The Traditional Mode of Thinking
Things are as they have always been - therefore they could not be any other way. This may be taken as the central tenet of the traditional mode of thinking. Its logic is less than perfect; indeed, it contains the built-in flaw we expect to find in our models. The fact that its central tenet is neither true nor logical reveals an important feature of the traditional mode of thinking: it is neither so critical nor so logical as we have learned to be. It does not need to be. Logic and other forms of argument are useful only when one has to choose between alternatives.
Changeless society is characterized by the absence of alternatives. There is only one set of circumstances the human mind has to deal with: the way things are. While alternatives can be imagined, they appear like fairy tales because the path that would lead to them is missing.
In such circumstances, the proper attitude is to accept things as they seem to be. The scope for speculation and criticism is limited: the primary task of thinking is not to argue but to come to terms with a given situation - a task that can be performed without any but the most pedestrian kind of generalizations. This saves people a great deal of trouble. At the same time, it deprives them of the more elaborate tools of thinking. Their view of the world is bound to be primitive and distorted.
Both the advantages and the drawbacks become apparent when we consider the problems of epistemology. The relationship of thoughts to reality does not arise as a problem. There is no world of ideas separate from the world of facts; and, even more important, there seems to be nothing subjective or personal about thinking; it is firmly rooted in the tradition handed down by generations; its validity is beyond question. Prevailing ideas are accepted as reality itself, or, to be more precise, the distinction between ideas and reality is simply not drawn.
This may be demonstrated by looking at the way language is used. Naming something is like attaching a label to it.4 When we think in concrete terms, there is always a `thing' to which a name corresponds and we can use the name and the thing interchangeably: thinking and reality are co-extensive. Only if we think in abstract terms do we begin giving names to things which do not exist independently of our naming them. We may be under the impression that we are still attaching labels to `things,' yet these 'things' have only come into existence through our labeling them; the labels are attached to something that was created in our mind. This is the point at which thinking and reality become separated.
By confining itself to concrete terms, the traditional mode of thinking avoids the separation. But it has to pay heavily for this supreme simplicity. If no distinction is made between thinking and reality, how can one distinguish between true and false? The only statement that can be rejected is one that does not conform to the prevailing tradition. Traditional views must automatically be accepted because there is no criterion for rejecting them. The way things appear is the way things are: the traditional mode of thinking cannot probe any deeper. It cannot establish causal relationships between various occurrences, because these could prove to be either true or false; if they were false there would be a reality apart from our thinking, and the very foundations of the traditional mode of thinking would be undermined. Yet if thinking and reality are to be regarded as identical, an explanation must be provided for everything. The existence of a question without an answer would destroy the unity of thinking and reality just as surely as would the existence of a right and a wrong answer.
Fortunately it is possible to explain the world without recourse to causal laws. Everything behaves according to its nature. Since there is no distinction between natural and supernatural, all questions can be put to rest by endowing objects with a spirit whose influence explains any occurrence whatsoever and eliminates the possibility of internal contradictions. Most objects will seem to be under the command of such a force because in the absence of causal laws most behavior has an arbitrary quality about it.
When the distinction between thoughts and reality is missing, an explanation carries the same conviction whether it is based on observation or irrational belief. The spirit of a tree enjoys the same kind of existence as its body, provided we believe in it. Nor do we have any reason to doubt our beliefs: our forefathers believed in the same thing. In this way the traditional mode of thinking with its simple epistemology may easily lead to beliefs that are completely divorced from reality. To believe in spirits and their magic is equivalent to accepting our surroundings as being beyond our control. This attitude is profoundly appropriate to a changeless society. Since people are powerless to change the world in which they live, their task is to acquiesce in their fate. By humbly accepting the authority of the spirits who rule the world, they may propitiate them; but to probe into the secrets of the universe will not do any good at all. Even if they did discover the causes of certain phenomena, the knowledge would bring no practical advantages unless they believed that they could change the conditions of their existence, which is unthinkable. The only motive for inquiry that remains is idle curiosity; and whatever inclination they may have to indulge in it, the danger of angering the spirits will effectively discourage it. Thus the search for causal explanations is likely to be absent from people's thoughts.
In a changeless society social conditions are indistinguishable from natural phenomena. They are determined by tradition and it is just as much beyond the power of people to change them as it is to change the rest of their surroundings. The distinction between social and natural laws is one that the traditional mode of thinking is incapable of recognizing. Hence the same attitude of humble submissiveness is required towards society as towards nature.
We have seen that the traditional mode of thinking fails to distinguish between thoughts and reality, truth and falsehood, social and natural laws. If we searched further, other omissions could be found. For instance, the traditional mode of thinking is very vague on the question of time: past, present and future tend to melt into each other. Such categories are indispensable to us. Judging the traditional mode of thinking from our vantage point, we find it quite inadequate. It is not so, however, in the conditions in which it prevails. In a really changeless society it fulfills its function perfectly: it contains all necessary concrete information while avoiding unnecessary complications. It represents the simplest possible way of dealing with the simplest possible world. Its major weakness is not its lack of subtlety but the fact that the concrete information it contains is inferior to that which can be attained by a different approach. This is obvious to us, blessed as we are with superior knowledge. It need not disturb those who have no knowledge other than tradition; but it does make the whole structure extremely vulnerable to outside influences. A rival system of thought can destroy the monopolistic position of existing beliefs and force them to be subjected to critical examination. This would mean the end of the traditional mode of thinking and the beginning of the critical mode.
Take the case of medicine. The tribal medicine man has a completely false picture of the workings of the human body. Long experience has taught him the usefulness of certain treatments but he is liable to do the right things for the wrong reasons. Nevertheless he is regarded with awe by the tribe; his failures are attributed to the work of evil spirits with whom he is on familiar terms but for whose actions he is not responsible. Only when modern medical science comes into direct competition with primitive medicine does the superiority of correct explanations over mistaken ones become manifest. However grudgingly and suspiciously, the tribe is eventually forced to accept the white man's medicine because it works better.
The traditional mode of thinking may also come up against difficulties of its own making. As we have seen, at least part of the prevailing body of beliefs is bound to be false. Even in a simple and unchanging society, some unusual events occur which must be accounted for. The new explanation may contradict the established one, and the struggle between them might tear apart the wonderfully simple structure of the traditional world. Yet the traditional mode of thinking need not break down every time there is a change in the conditions of existence. Tradition is extremely flexible as long as it is not threatened by alternatives. It encompasses all prevailing explanations by definition. As soon as a new explanation prevails, it automatically becomes the traditional one and, with the distinction between past and present blurred, it will seem to have prevailed since timeless times. In this way, even a changing world may appear to be changeless within fairly wide limits.
It can be seen therefore that in a simple and relatively unchanging world the traditional mode of thinking may satisfy the needs of man indefinitely, but if he is exposed to alien ways of thinking or if new developments create a more complex situation, it is liable to break down.
Traditional beliefs may be able to retain their supremacy in competition with other ideas, especially if they are supported by the requisite amount of coercion. Under these circumstances, however, the mode of thinking can no longer be regarded as traditional. It is not the same to declare the principle that things must be as they have always been as to believe in it implicitly. In order to uphold such a principle, one view must be upheld as correct and all others eliminated. Tradition may serve as the touchstone of what is eligible and what is not; but it can no longer be what it was for the traditional mode of thinking, the sole source of knowledge. To distinguish the pseudo-traditional from the original, I refer to it as the `dogmatic mode of thinking' and I shall discuss it separately.
