Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century [Paperback]

Note that the Michael Fitzgerald written about in the review below by Peter Kristofferson is not, in fact, a Catholic archbishop but rather the traditionalist author and scholar Michael Oren Fitzgerald.

I agree with a previous reviewer that the reviews of this book seem to fall into 2 camps, either traditionalists (Who all give the book 1 star but fail to give any substance as to why) And opponents who give it 5 starts (But again, largely lack content as to why give the book such praise) Hopefully as neither a traditionalist or an opponent my review can be a little more balanced.

First of all many of the critics of the book seem to refer to an online review of the book by a Christian traditionalist (You can find it cut and paste in a few of the below reviews) So I will base a large part of my review around that. The main criticism of the reviewer concerning this book is that in his opinion Sedgwick has 1. A hidden agenda against traditionalist which he was not honest about when writing the book. 2. He is only a recent convert to Islam (This being back in the 90s) And so has little knowledge of Islam (One could as how a Christian priest came to such a remarkable conclusion but thats another matter) and 3. That Sedgwick follows a narrow interpretation of Islam (Based on his recent conversion and his bad experience with Sufism)

Addressing the first point this seems to have come about from the author confronting Martin Lings about a spiritual crisis he suffered on joining the Haqqani Naqshbandi order regarding "Love for a Sheikh" Lings is reported to have replied that love of the Sheikh is a must (Presumably the answer he was not looking for) And this has resulted in a grudge against all traditionalists (Something I find very hard to believe) The second and third points seem to stem from Sedgwick pointing out the rather lax practice of Islam amongst the followers particularly of Schoun in France both during and after WW2. For example their lack of prayer, fasting etc which the author sees as both a departure from Islamic practice itself and in particual from the Alawi Sufi order to which the said they belonged. The critic of Sedgwick quotes from the book a passage regarding a Sheikh who was fasting while in the desert and being enticed to drink water by a voice from above refuses claiming this is the devil trying to tempt him and God would never allow him to do what is forbidden. The critic seems to believe that this is proof of the authors narrow view of Islam without presumably realising that the story of the Shaikh is none other that the Sufi Shaikh Abdul Qadr Jilani! Again this idea that anyone who is critical of traditionalism has some narrow fundamentalist interpretation of Islam is something of a red herring. Nuh Ha Mim Keller a Sufi Shaikh of the Shadhili order has been a vocal critic of the group (See his book "Reliance of the traveller") He has pointed out how traditionalists such as Chittick and others have deliberately miss quoted the books of ibn Arabi and Abdul Qadir Jaziri to fit their needs. Martin Lings was criticised because in the early editions of his biography of Muhammad he narrated that Muhammad put a protective hand over an image of Abraham in the Kaba when all other idols and images were removed (Based upon one very weak narration, a story that contradicts all traditional understanding of Islam) In another words, it becomes clear that far from traditionalism being the authentic expression of Islam and Sufism its something of a western extension of it that has drifted on its own way.

Sedgwick begins his study with Guenon and the meaning of traditionalism. In this he is not entirely clear in his explanation however his biography of Guenon is of some interest. It would seem that Guenon in particularly on his settlement in Egypt did indeed live out the rest of his life as a practicing Muslim though interestingly enough one who did not know classical Arabic and one who it would seem had not read a great deal of classical Islamic literature. It is also of interest that Sheikh Abdul Halim Mahmud, a man who is often quoted in traditionalist circles seems to have never read a book of traditionalism and his endorsement of it stems from nothing more than support of practicing western Muslims both in his native Egypt and Europe. Schoun is something different and Sedgwick is quite right in that its almost unheard of that a Sufi order should take an entirely differnet direction as the Alawi order in Europe did. His biography of Schoun is intriguing and it would be no surprise that traditionalists are so critical of the book seeing as much of their hidden belief and practice is now exposed for public view.

Where I think Sedgwick fails however is his link between traditionalism and Fascism. The links between Guenon and Evola is weak to say the least. In fact the link seems to be nothing more than Evola happened to have read a few books by him. It would be like finding the books of Kipling amongst Stalins books and claiming a link between Kipling and Stalin! Another point is if Sedgwick was trying to claim that there was some traditionalist attempt at world domination through our universities and schools then he failed quite badly in this book. Traditionalist are almost unheard of amongst Christians and Muslims alike. He even points out himself that while Merton may be popular or while some Sufis who became Butichichi's after reading Guenons books its highly unlikely that traditionalism influenced that order or those readers to any great extent. What traditionalism and Sedgwick seem to forget is you cant implant a 50 odd year old tradition on a 1400 year old religion and expect to have much success.

All in all in interesting read. As one quote on the back of the book says "You will never see the allusion to the "Trancendental unity of religions" in quite the same light again"

If I were writing a book on Traditionalism, I would consider each of the main figures in the movement -- Guénon, Schuon, and Coomaraswamy -- and show what their views were, how they came to hold them, and how they justified them. I would then conclude by looking at their legacy, both in the Traditionalist movement and in the wider intellectual world. So what has Dr Sedgwick done?

It is very difficult to get a clear idea of their philosophy from his book, because the whole thing is embedded in an excess of biographical detail. We learn why Guénon's PhD thesis was rejected, which schools, he taught at, and what his house in Cairo looked like; it all gets in the way.

The author also devotes too much space to peripheral figures, such as Evola and Dugin. Traditionalism is a largely religious movement, but Evola was basically a political thinker of the far right; he owed far more to Nietzsche than to Guénon. As for Dugin, the chief reason for including him seems to be that it gives the author a chance to give a highly-coloured description of a secret meeting in Moscow to get things off to a rousing start. As Sedgwick wrote to Fitzgerald "I'll be honest: one has to dress things up slightly.." Exactly.

If you want to learn about Traditionalism, read the originals. For only a couple of pounds more, you could get "The Essential Frithjof Schuon" or "Underlying Religion, by Lings and Minaar".