Post by giovanni on Jun 12, 2006 15:12:52 GMT
THE GLORIFICATION OF WORK
Bro. René Guénon
from Initiation and spiritual realization
IN OUR TIME it is fashionable to exalt work of whatever sort and no matter how it is accomplished, as if it had some superlative value in itself independently of any consideration of another order. This has been the subject of innumerable pronouncements as empty as they are pompous, not only in the profane world but, what is more serious, even in the initiatic organizations remaining in the West.[1] It is easy to understand that this way of envisaging things is directly linked to the exaggerated need for action that characterizes modern Westerners; work, at least when so considered, is obviously nothing but a form of action, and a form to which the ‘moralist’ prejudice is bound to attribute more importance than to any other because it more easily lends itself to being presented as a ‘duty’ for man and as ensuring his ‘dignity’.[2] Added to this there is usually a clearly anti-traditional motive, namely the depreciation of contemplation, which is assimilated to idleness, whereas on the contrary it is really the highest activity conceivable, and whereas further, action separated from contemplation can only be blind and disordered.[3] All of this only too easily accounts for those who declare, no doubt sincerely, that ‘their happiness lies in action’ itself;[4] we would rather say in ‘agitation, for once action is thus taken for an end in itself, whatever the ‘moralist’ pretexts invoked to justify it, it is truly nothing more than that.
Contrary to what the moderns think, any work that is done indiscriminately by anyone solely for the pleasure of acting or because of the need to ‘earn one’s living’ hardly merits being exalted, and indeed it can only be regarded as something abnormal, opposed to the order that ought to regulate human institutions, to such a point that, in the conditions of our age, it only too often acquires a character that without any exaggeration qualifies as ‘infra-human: What our contemporaries seem to ignore completely is that work is not truly valid unless it conforms to the very nature of the being that accomplishes it and results therefrom in a spontaneous and necessary way, as it were, so that it is no more than the means for that nature to realize itself as perfectly as possible. This in sum is the very notion of svadharma, which is the true foundation of the caste system and which we have emphasized sufficiently on many other occasions, so that here we can content ourselves by recalling it without further discussion. In this connection one can also consider what Aristotle said about the accomplishment by each being of its ‘proper activity, by which must be understood both the exercise of an activity in conformity to its nature and, as an immediate consequence of this activity, the passage from ‘potency’ to ‘act’ of the possibilities comprised in this nature. In other words, in order for work of any sort to be what it ought to be, it must above all correspond to a person’s ‘vocation’ in the proper meaning of this word;[5] and when things are thus, the material profit that can legitimately be derived from it is only a wholly secondary and contingent, not to say negligible end compared to the higher end, which is the development and as it were the fulfillment ‘in act’ of the very nature of the human being.
It goes without saying that what we have just said constitutes one of the essential foundations of any craft initiation, for the corresponding ‘vocation’ is one of the requisite qualifications for such an initiation and is even, one might say, the first and most indispensable.[6] There is nonetheless one other thing that needs to be emphasized, particularly from the initiatic point of view, for it gives to work in its traditional understanding its deepest meaning and highest importance, going beyond a consideration of human nature alone to link it with the cosmic order itself, and through this, in the most direct way, to universal principles. In order to understand this, one can begin with the definition of art as the ‘imitation of nature in its mode of operation,[7] that is to say nature as cause (Natura naturans), and not as effect (Natura naturata). From the traditional point of view there is no distinction between art and craft, any more than between artist and artisan, and this also is a point that we have already had occasion to explain. All that is produced ‘in conformity with order’ thereby equally and by the same right merits consideration as a work of art.[8] All traditions insist on the analogy between human artisans and the divine Artisan, both operating ‘by a word conceived in the intellect,’ which, let us note in passing, marks as dearly as possible the role of contemplation as the preliminary and necessary condition to the production of any work of art; and this too is an essential difference from the profane conception of work, which, as we said above, reduces it purely and simply to action, and which even tries to oppose it to contemplation. According to the Hindu scriptures, ‘we must build as the Devas did in the beginning’; this, which naturally extends to the exercise of all crafts worthy of the name, implies that work has a properly ritual character, as moreover all things ought to have in a civilization that is integrally traditional; and this ritual character not only ensures that ‘conformity to order’ of which we have just spoken, but one can even say that it is truly one with this conformity itself.[9]
When the human artist thus imitates the operation of the divine Artist in his own particular domain, he participates to a corresponding measure in the very work of the divine Artist, and in a way that is all the more effective as he is the more conscious of that operation; and the more he realizes through his work the virtualities of his own nature, at the same time the more his resemblance to the divine Artist increases, and the more perfectly his works are integrated into the harmony of the Cosmos. One can see how far this is from the banalities our contemporaries are in the habit of pronouncing in the belief that they are praising work; but when work is all that it traditionally ought to be, and only then, it is in reality far above all that they are capable of conceiving. Thus we can conclude these few remarks, which could easily be developed almost indefinitely, by saying this: the ‘glorification of work’ indeed corresponds to a truth, and even to a profound truth; but the way in which modern people understand it is nothing but a deformed caricature and in a way even an inversion of the traditional notion. Work is not ‘glorified’ by vain discourse, something which does not even have a plausible meaning; but work itself is ‘glorified, that is to say ‘transformed; when, instead of being a mere profane activity, it constitutes a conscious and effective collaboration toward the realization of the plan of the ‘Great Architect of the Universe.
