¶11 Here we must stop for a moment to dissipate a possible confusion: in speaking of modern individualism, we have considered almost exclusively its manifestations in the intellectual order; one might think that, with regard to the social order, the case is entirely different. In fact, if one took this word ‘individualism’ in its narrowest acceptation, one might be tempted to oppose the collectivity to the individual, and to think that facts such as the increasingly invasive rôle of the State and the growing complexity of social institutions are the mark of a tendency contrary to individualism.1 In reality, it is nothing of the sort, for the collectivity, being nothing other than the sum of individuals, cannot be opposed to them, any more than can the State itself conceived in the modern manner, that is to say as a simple representation of the mass, in which no superior principle is reflected;2 and it consists precisely in the negation of every supra-individual principle that individualism, as we have defined it, truly consists.3 Therefore, if there are conflicts in the social domain between various tendencies that all equally belong to the modern spirit, these conflicts are not between individualism and something else, but simply between the multiple varieties of which individualism itself is susceptible;4 and it is easy to realise that, in the absence of any principle capable of really unifying multiplicity, such conflicts must be more numerous and more serious in our epoch than they have ever been, for individualism necessarily implies division;5 and this division, with the chaotic state that it engenders, is the fatal consequence of a wholly material civilisation, since it is matter itself that is properly the root of division and multiplicity.6
←
→

Summary

Guénon pauses to address a possible confusion: although he has discussed modern individualism mainly in the intellectual order, one might think the social order presents a different case. He argues that the collectivity, being merely the sum of individuals, cannot be opposed to individuals, nor can the modern state conceived as a mere representation of the mass reflect any superior principle. The negation of every supra-individual principle is precisely what defines individualism. Therefore, conflicts in the social domain are not between individualism and something else, but between the multiple varieties of individualism itself. In the absence of any unifying principle, such conflicts are more numerous and serious than ever, for individualism necessarily implies division, and this chaotic state is the fatal consequence of a wholly material civilisation where matter itself is the root of division and multiplicity.

General notes

  1. rôle envahissant de l’État — Rendered as ‘invasive rôle of the State’. Guénon anticipates here a possible objection: does the extension of state power not seem to contradict individualism? He answers that the modern State is not a principle superior to individuals, but simply the mechanical sum of their interests. The invasive State and the isolated individual are two sides of the same coin: that of the absence of any transcendent spiritual principle. ↩︎
  2. État conçu à la façon moderne — Rendered as ‘State conceived in the modern manner’. Guénon distinguishes the modern State (pure emanation of the mass, without transcendent legitimacy) from traditional temporal authority (which received its sanction from a superior spiritual authority). The democratic State is not ‘above’ individuals: it is their aggregated product, therefore of the same nature as them. ↩︎
  3. négation de tout principe supra-individuel — Rendered as ‘negation of every supra-individual principle’. Guénon redefines individualism not as the affirmation of the individual against the collectivity, but as the negation of any principle transcending the individual (God, tradition, spiritual authority, ontological hierarchy). The modern State, because it is itself devoid of any superior principle, is an expression of individualism, not its contrary. ↩︎
  4. variétés multiples de l’individualisme — Rendered as ‘multiple varieties of individualism’. Guénon explains modern political struggles (liberals against socialists, capitalists against trade unionists, etc.) as internal quarrels within individualism. All these currents, in fact, refuse a transcendent spiritual principle; they diverge only on the manner of organising the sum of individuals. ↩︎
  5. individualisme dit nécessairement division — Rendered as ‘individualism necessarily implies division’. Fundamental principle of Guénonian critique: individualism, by its very nature, is a principle of division and fragmentation. Without a superior unifying principle, individuals and groups enter into permanent conflict. The ‘war of all against all’ (Hobbes) is the natural state of the individualist world. ↩︎
  6. matière, racine de la division et de la multiplicité — Rendered as ‘matter, the root of division and multiplicity’. Guénon takes up the Neoplatonic and scholastic theme of matter as the principle of division (the Platonic chorismos, Duns Scotus’s materia signata quantitate). Matter fragments, separates, multiplies. A civilisation that absolutises matter can produce only conflicts and growing chaos, because it has lost the unifying principle which is spirit. ↩︎