The hazard of hierarchy without tradition

Hierarchy without tradition is a recipe for subversion.

Today I came across this post (hat tip to Pithom) from a blog called The Bloody Shovel, which I’d never heard of before. I won’t get into every thought I had about the blog post, but to summarize, the author is arguing that we live in a time when femininity is dominant, femininity being dominant is bad, Christianity is essentially feminine and therefore powerless to do anything about it, and so we need a new religion of manliness to restore balance. It’s a line of reasoning that’s fairly common among a cluster of writers (mostly bloggers) that can be summarized under the umbrella term the “Reaction.”

This excerpt from near the end of the blog post is representative:

[I]f we want to restore some balance, if we want civilization to work, we need the complete opposite of what Christianity was. We need a big fat magnet of rightist ideas, a rightist pole to exert the same influence on our feminized society that Christianity had on the manly society of the Middle Ages.

There’s an underlying assumption in statements like this that social forces interact like legs on a chair, where if one leg is too short you add some length to it and then the chair levels out and is stable. This falsely suggests that opposing social forces don’t just counterbalance but actually can exist in equilibrium.

Where’s the evidence for this assumption? The goal of the social forces themselves clearly isn’t to achieve a balance, because each one attempts to tear down and dominate the others–or remain dominant, as the case may be.

In the particular case of the Reaction, I am seriously concerned about a philosophy that calls for a “big fat magnet of [manly] rightist ideas” when that philosophy isn’t grounded in religion, because once that magnet is booted up it can just turn into another apparatus by which people will be attracted to Islam.  (This point was made pretty nicely, I thought, by Michel Houellebecq in his 2015 novel “Obsession.”)

If the Reaction cares more about us being rightist than not being Muslim, then they are not fit to influence the direction of western civilization. (No offense to Muslims living here, but I’d prefer my society to remain Judeo-Christian in nature.)


One thought on “The hazard of hierarchy without tradition

  1. May I ask what’s the purpose of having tradition anyway? We need rationality and knowledge. Tradition, fashion and popular views all stand in the way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s