Post by giovanni on Oct 19, 2006 5:33:41 GMT
Bro. René Guénon
CEREMONIALISM AND ESTHETICISM
We have already denounced the strange confusion between rites and ceremonies[1] which is often made in our time and which bears testimony to a complete misunderstanding of the true nature and essential characteristics of rites, we might even say of tradition in general. While rites, like everything that is of a truly traditional order, necessarily include a ‘non-human’ element, ceremonies, on the contrary, are purely human and cannot lay claim to anything more than effects strictly limited to this domain, one could say even to its most outward aspects, for these effects are in reality exclusively ‘psychological’ and, above all, emotional. Thus one can see in this confusion a particular case or a consequence of ‘humanism’, that is to say the modern tendency to reduce everything to the human level, a tendency manifested also by the attempt to explain the effects of rites themselves in a ‘psychological’ way, which effectively abolishes the essential difference between rites and ceremonies.
It is not a question of disputing the relative utility of ceremonies insofar as, by being incidentally joined to rites in a period of spiritual obscuration, they make the latter more accessible to the generality of men, whom they thus prepare as it were to receive the effects of the rites, because they can no longer be immediately reached except by such wholly outward means as the former. Yet in order for this role of ‘adjuvant’ to remain legitimate and indeed for it to be truly efficacious, the development of ceremonies must be kept within certain limits beyond which they rather risk having completely opposite consequences. This is what one sees only too often in the present state of Western religious forms, where the rites end up being truly smothered by the ceremonies. In such cases not only is the accidental too often taken as the essential, which gives birth to an excessive formalism empty of meaning, but the very ‘thickness’ of the ceremonial lining, if one may speak thus, presents a far from negligible obstacle to the action of spiritual influences. Here we have a true case of ‘solidification’ in the sense in which we have taken this word elsewhere,[2] which very much accords with the general character of the modern age.
This abuse, which can be named ‘ceremonialism’, is something strictly Western, which is easy to understand. Ceremonies always give the impression of something exceptional, and they communicate this appearance to the very rites upon which they have come to be superimposed. Now, the less a civilization is wholly traditional, the more the separation is accentuated between the diminished tradition and everything else, which is now considered purely profane and to constitute what is commonly called ‘ordinary life’, on which traditional elements no longer exercise any effective influence. It is quite evident that this separation has never been pushed as far as with modern Westerners; and in saying this we naturally mean to speak of those who still have kept something of their tradition but who, outside of the restricted role played in their lives by the ‘practice of religion', are in no way distinct from others. In these conditions, everything belonging to tradition must take on the character of an exception with respect to the rest, which precisely emphasizes the display of ceremonies surrounding them. Thus, even granted that this is explained in part by the Western temperament, and that it corresponds to a kind of emotiveness which makes it more particularly sensible to ceremonies, it is nonetheless true that there are also more profound reasons directly linked to the extreme enfeeblement of the traditional spirit. It is also to be noted in this same order of ideas that when Westerners speak of spiritual things, or what they rightly or wrongly consider to be such,[3] they feel obliged to take an annoyingly solemn tone, as if better to indicate that these things have nothing in common with the usual subjects of their conversations. Whatever they may think, this affectation of ‘ceremoniousness’ assuredly has no connection with the dignity and seriousness appropriate to everything of a traditional order, and which never exclude the most perfect naturalness and greatest simplicity of attitude, as one can still see today in the East.[4]
There is another side to the question which we did not mention earlier, but upon which it seems necessary to dwell somewhat. We are speaking of the connection that exists for Westerners between ‘ceremonialism’ and what can be called ‘estheticism'. By this latter word we naturally mean the particular mentality that proceeds from the ‘esthetic’ point of view, which applies first and most properly to art, but is extended bit by bit to other domains and finally puts a particular ‘coloring’ on the way that men look at everything. As its name indicates, the ‘esthetic’ point of view is that which attempts to reduce everything to a simple question of ‘sensibility’; this is the modern and profane idea of art which, as A. K. Coomaraswamy has shown in numerous writings, is opposed to its. normal and traditional conception. It removes all intellectuality and, one could even say, all intelligibility from whatever it is applied to, and the beautiful, far from being the ‘splendor of the true', as it was defined in past ages, is reduced to no more than whatever produces a certain sentiment of pleasure, and therefore something purely ‘psychological’ and ‘subjective’ It is thus easy to understand how the taste for ceremonies is attached to this point of view, for ceremonies have effects that are only of the esthetic order and could not have any others; just like modern art, they are neither something to be understood nor something with a more or less profound meaning to be penetrated, but are merely leave an ‘impression’ in a wholly sentimental manner. All of this reaches only the most superficial and illusory part of the psychic being, which varies not only from one individual to another but also within the same individual according to his dispositions of the moment. This sentimental domain is indeed, in all respects, the most complete and the most extreme type of what one could call ‘subjectivity’ in its pure state.[5]
