¶5 Extraordinary thing, this moment when the West is invading everything is the moment that certain people choose to denounce, as a peril that fills them with terror, a supposed penetration of Oriental ideas into this same West;1 what is this new aberration now? Despite our desire to confine ourselves to considerations of a general order, we cannot refrain from saying here at least a few words about a Défense de l’Occident recently published by Mr. Henri Massis,2 which is one of the most characteristic manifestations of this state of mind. This book is full of confusions and even contradictions, and it shows once again how little most of those who would like to react against modern disorder are capable of doing so in a truly effective manner, for they do not even know very well what they have to fight.3 The author sometimes defends himself against having wanted to attack the true Orient; and, if he had indeed confined himself to a critique of ‘pseudo-Oriental’ fantasies — that is to say, of those purely Western theories that are spread under deceptive labels, and which are only one of the many products of the present disequilibrium — we could only fully approve of him, all the more so since we ourselves, long before him, pointed out the real danger of such things, as well as their inanity from the intellectual point of view.4 But unfortunately, he then feels the need to attribute to the Orient conceptions that are scarcely better than those; to do so, he relies on quotations borrowed from some more or less ‘official’ Orientalists, in which Oriental doctrines are, as usually happens, distorted to the point of caricature;5 what would he say if someone used the same procedure with respect to Christianity and claimed to judge it according to the works of university ‘hypercritics’?6 This is exactly what he does for the doctrines of India and China, with this aggravating circumstance: that the Westerners whose testimony he invokes do not have the least direct knowledge of these doctrines,7 whereas those of their colleagues who deal with Christianity must at least know it to a certain extent, even if their hostility to everything religious prevents them from truly understanding it. Moreover, we must say on this occasion that we have sometimes had difficulty in persuading Orientals that the expositions of this or that Orientalist proceeded from pure and simple incomprehension, and not from a conscious and voluntary bias, so much does one sense in them that same hostility which is inherent in the anti-traditional spirit8; and we would willingly ask Mr. Massis whether he thinks it is very clever to attack tradition in others when one would like to restore it in one’s own country.9 We speak of cleverness, because, at bottom, the whole discussion is carried on by him on political ground; for us who place ourselves at an entirely different point of view, that of pure intellectuality, the only question that arises is a question of truth;10 but this point of view is doubtless too lofty and too serene for polemicists to find their satisfaction there, and we even doubt that, as polemicists, concern for truth can occupy a large place in their preoccupations.11
←
→

Summary

Guénon observes that at the very moment when the West is invading everything, some people instead denounce an supposed penetration of Oriental ideas into the West, taking as an example Henri Massis’s book ‘Défense de l’Occident’. He notes that this work is full of confusions and contradictions, and that Massis, while sometimes defending himself against attacking the true Orient, ends up attributing to the Orient conceptions distorted by ‘official’ Orientalists, a procedure he would not tolerate if applied to Christianity. Guénon points out that he himself had long before warned against the real danger of pseudo-Oriental fantasies, and that even Orientals have difficulty believing that such Orientalists act from pure incomprehension rather than conscious hostility, so much does that hostility characterise the anti-traditional spirit. He asks whether it is wise to attack tradition in others when one wishes to restore it in one’s own country. He concludes that Massis conducts the whole debate on political ground, whereas from the point of view of pure intellectuality, the only question is that of truth, which polemicists seem largely unconcerned with.

