists in Soviet Russia or the persecution of homosexuals in today’s society, and the prevalent doctrine becomes the exaltation of such groups.  To go against this ideology in many cases draws the criticism and anger from supporters.

Missionary work still exists in the Cult of Liberalism, but it is focused on bringing the “civilized” Western way of life to select non-Westerners who adhere to a more conservative way of life.  As I have alluded to before, this is part of the reason for the conflict between the liberal West and the Islamic world.

Ultimately, what exists today is not the end of religious doctrine, but the degeneration and reorganization of said doctrine in a secular humanist manner.  In other words, liberalism operates as if it were a religion, but removes any mention of the divine from the equation, replacing it with notions of the worldly.  Thus is the emergence of the “secular theocracy”.