What we are saying about the taste for ceremonies properly so called also applies of course to the excessive and in a way disproportionate importance that some attribute to everything belonging to outward ‘decor', sometimes going so far, even with things of an authentically traditional order, as to make this contingent accessory an indispensable and essential element, while others imagine that rites would lose all their value if not accompanied by more or less ‘imposing’ ceremonies. It is perhaps even more evident here that this is fundamentally a matter of ‘estheticism; and even when those who are thus attached to ‘decor’ assure us that they are so because of the significance that they recognize in it, we are not certain but that they perhaps deceive themselves and are attracted rather especially by something much more outward and ‘subjective', by an ‘artistic’ impression in the modern sense of the word. The least one can say is that the confusion between the accidental and the essential, which in any case exists, is always the sign of a very imperfect comprehension. Thus, for example, among those who admire the art of the Middle Ages, even when they are sincerely persuaded that their admiration is not simply ‘esthetic’ as was that of the ‘romantics’, and that the principal motive is the spirituality expressed by this art, we doubt that there are many who truly understand it and who are capable of making the necessary effort to see it otherwise than with modern eyes, that is, to really place themselves in the state of mind of those who produced this art and of those for whom it was intended. Among those who take pleasure in surrounding themselves with the ‘decor’ of that period, to a greater or lesser degree one almost always finds, if not strictly speaking the mentality, at least the ‘perspective’ of the architects who build in ‘neo-gothic’ style, or of the modern painters who try to imitate the works of ‘primitives: In these reconstitutions there is always something artificial and ‘ceremonious; something that ‘rings false’, one might say, and that rather recalls the ‘exhibition’ or ‘museum’ much more than the real and normal use of works of art in a traditional civilization. To say it all in a word, one has the clear impression that the ‘spirit’ is absent.[6]
What we have just said about the Middle Ages in order to provide an example from the Western world itself could also be said, and with even more reason, in cases of Eastern ‘decor’. It is indeed rare that even when composed of authentic elements, these do not rather represent above all the whole idea that Westerners have formed of the East, something having only a very distant relation to what the East really is in itself.[7] This leads us to clarify yet another important point: among the many manifestations of modern ‘estheticism’ one must single out the taste for the ‘exotic’ so frequently witnessed among our contemporaries, a taste which, whatever the different factors that may have contributed to its spread (and which would take too long to examine here in detail), once again finally comes down to a sort of ‘artistic’ sensibility foreign to any true comprehension, and this, unfortunately, among those who do nothing but ‘follow’ and imitate others, even to a mere question of fashion, as is the case with the admiration affected for one or another form of art, which varies from one moment to the next according to circumstances. But the case of the ‘exotic’ concerns us somehow more directly than any other, because it is greatly to be feared that the very interest in Eastern doctrines manifested by same people is too often due to this tendency-, when such is the case, it is evident that one is dealing with a purely outward ‘attitude’ that cannot be taken seriously. What complicates matters is that this same tendency can also be mixed in varying proportions with a much more real arid sincere interest; this case is certainly not as hopeless as the other, but what must then be taken into account is that one can never arrive at a true comprehension of any doctrine until the impression of ‘exoticism’ that it might have had initially should have disappeared entirely. This can require a preliminary effort that is considerable and even painful for some but which is strictly indispensable if they wish to obtain any valid result from the studies they have undertaken. If this is impossible, which naturally sometimes happens, this is because one is dealing with Westerners who, because of their special psychic constitution, can never cease being what they are and who consequently would do much better to remain so entirely and frankly and to renounce occupying themselves with things from which they can draw no real profit, for whatever they do, these things will always be for them in ‘another world’ having no connection to the one to which they in fact belong and which they are incapable to leaving. We will add that these remarks are particularly important in the case of Westerners by birth who, for one reason or another, and especially for reasons of an esoteric and initiatic order - the only reasons we can consider worthy of interest[8] - have decided to join an Eastern tradition; in fact, here we have a true question of ‘qualification’ which is imposed on them and which in all strictness ought to be the object of a sort of preliminary ‘trial’ before any question of a real and effective adherence. In any case, and even in the most favorable conditions, such people must be very much convinced that, as long as they find the slightest ‘exotic’ character in the traditional form they have adopted, this is incontestable proof that they have not. truly assimilated the form, and that, whatever the appearances, it remains something exterior to their real being and modifies it only superficially. This is one o£ the first obstacles such people encounter on their way, and experience obliges us to recognize that, for many, this is perhaps not the least difficult to overcome.