General notes

  1. prétendue pénétration d’idées orientales en Occident — Rendered as ‘supposed penetration of Oriental ideas into the West’. Guénon notes the irony of the situation: at the very moment when the West is imposing its culture and its values on the entire world (through colonisation, economics, education), some Western intellectuals worry about a supposed ‘invasion’ of Oriental ideas into the West. This fear is disproportionate and reveals a misunderstanding of the real balance of power. ↩︎
  2. Henri Massis et sa « Défense de l’Occident » — Rendered as ‘Henri Massis and his “Défense de l’Occident”’. Henri Massis (1886-1970) was a French writer and literary critic, a nationalist and Catholic traditionalist. His book Défense de l’Occident (1927) criticised the influence of Oriental ideas (especially Indian) on Western culture, which he considered decadent. Guénon, although sharing some of Massis’s concerns, reproaches him here for his misunderstanding of true Oriental doctrines. ↩︎
  3. incapacité des réactionnaires modernes à comprendre ce qu’ils combattent — Rendered as ‘incapacity of modern reactionaries to understand what they are fighting’. Guénon criticises Western ‘traditionalists’ or ‘reactionaries’ who want to restore the old order but do not understand the profound nature of modern disorder. They often attack the wrong targets (for example, they confuse authentic Oriental traditions with their Western counterfeits) and are thus ineffective. ↩︎
  4. critique des « pseudo-orientalisme » — Rendered as ‘critique of “pseudo-Orientalism”’. Guénon specifies that he does not defend Western counterfeits of the Orient (theosophy, spiritism, salon occultism, Westernised ‘Buddhism’). He himself has denounced these deviations. If Massis had confined himself to criticising these pseudo-doctrines, Guénon would approve of him. ↩︎
  5. orientalistes « officiels » déformant les doctrines orientales — Rendered as ‘“official” Orientalists distorting Oriental doctrines’. Guénon severely criticises academic Western Orientalism (philologists, historians of religion, ethnologists) which, according to him, systematically distorts Oriental traditions by studying them from the outside, with materialist methods and without inner understanding. These ‘Orientalists’ present caricatures, not authentic doctrines. ↩︎
  6. « hypercritiques » universitaires du Christianisme — Rendered as ‘university “hypercritics” of Christianity’. Guénon alludes to the school of critical biblical exegesis (Strauss, Renan, Loisy, etc.) which applied rationalist and historical methods to the study of the New Testament, often ending in the denial of the supernatural character of Christianity. Would Massis, as a Catholic, accept that Christianity be judged solely on the basis of these hostile works? ↩︎
  7. absence de connaissance directe des orientalistes — Rendered as ‘absence of direct knowledge of the Orientalists’. Guénon emphasises that the Orientalists invoked by Massis do not know Oriental traditions from within (through initiation, through practice, through living transmission). They are only external observers, often hostile or lacking understanding. Their testimony therefore has no value. ↩︎
  8. hostilité inhérente à l’esprit antitraditionnel — Rendered as ‘hostility inherent in the anti-traditional spirit’. Guénon affirms that the modern spirit (anti-traditional) is naturally hostile to every authentic tradition, even that of other cultures. Orientalists, even if they do not realise it, are animated by this hostility which prevents them from truly understanding the doctrines they study. Their ‘errors’ are not accidental but systematic. ↩︎
  9. contradiction : attaquer la tradition chez les autres quand on veut la restaurer chez soi — Rendered as ‘contradiction: attacking tradition in others when one wants to restore it at home’. Guénon emphasises a strategic contradiction: Massis wants to restore Christian tradition in the West, but he attacks Oriental traditions. Yet all authentic traditions (Christian, Hindu, Chinese, Islamic) are united in their opposition to the modern spirit. To attack one is to weaken all the others. The true ‘defence of the West’ should be a defence of the universal Tradition. ↩︎
  10. point de vue de l’intellectualité pure contre le point de vue politique — Rendered as ‘point of view of pure intellectuality against the political point of view’. Guénon opposes his own approach (metaphysical, disinterested, seeking truth for its own sake) to that of Massis (political, polemical, defence of a particular civilisation). For Guénon, truth is one and universal; to defend ‘the West’ against ‘the East’ is absurd from the point of view of pure intellectuality. ↩︎
  11. les polémistes sont indifférents à la vérité — Rendered as ‘polemicists are indifferent to truth’. Guénon criticises the attitude of polemicists (like Massis) for whom the goal is to ‘win’ a debate, not to discover the truth. Their main concern is rhetorical effectiveness, the defence of a pre-established position, not disinterested knowledge. They are therefore incapable of understanding Oriental traditions. ↩︎

Guénon’s footnotes

  • which is one of the most characteristic manifestations of this state of mind — We know that Mr. Massis is not unaware of our works, but he carefully refrains from making the slightest allusion to them, because they would run counter to his thesis; such a procedure at least lacks frankness. Moreover, we think we have only to be pleased with this silence, which spares us from seeing things that, by their nature, must remain above all discussion, mixed with unpleasant polemics. There is always something painful in the spectacle of “profane” incomprehension, although the truth of “sacred doctrine” is certainly, in itself, too high to be affected by it.