¶4 But, without dwelling further on these considerations, let us return to the consequences that entail from the negation of every true hierarchy, and let us note that, in the present state of things, not only does a man fulfil his own function only exceptionally and as if by accident, whereas it is the contrary case that should normally be the exception,1 but furthermore it happens that the same man is called upon to exercise successively all sorts of different functions, as if he could change his aptitudes at will.2 This may seem paradoxical in an epoch of excessive ‘specialisation’3 and yet it is indeed so, especially in the political order.
←
→

Summary

Guénon returns to the consequences of denying all true hierarchy, noting that in the current state of affairs a man only fulfils his proper function exceptionally and by accident, when the opposite should be the exception. He adds that the same person is often called upon to perform various different functions in succession, as if he could change his aptitudes at will. Although this may seem paradoxical in an age of extreme specialisation, he observes that it is indeed the case, especially in the political realm.

General notes

  1. remplit sa fonction propre qu’exceptionnellement — Rendered as ‘fulfils his own function only exceptionally’. Guénon underlines the inversion of normal relations: in a traditional society, the exception (the displaced man) is rare; in modern society, the man in his proper place has become the exception. Accident prevails over essence. ↩︎
  2. changer d’aptitudes à volonté — Rendered as ‘change his aptitudes at will’. Guénon here ridicules the modern ideal of ‘mobility’ and ‘adaptability’, which postulates that aptitudes are not bound to a fixed individual nature but can be arbitrarily modified by education or environment. ↩︎
  3. « spécialisation » à outrance — Rendered as ‘excessive “specialisation”’. Guénon notes the apparent contradiction between, on the one hand, the extreme specialisation of tasks (each worker confined to a narrow function) and, on the other hand, the instability of assignments (the same individual changing trades). For him, this contradiction is characteristic of modern disorder: specialisation is unilateral and mechanical, not the expression of a proper nature. ↩︎