[1] See Perspectives on Initiation, chap. 19
[2] See The Reign of Quantity and the signs of the Times.
[3] We add this restriction because of the many counterfeits of spirituality current among our contemporaries; but it suffices that they be convinced that it is spirituality, or that they wish to convince others so, for the same observation to apply in all cases.
[4] This is particularly manifest in the case of Islam, which naturally has many rites but not a single ceremony. On the other hand, even in the West one can see in the sermons that have been preserved from the Middle Ages that the preachers of that truly religious period did not at all disdain to use a familiar and sometimes even humorous tone.
A rather significant fact is the deviation current usage has imposed on the word ‘pontiff' and its derivatives. For the ordinary Westerner, who is ignorant of their traditional and symbolic value, these words have come to represent nothing more than the most excessive ‘ceremonialism; as if the essential function of the pontificate were not the accomplishment of certain rites but only the conducting of particularly pompous ceremonies.
[5] We do not have to speak here of certain forms of modern art which can produce the effects of disequilibrium and even ‘disintegration', the repercussions of which can be quite far-reaching. This is no longer merely a matter of the insignificance, in the proper sense of the word, that attaches to everything purely profane, but is, indeed, a true work of ‘subversion'
[6] In the same order of ideas, we will point out incidentally the case of so-called 'folk' festivals so fashionable today. These attempts to reconstitute ancient ‘popular' festivals, even when based on the most exact documentation and the most scrupulous erudition, inevitably have a pathetic air of ‘masquerade and of gross counterfeit that could make one believe in an intention to ‘parody' that certainly does not exist among their organizers.
[7] To take an extreme example, one that is thereby more ‘tangible’, the works of most of the painters called ‘orientalists' show only too well what the Western perspective applied to things of the East can lead to. There is no doubt that they have really taken as their models Oriental people, things and landscapes, but since they have only seen them in a wholly outward fashion, their manner of ‘rendering' them is worth about as much as the creations of the 'folklorists' of whom we have just spoken.
[8] On this subject, see the preceding chapter, ‘Conversions’.
CEREMONIALISM AND ESTHETICISM
We have already denounced the strange confusion between rites and ceremonies[1] which is often made in our time and which bears testimony to a complete misunderstanding of the true nature and essential characteristics of rites, we might even say of tradition in general. While rites, like everything that is of a truly traditional order, necessarily include a ‘non-human’ element, ceremonies, on the contrary, are purely human and cannot lay claim to anything more than effects strictly limited to this domain, one could say even to its most outward aspects, for these effects are in reality exclusively ‘psychological’ and, above all, emotional. Thus one can see in this confusion a particular case or a consequence of ‘humanism’, that is to say the modern tendency to reduce everything to the human level, a tendency manifested also by the attempt to explain the effects of rites themselves in a ‘psychological’ way, which effectively abolishes the essential difference between rites and ceremonies.
It is not a question of disputing the relative utility of ceremonies insofar as, by being incidentally joined to rites in a period of spiritual obscuration, they make the latter more accessible to the generality of men, whom they thus prepare as it were to receive the effects of the rites, because they can no longer be immediately reached except by such wholly outward means as the former. Yet in order for this role of ‘adjuvant’ to remain legitimate and indeed for it to be truly efficacious, the development of ceremonies must be kept within certain limits beyond which they rather risk having completely opposite consequences. This is what one sees only too often in the present state of Western religious forms, where the rites end up being truly smothered by the ceremonies. In such cases not only is the accidental too often taken as the essential, which gives birth to an excessive formalism empty of meaning, but the very ‘thickness’ of the ceremonial lining, if one may speak thus, presents a far from negligible obstacle to the action of spiritual influences. Here we have a true case of ‘solidification’ in the sense in which we have taken this word elsewhere,[2] which very much accords with the general character of the modern age.
