The Politics of Becoming: Can we Free From Tradition?

Although tradition has several meaning and relative to one another, we can still find out that the core idea of tradition is passing on or handed on something. We often heard how modernism is a movement that try to break away from the old medieval tradition. But can we really free from tradition? In quite recent article made by Jon Steward entitled Subjective Turn, Jon talking about how Hegel reject the old tradition on essentialism. That human are created with value once for all, and that's it. The other turn that Hegel also quite not also dubbed is the modern existentialism as oppose to essentialism, no inherent human value. The value is in constant progress. Here's the trick part, can we say Hegel are not boxed in any tradition at all? Hegel himself propose human nature should be understood in the light of historical development. Human nature are fixed and at the same time not fixed. But middle position does not create a position of no-tradition/tradition free. The apparent new view will instantly create another new potential tradition, which he inherited from the convergence of two opposing view. As soon he proposes his view, Hegel dubbed to his own tradition which we cannot say that he totally free from the prison of any traditions. Unless, the idea of Hegel is new and has no historical connectivity with the past. 

Post-modernism perhaps was the greatest movement to break free from the chain of tradition. In the classic work of French Philosopher Lyotard, whose book was very poignant and influential (The Post Modern Condition: A report on Knowledge, 1979) argue on how the Western has lost the ground, they reject the "grand narrative" (Particularly of modernism). They will reject all the authority and try to break any ideology. However, can we say they are actually trapped in their own agenda? By rejecting all the authority, they are claiming a greater authority? If Post-Modernism is anti-foundational, what should we take their own position as foundational? Post-structuralist are more severe as they claimed they want to eradicate the shadow of tradition but also the philosophical underpinning and ideological assumption behind. As they try to mess up the rule of languages they are creating their own rule and game to be played out. However, it is actually impossible for someone who can really break free from tradition although they are claiming and seemingly to do so. Part of the reason why many thinkers want to free from the influence of tradition because the negative connotation regarding it. 

Tradition are perceived as somewhat "old" and "irrelevant" toward the fast changing and the movement of the world particularly of our mass informational age. As the result, the song of Queen is now playing out loud, "Yes, I want to break free, I must break free." Nevertheless, does this thought valid? Not at all. There is a distinction between tradition and traditionalism. Tradition is nor bad nor good depend on the context and the significance on which the tradition had originated and been applied. By contrast, traditionalism deny all the context and hence create an awful dissonance and arrogance, "my tradition is the best tradition of all, without no weaknesses can be found." Traditionalism is really the true enemy of intellects. The other description of tradition and traditionalism are best depicted by Jaroslav Pelikan when he says, "Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living". The "death" and "living" interplay and connotation from Pelikan, describe the distinction well.

There are many benefits of tradition. Tradition is the guardian of the identity, memory and spirit of particular community pertaining their world-view and life-world. There are historical value and also practical value we can draw. Even today, it is always wise if the midst of rapid progress of our time, we need to look back the previous traditions for one can only measure how far they have walked, from the first distance they are stepping from. Often time, tradition can help, to drag people back if they have walked "too far." Philosopher and thinker like Alexander Macintyre right in saying, "all reasoning takes place within the context of some tradition mode of thought transcending through criticism and invention the limitations of what had hitherto been reasoned in that tradition." There is a constant hermeneutical life that flows from tradition through the means of traditionalizing and this act, is inescapable and endless activity of every human as for me, human is the tradition-maker and always be.

So, back to square one of the question, can we free from tradition? We can safely conclude the question with big no. No one can free from tradition, they can be only at best to be a post-"x" tradition. Either they dubbed to previous tradition or they are creating new (which will never totally novel) the more relevant questions are these, are we accepting a certain tradition uncritically at the moment? How can we bring to a dialog the diverse traditions so we can be gaining more rich value which perhaps our tradition has failed to address? This are the more relevant issues to think deeper down the road. Either tradition change, expanded, and static. The other term is the continuity and discontinuity of traditions. We cannot get away from the light of tradition to deny a tradition is to create a new one. borrowed the term from a political theorist William Connolly so this condition is what we can called, "The Politics of Becoming". For those who understand tradition well they will know that tradition as wise man says, not a jailer. Tradition is a guide that can help people to have preliminary sense of the world to which they can build from that. People are not coming in the world empty handed. There are traditions that rooted in the collective wisdom of the past that could ground our identity.

Therefore, when people asked, when it’s okay to break away from tradition? The answer is clear as we have concluded previously, no one can break free totally from tradition. Kwane Gyekye in his book Tradition & Modernity mention on how we have a false perception on the relationship between them. The polarities are overly-amplified. Although the society keep on changing nonetheless, the change in the sense of “absolute changelessness” are impossible and cannot be a necessary condition of any human society, Kwane argued. On the one hand we have a politic of becoming in society. One the other hand, we know that this politic of becoming cannot be totally novel. Even the term “modern” which often claimed by some thinker to be the destroyer of tradition, in some extent also embrace certain traditions (Modern West-Europe has embrace the medieval elements also). Tradition never be the obstacle to the development unless we think tradition is the obstacle in the first place. The obstacle is not found in tradition but our prejudice mind. The appreciative attitude toward tradition need to be foster further constantly. 

 

 

 

x