Notes
[1] In Masonry the ‘glorification of work' is notably the theme of the final part of initiation to the grade of Companion; and unfortunately, it is today generally understood in this wholly profane manner instead of being understood, as it ought to be, in the legitimate and truly traditional sense that we propose to describe in what follows.
[2] Let us immediately say that between this modern conception of work and its traditional conception there is all the difference which exists in a general way between the moral viewpoint and the ritual viewpoint, as we explained above.
[3] Here let us recall one of the applications of the fable of the blind man and the paralytic, who represent respectively the active life and the contemplative life (cf. Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power, chap. 5).
[4] We take this phrase from a commentary on Masonic ritual, which nonetheless is in many ways certainly not the worst, that is, not one most affected by infiltrations of the profane spirit.
[5] On this point as on the other considerations that follow, we will refer to the numerous studies that A.K. Coomaraswamy devoted particularly to these questions for fuller explanations.
[6] Certain modem occupations, especially those that are purely mechanical and for which there cannot really be any question of ‘vocation, and which consequently have in themselves an ‘abnormal' character, cannot validly be the occasion for any initiation.
[7] And not in its productions, as the partisans of a so-called ‘realist' art imagine, which art is more exactly called ‘naturalistic.
[8] It is hardly necessary to recall that this traditional notion of art has absolutely nothing in common with the ‘esthetic' theories of the moderns.
[9] For all of this, see A.K. Coomaraswamy, 'Is Art a Superstition or a Way of Life?' in the collection entitled Why Exhibit Works of Art?
Bro. René Guénon
from Initiation and spiritual realization
IN OUR TIME it is fashionable to exalt work of whatever sort and no matter how it is accomplished, as if it had some superlative value in itself independently of any consideration of another order. This has been the subject of innumerable pronouncements as empty as they are pompous, not only in the profane world but, what is more serious, even in the initiatic organizations remaining in the West.[1] It is easy to understand that this way of envisaging things is directly linked to the exaggerated need for action that characterizes modern Westerners; work, at least when so considered, is obviously nothing but a form of action, and a form to which the ‘moralist’ prejudice is bound to attribute more importance than to any other because it more easily lends itself to being presented as a ‘duty’ for man and as ensuring his ‘dignity’.[2] Added to this there is usually a clearly anti-traditional motive, namely the depreciation of contemplation, which is assimilated to idleness, whereas on the contrary it is really the highest activity conceivable, and whereas further, action separated from contemplation can only be blind and disordered.[3] All of this only too easily accounts for those who declare, no doubt sincerely, that ‘their happiness lies in action’ itself;[4] we would rather say in ‘agitation, for once action is thus taken for an end in itself, whatever the ‘moralist’ pretexts invoked to justify it, it is truly nothing more than that.
Contrary to what the moderns think, any work that is done indiscriminately by anyone solely for the pleasure of acting or because of the need to ‘earn one’s living’ hardly merits being exalted, and indeed it can only be regarded as something abnormal, opposed to the order that ought to regulate human institutions, to such a point that, in the conditions of our age, it only too often acquires a character that without any exaggeration qualifies as ‘infra-human: What our contemporaries seem to ignore completely is that work is not truly valid unless it conforms to the very nature of the being that accomplishes it and results therefrom in a spontaneous and necessary way, as it were, so that it is no more than the means for that nature to realize itself as perfectly as possible. This in sum is the very notion of svadharma, which is the true foundation of the caste system and which we have emphasized sufficiently on many other occasions, so that here we can content ourselves by recalling it without further discussion. In this connection one can also consider what Aristotle said about the accomplishment by each being of its ‘proper activity, by which must be understood both the exercise of an activity in conformity to its nature and, as an immediate consequence of this activity, the passage from ‘potency’ to ‘act’ of the possibilities comprised in this nature. In other words, in order for work of any sort to be what it ought to be, it must above all correspond to a person’s ‘vocation’ in the proper meaning of this word;[5] and when things are thus, the material profit that can legitimately be derived from it is only a wholly secondary and contingent, not to say negligible end compared to the higher end, which is the development and as it were the fulfillment ‘in act’ of the very nature of the human being.