This abuse, which can be named ‘ceremonialism’, is something strictly Western, which is easy to understand. Ceremonies always give the impression of something exceptional, and they communicate this appearance to the very rites upon which they have come to be superimposed. Now, the less a civilization is wholly traditional, the more the separation is accentuated between the diminished tradition and everything else, which is now considered purely profane and to constitute what is commonly called ‘ordinary life’, on which traditional elements no longer exercise any effective influence. It is quite evident that this separation has never been pushed as far as with modern Westerners; and in saying this we naturally mean to speak of those who still have kept something of their tradition but who, outside of the restricted role played in their lives by the ‘practice of religion', are in no way distinct from others. In these conditions, everything belonging to tradition must take on the character of an exception with respect to the rest, which precisely emphasizes the display of ceremonies surrounding them. Thus, even granted that this is explained in part by the Western temperament, and that it corresponds to a kind of emotiveness which makes it more particularly sensible to ceremonies, it is nonetheless true that there are also more profound reasons directly linked to the extreme enfeeblement of the traditional spirit. It is also to be noted in this same order of ideas that when Westerners speak of spiritual things, or what they rightly or wrongly consider to be such,[3] they feel obliged to take an annoyingly solemn tone, as if better to indicate that these things have nothing in common with the usual subjects of their conversations. Whatever they may think, this affectation of ‘ceremoniousness’ assuredly has no connection with the dignity and seriousness appropriate to everything of a traditional order, and which never exclude the most perfect naturalness and greatest simplicity of attitude, as one can still see today in the East.[4]
There is another side to the question which we did not mention earlier, but upon which it seems necessary to dwell somewhat. We are speaking of the connection that exists for Westerners between ‘ceremonialism’ and what can be called ‘estheticism'. By this latter word we naturally mean the particular mentality that proceeds from the ‘esthetic’ point of view, which applies first and most properly to art, but is extended bit by bit to other domains and finally puts a particular ‘coloring’ on the way that men look at everything. As its name indicates, the ‘esthetic’ point of view is that which attempts to reduce everything to a simple question of ‘sensibility’; this is the modern and profane idea of art which, as A. K. Coomaraswamy has shown in numerous writings, is opposed to its. normal and traditional conception. It removes all intellectuality and, one could even say, all intelligibility from whatever it is applied to, and the beautiful, far from being the ‘splendor of the true', as it was defined in past ages, is reduced to no more than whatever produces a certain sentiment of pleasure, and therefore something purely ‘psychological’ and ‘subjective’ It is thus easy to understand how the taste for ceremonies is attached to this point of view, for ceremonies have effects that are only of the esthetic order and could not have any others; just like modern art, they are neither something to be understood nor something with a more or less profound meaning to be penetrated, but are merely leave an ‘impression’ in a wholly sentimental manner. All of this reaches only the most superficial and illusory part of the psychic being, which varies not only from one individual to another but also within the same individual according to his dispositions of the moment. This sentimental domain is indeed, in all respects, the most complete and the most extreme type of what one could call ‘subjectivity’ in its pure state.[5]
What we are saying about the taste for ceremonies properly so called also applies of course to the excessive and in a way disproportionate importance that some attribute to everything belonging to outward ‘decor', sometimes going so far, even with things of an authentically traditional order, as to make this contingent accessory an indispensable and essential element, while others imagine that rites would lose all their value if not accompanied by more or less ‘imposing’ ceremonies. It is perhaps even more evident here that this is fundamentally a matter of ‘estheticism; and even when those who are thus attached to ‘decor’ assure us that they are so because of the significance that they recognize in it, we are not certain but that they perhaps deceive themselves and are attracted rather especially by something much more outward and ‘subjective', by an ‘artistic’ impression in the modern sense of the word. The least one can say is that the confusion between the accidental and the essential, which in any case exists, is always the sign of a very imperfect comprehension. Thus, for example, among those who admire the art of the Middle Ages, even when they are sincerely persuaded that their admiration is not simply ‘esthetic’ as was that of the ‘romantics’, and that the principal motive is the spirituality expressed by this art, we doubt that there are many who truly understand it and who are capable of making the necessary effort to see it otherwise than with modern eyes, that is, to really place themselves in the state of mind of those who produced this art and of those for whom it was intended. Among those who take pleasure in surrounding themselves with the ‘decor’ of that period, to a greater or lesser degree one almost always finds, if not strictly speaking the mentality, at least the ‘perspective’ of the architects who build in ‘neo-gothic’ style, or of the modern painters who try to imitate the works of ‘primitives: In these reconstitutions there is always something artificial and ‘ceremonious; something that ‘rings false’, one might say, and that rather recalls the ‘exhibition’ or ‘museum’ much more than the real and normal use of works of art in a traditional civilization. To say it all in a word, one has the clear impression that the ‘spirit’ is absent.[6]
