Something Is Missing In Meyer’s Traditionalism
by Daniel Larison

Mr. Meyer's classic discussion of Western civilization continues to be interesting, but as I read it a few weeks ago and then again this week I was struck by the sense that something vital was missing. The foundations of Western civilization that Mr. Meyer elaborated are familiar to readers of Russell Kirk's work, and for the most part there is nothing particularly objectionable about Mr. Meyer's argument about Greece and Israel.

What is lacking almost completely in Mr. Meyer's description of Western civilization, and what lends the whole piece its disquietingly Popperian flavor, is the neglect of any mention of the crucial period of synthesis in the church and in Christendom as a political and cultural world. Like most Western civilization courses, and not unlike Mr. Popper's ideas, the essential bridges of medieval Europe in history, Christianity in culture and the Incarnation in reality are either ignored all together or reduced to the metaphor of the "flash of eternity into time" and the idea of respect for the individual.

More generally, it is questionable whether Western civilization is properly defined by the supremacy of the individual. Personality, as opposed to individuality (a vital, but often elusive, distinction that has been admirably explained by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, among others), as an ontological concept and as a living reality derive their meaning from the theology of Trinitarian communion, such that personality exists, is realized and has meaning in relation to other persons. 'Personalism' thrives in a society of people of different status and a variety of occupations, ideally being raised up in a common tradition, combining differences to complement one another.

Individualism is the breakdown of traditional orders and inherited customs that are supposed to constrain and limit the self (but which, I would say, facilitate the expression of a man's personality), and paves the way for the inevitable collectivism of the state and majoritarian
tyranny. Culturally, it breeds a type of person given to fads, novelty and the advertising gimmicks that appeal to the appetites rather than the intellect, sentiment or faith, and so also encourages the fragmentation of the libertarian maintenance of tradition. It is for these last reasons that a libertarian maintenance of tradition seems so untenable to some conservatives. It sounds appealing, but neglects certain realities about human nature.

Individualism takes what is a most excellent political truth--that each person does possess God-given rights that cannot be rightfully infringed--and turns it into the cultural and religious heresy that social, moral and religious constraints are likewise more or less arbitrary impositions on individual liberty. This lack of attention, or indeed hostility, to the sources of order in society brings us to the sorry situation of facing both Leviathan and moral anarchy, the latter now actively encouraged by the political class to enhance its own power (which Mr. Francis has correctly called anarcho-tyranny). This is an unfortunate, but also quite intentional, product of the Enlightenment project and classical liberalism itself.

Mr. Meyer writes: "In radical contrast, the vision of the West, splitting asunder the transcendent and the earthly, placed their meeting point in tension, in the souls of individual men. The individual person became, under God, the ultimate repository of meaning and value."

In effect, what Mr. Meyer described as the defining characteristic of the West is, in many ways, the heart of the uprooting of Western tradition and the separation of individuals from the cultural roots of conservatism that Mr. Meyer argued to preserve. Mr. Meyer was careful here to keep a hold of the sovereignty of God, which is very good, but it is not at all clear that human affairs can be directed to anthropocentric ends and defined around the individual while continuing to hope that these will somehow all comport with what must properly be, if God is sovereign, a theocentric existence. Each person does have tremendous native dignity, being in the image of God, but once that dignity itself becomes the definition of a philosophy, rather than the expression of the source of that dignity, then this philosophy makes an idol of man in ways similar to the contemporary liberalism it must combat.

Finally, I recall that the respected historian, Maurice Cowling, speaking specifically of British Conservatives, explained that liberty (actually, he used the word freedom) may be very important to the conservative vision of society but liberty is not primarily what
conservatives are seeking. (This is not, by the way, in any way a call to rally around some dreadful interventionist central state serving ostensibly moralist goals.) The preservation of liberty is, I think, essential to the virtues and traditional society that conservatives are seeking, but in putting it first we are liable, as C.S. Lewis observed in another context, to lose it all together.

Having said all this, I am keeping in mind that Maurice Cowling also argued some time ago that there is no necessary connection between political conservatism and Christianity. Let us assume for the moment that he is correct. It still seems to me that if conservatism is committed to the preservation of Western civilization, and this civilization is inescapably
defined by its Christian heritage and the Christian mediation of the Greek and Jewish inheritances, then a conservative vision for society cannot be radically at odds with Christian definitions and hope to remain coherent and convincing.

Response: Meyer’s Traditionalism Is Complete
by The Editor

Daniel Larison has done it again. If possible, this week he has topped his stellar performance in the last issue expounding upon paleoconservatism. The serious issues he raises about Frank Meyer demand a response. As with his previous contribution, Mr. Larison has added to the debate and to my own understanding of the outstanding issues. Let me address his concerns. In sum, he argues that Meyer overvalues individualism and undervalues historical Christendom in his rendering of Western civilization.

Let us start with the place of the individual for Meyer in Western civilization, which Larison characterizes as questionably “defined by the supremacy of the individual.” Rather, Larison argues, “ Individualism is the breakdown of traditional orders” that are “supposed to constrain and limit the self.” “A libertarian maintenance of tradition” sounds appealing but seems untenable. Individualism turns to the heresy that religious truths are arbitrary. Liberty is important but the problem with individual freedom is “putting it first,” which leads to both anarchy and tyranny.

Mr. Larison quotes Russell Kirk favorably as an opposing view. Yet, as the Kirk piece this week makes clear, that great traditionalist did not see individualism necessarily resulting in the breakdown of traditional order but maintains that both individuality and traditional orders were necessarily in a “balance,” or as Meyer says a “tension” or a fusion. Moreover, Kirk writes that the maintenance of tradition comes from individuals and churches, a libertarian means, not from authority. As Mr. Larison notes, the problem is putting liberty first, which Meyer does not do—his whole philosophy balances liberty and tradition. Neither liberty nor tradition is supreme but both are subservient to the individual, who is subservient to his Creator. Larison even quotes Meyer in placing the individual “under God”—removing freedom from the power of this world and placing it unalienably above power to preserve it—but he will not concede that makes liberty (and tradition) second.

Mr. Larison’s real concern is that Meyer’s use of God and His Incarnation are merely “metaphor” rather than real human history. To some extent, his concern may come from the fact that the Meyer piece as printed last issue was an edited version of a longer piece. In an unprinted part of the article (the full article is available at acuf.org/principles/p_westernciv), Meyer makes it plain. Western civilization “founded itself, in its utmost core, on acceptance of the tension between the transcendent and the individual person and on the reconciliation of that tension implicit in the great vision of the Incarnation—the flash of eternity into time.” Time is reality, history, not metaphor and the reconciler is superior to what it reconciles. This is not arbitrary imposition upon individuality but the justification for it.

As far as ”the neglect of any mention of the critical period of synthesis in the church and Christendom” are concerned, another not-excerpted section read: “In their thought, Christian men could never fully divinize the state; and in practice they early created two sets of tensions…Those two sets of tensions were, on the one hand, the separate centers of power represented by the Church and secular political power—empire or monarchy—and, on the other, the broad decentralization of secular power inherent in the feudal system.” The difference is that Meyer did not believe that Western civilization was fully realized in Europe, even in Medieval/feudal Christendom, because liberty then, although stronger than in ancient times, was still too restricted. Following Acton, he argues that it was not until Western civilization reached America that it was fulfilled (especially in colonial Maryland and Pennsylvania and then in the Constitution), and, even then, had many limitations. As Meyer concludes, the struggle for Western civilization “continues to this day and is not yet decided.”