It goes without saying that what we have just said constitutes one of the essential foundations of any craft initiation, for the corresponding ‘vocation’ is one of the requisite qualifications for such an initiation and is even, one might say, the first and most indispensable.[6] There is nonetheless one other thing that needs to be emphasized, particularly from the initiatic point of view, for it gives to work in its traditional understanding its deepest meaning and highest importance, going beyond a consideration of human nature alone to link it with the cosmic order itself, and through this, in the most direct way, to universal principles. In order to understand this, one can begin with the definition of art as the ‘imitation of nature in its mode of operation,[7] that is to say nature as cause (Natura naturans), and not as effect (Natura naturata). From the traditional point of view there is no distinction between art and craft, any more than between artist and artisan, and this also is a point that we have already had occasion to explain. All that is produced ‘in conformity with order’ thereby equally and by the same right merits consideration as a work of art.[8] All traditions insist on the analogy between human artisans and the divine Artisan, both operating ‘by a word conceived in the intellect,’ which, let us note in passing, marks as dearly as possible the role of contemplation as the preliminary and necessary condition to the production of any work of art; and this too is an essential difference from the profane conception of work, which, as we said above, reduces it purely and simply to action, and which even tries to oppose it to contemplation. According to the Hindu scriptures, ‘we must build as the Devas did in the beginning’; this, which naturally extends to the exercise of all crafts worthy of the name, implies that work has a properly ritual character, as moreover all things ought to have in a civilization that is integrally traditional; and this ritual character not only ensures that ‘conformity to order’ of which we have just spoken, but one can even say that it is truly one with this conformity itself.[9]
When the human artist thus imitates the operation of the divine Artist in his own particular domain, he participates to a corresponding measure in the very work of the divine Artist, and in a way that is all the more effective as he is the more conscious of that operation; and the more he realizes through his work the virtualities of his own nature, at the same time the more his resemblance to the divine Artist increases, and the more perfectly his works are integrated into the harmony of the Cosmos. One can see how far this is from the banalities our contemporaries are in the habit of pronouncing in the belief that they are praising work; but when work is all that it traditionally ought to be, and only then, it is in reality far above all that they are capable of conceiving. Thus we can conclude these few remarks, which could easily be developed almost indefinitely, by saying this: the ‘glorification of work’ indeed corresponds to a truth, and even to a profound truth; but the way in which modern people understand it is nothing but a deformed caricature and in a way even an inversion of the traditional notion. Work is not ‘glorified’ by vain discourse, something which does not even have a plausible meaning; but work itself is ‘glorified, that is to say ‘transformed; when, instead of being a mere profane activity, it constitutes a conscious and effective collaboration toward the realization of the plan of the ‘Great Architect of the Universe.
Notes
[1] In Masonry the ‘glorification of work' is notably the theme of the final part of initiation to the grade of Companion; and unfortunately, it is today generally understood in this wholly profane manner instead of being understood, as it ought to be, in the legitimate and truly traditional sense that we propose to describe in what follows.
[2] Let us immediately say that between this modern conception of work and its traditional conception there is all the difference which exists in a general way between the moral viewpoint and the ritual viewpoint, as we explained above.
[3] Here let us recall one of the applications of the fable of the blind man and the paralytic, who represent respectively the active life and the contemplative life (cf. Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power, chap. 5).
[4] We take this phrase from a commentary on Masonic ritual, which nonetheless is in many ways certainly not the worst, that is, not one most affected by infiltrations of the profane spirit.
[5] On this point as on the other considerations that follow, we will refer to the numerous studies that A.K. Coomaraswamy devoted particularly to these questions for fuller explanations.
[6] Certain modem occupations, especially those that are purely mechanical and for which there cannot really be any question of ‘vocation, and which consequently have in themselves an ‘abnormal' character, cannot validly be the occasion for any initiation.
[7] And not in its productions, as the partisans of a so-called ‘realist' art imagine, which art is more exactly called ‘naturalistic.
[8] It is hardly necessary to recall that this traditional notion of art has absolutely nothing in common with the ‘esthetic' theories of the moderns.
[9] For all of this, see A.K. Coomaraswamy, 'Is Art a Superstition or a Way of Life?' in the collection entitled Why Exhibit Works of Art?