What we have just said about the Middle Ages in order to provide an example from the Western world itself could also be said, and with even more reason, in cases of Eastern ‘decor’. It is indeed rare that even when composed of authentic elements, these do not rather represent above all the whole idea that Westerners have formed of the East, something having only a very distant relation to what the East really is in itself.[7] This leads us to clarify yet another important point: among the many manifestations of modern ‘estheticism’ one must single out the taste for the ‘exotic’ so frequently witnessed among our contemporaries, a taste which, whatever the different factors that may have contributed to its spread (and which would take too long to examine here in detail), once again finally comes down to a sort of ‘artistic’ sensibility foreign to any true comprehension, and this, unfortunately, among those who do nothing but ‘follow’ and imitate others, even to a mere question of fashion, as is the case with the admiration affected for one or another form of art, which varies from one moment to the next according to circumstances. But the case of the ‘exotic’ concerns us somehow more directly than any other, because it is greatly to be feared that the very interest in Eastern doctrines manifested by same people is too often due to this tendency-, when such is the case, it is evident that one is dealing with a purely outward ‘attitude’ that cannot be taken seriously. What complicates matters is that this same tendency can also be mixed in varying proportions with a much more real arid sincere interest; this case is certainly not as hopeless as the other, but what must then be taken into account is that one can never arrive at a true comprehension of any doctrine until the impression of ‘exoticism’ that it might have had initially should have disappeared entirely. This can require a preliminary effort that is considerable and even painful for some but which is strictly indispensable if they wish to obtain any valid result from the studies they have undertaken. If this is impossible, which naturally sometimes happens, this is because one is dealing with Westerners who, because of their special psychic constitution, can never cease being what they are and who consequently would do much better to remain so entirely and frankly and to renounce occupying themselves with things from which they can draw no real profit, for whatever they do, these things will always be for them in ‘another world’ having no connection to the one to which they in fact belong and which they are incapable to leaving. We will add that these remarks are particularly important in the case of Westerners by birth who, for one reason or another, and especially for reasons of an esoteric and initiatic order - the only reasons we can consider worthy of interest[8] - have decided to join an Eastern tradition; in fact, here we have a true question of ‘qualification’ which is imposed on them and which in all strictness ought to be the object of a sort of preliminary ‘trial’ before any question of a real and effective adherence. In any case, and even in the most favorable conditions, such people must be very much convinced that, as long as they find the slightest ‘exotic’ character in the traditional form they have adopted, this is incontestable proof that they have not. truly assimilated the form, and that, whatever the appearances, it remains something exterior to their real being and modifies it only superficially. This is one o£ the first obstacles such people encounter on their way, and experience obliges us to recognize that, for many, this is perhaps not the least difficult to overcome.
[1] See Perspectives on Initiation, chap. 19
[2] See The Reign of Quantity and the signs of the Times.
[3] We add this restriction because of the many counterfeits of spirituality current among our contemporaries; but it suffices that they be convinced that it is spirituality, or that they wish to convince others so, for the same observation to apply in all cases.
[4] This is particularly manifest in the case of Islam, which naturally has many rites but not a single ceremony. On the other hand, even in the West one can see in the sermons that have been preserved from the Middle Ages that the preachers of that truly religious period did not at all disdain to use a familiar and sometimes even humorous tone.
A rather significant fact is the deviation current usage has imposed on the word ‘pontiff' and its derivatives. For the ordinary Westerner, who is ignorant of their traditional and symbolic value, these words have come to represent nothing more than the most excessive ‘ceremonialism; as if the essential function of the pontificate were not the accomplishment of certain rites but only the conducting of particularly pompous ceremonies.
[5] We do not have to speak here of certain forms of modern art which can produce the effects of disequilibrium and even ‘disintegration', the repercussions of which can be quite far-reaching. This is no longer merely a matter of the insignificance, in the proper sense of the word, that attaches to everything purely profane, but is, indeed, a true work of ‘subversion'
[6] In the same order of ideas, we will point out incidentally the case of so-called 'folk' festivals so fashionable today. These attempts to reconstitute ancient ‘popular' festivals, even when based on the most exact documentation and the most scrupulous erudition, inevitably have a pathetic air of ‘masquerade and of gross counterfeit that could make one believe in an intention to ‘parody' that certainly does not exist among their organizers.
[7] To take an extreme example, one that is thereby more ‘tangible’, the works of most of the painters called ‘orientalists' show only too well what the Western perspective applied to things of the East can lead to. There is no doubt that they have really taken as their models Oriental people, things and landscapes, but since they have only seen them in a wholly outward fashion, their manner of ‘rendering' them is worth about as much as the creations of the 'folklorists' of whom we have just spoken.
[8] On this subject, see the preceding chapter, ‘Conversions’.