Traditionalism in the Oriental Dimension

Abstract

The article analyzes the concept of “traditionalism”, identified by St. Petersburg scientists as a subject of oriental studies. The need to clarify the status of the discipline arose in connection with its reorientation in the early 2000s to the study of the modern East. If earlier sources for orientalists were written monuments on history, philosophy, law, etc., exported by pioneers and stored in the funds of Europe (London, Paris, Berlin, etc.), as well as St. Petersburg, now the object of research is the living cultures of the East. Ethnography and socio-cultural anthropology (ethnology) are also involved in their study. These are related disciplines, however, if the former is more related to, description of the peoples exploring the specific manifestations of ethno-cultural phenomena: customs, rituals, beliefs, symbols, etc., then anthropology with comparative ethnology, the formulation of theoretical and methodological approaches for their study. “Tradition”, from the point of view of the author, since Antiquity has been closely correlated with politics and the aspirations of the elites. In the era of the Enlightenment, this concept acquired an ambivalent content: progressives treated it negatively, considering it an obstacle to the historical development of society, their opponents, on the contrary, believed that it was tradition that ensures the uniqueness of society in the process of its evolution. A similar attitude to tradition is retained in scientific discourse today, it is devoid of scientific content, but is an axiological category. The attitude to tradition is almost the main “bone of contention” in the modern confrontation between East and West. The author proposes an understanding of traditionalism that excludes the absolutization of both universalism (progressivism) and uniqueness in the understanding of tradition, which, from his point of view, corresponds to the principle of scientific character.