A Henocultural Position

The intelligent appreciation of Oriental religiosity was once hobbled by a false dichotomy. It still prevails in some quarters. Namely, the simplistic notion that there are (a) monotheist religions and (b) polytheist ones. Moreover, it was also supposed, simplistically, that polytheism was the state of primitive religion and that this at length evolved into monotheism which is the superior and advanced form of religion.

This model proved particularly inappropriate for encounters with the religions of India and especially that grouping of religions, sects and cults known as Hindooism. On the face of it, it is, plainly, polytheistic since it includes the worship of not only multiple but a myriad of deities. On the other hand, though, it clearly has strong monotheist themes and these extend back to the ancient Vedic order from which the profusion of Hindoo piety has developed. This fact was made plain to Europeans by the representatives of Hindoostan in response to the misapprehensions and misunderstandings of missionaries then labouring under the aforementioned false dichotomy.

The failings of the model were corrected by the great German student of Oriental spirituality Max Muller who, very sensibly, argued that the either/or polarity of mono- and poly- was inadequate to describe the realities of the case. Accordingly, he introduced a third and middle category, namely heno-theism, being the proposition that while there is a multiplicity of gods there is nevertheless a single dominant deity of which that multiplicity is either an subservient expression or a complement. Henotheism, that is, is a compromise between stark monotheism and plain polytheism. Muller believed, with some justification, that this is the better model for understanding the religion of the Hindoo, and indeed other supposedly “primitive” and “pagan” religions besides. Adopting this term – henotheism – other students of the diverse religions of man have argued, with some justification, that pure systems of monotheism and polytheism do not or rarely exist and that most, if not all, religions tend to the henotheistic. Thus, for example, the Christian faith – quite apart from Trinitarianism – has a multiplicity of angels and archangels and the like. Even the fiercely monotheistic faith of the Mahometans knows God by ninety-nine different Names. One god has multiple powers and multiple forms, and this is exactly the point made by apologists of Hindooism.

The same subtlety can rightly be applied to the false dichotomies that prevail in contemporary considerations of culture. On the one hand we have the so-called multiculturalists, whom we might just as well label polyculturalists, and on the other hand we have the monoculturalists, namely those who advocate a national or ethnic purity free of foreigners. The contemporary world offers examples of both. Europe – overreacting to the monocultural excesses of the Nazis – has embraced the polycultural model, relaxing borders and deliberately encouraging a smorgasbord of cultures, nationalities, languages and ethnicities. Japan is an example of the monocultural model. The Nipponese, while now open to modernity and trade, have no taste for allowing foreigners to reside in their sacred islands. Nippon is for the Nipponese. They value their tradition and their integrity. You can visit, but you cannot stay. 

In Western polities, this dichotomy has also taken shape along the classical binary fault-lines of Left and Right. The political Left is polycultural, and the Right monocultural, by and large. These both tend to further extremes. On the Left we find a corrosive, sentimental dissolution into cultural relativism. On the Right we find – as a reaction – a tendency towards racism and supremacism which can often take quite ugly forms. Indeed, these tensions – Left/Right, poly/mono – have become sharply accentuated in recent decades, largely as the result of the Left implementing further and further aspects of their relentlessly polycultural agenda. In many places Leftist no-border relativism has reached ridiculous proportions. Some Leftists will tell you - as they have told the present author - that celebrating Christmas is “racist” and an affront to “multiculturalism” and “tolerance”. The intolerance of Leftist tolerance has provoked a predictable and largely warranted backlash but has also stirred the sleeping dragon of racialism and nastier forms of cultural chauvanism. We see foreigners and immigrants attacked and insulted on trains.

For clarity on these matters the author looks to the model offered by Max Muller. Between the extremes of open-slather multiculturalism and the closed insularism of monoculturalism there is the sensible middle ground of henoculturalism, namely the proposition that while a culture is open to diversity and difference it nevertheless maintains its integrity and sense of self.

This might seem like a common sense position and yet it is rarely articulated in today’s polarized political landscape. In any living culture, surely, there is a negotiated tension between self and other, old and new, tradition and change. Both are of value. This is the underlying assumption of the middle position we are here calling henoculturalism. Closed polities such as that of Japan are difficult to justify and maintain in an increasingly globalized world; but there must be safeguards against excessive plurality. The answer is to have a secure, robust traditional culture that is, at the same time, open to other influences and the benefits of cultural interchange. An openness to multiple cultures need not mean the suicide of one’s own. This entails vigilance, though, and a resistance to Marxist and other subversive internationalist ideologies (including international capital) that would undermine the institutions and identity of nation states in pursuit of a sentimental and spurious universalism. It is plain that multicultural models are failing Europe and to a lesser extent the USA. A henocultural position requires a rethinking of the multicultural project with greater attention to social cohesion and a better balance between national values and the tolerance of the exotic.

Let us take the example of Australia. Its history, language, customs, institutions and values are primarily Anglo-Celtic, European and Judeo-Christian. This fact is to be celebrated. At the same time, however, it has opened its doors to immigrants from many different nations and cultures. The richness of Australia lies in both of these facts. It is rich for its British, European and Judeo-Christian heritage, and is further enriched by its immigrant populations. Problems have arisen though since the cultural Left has developed a hostile attitude to the nation’s British, European and Judeo-Christian heritage which is deems “racist”. (Single word labels like this pass for intellectuality on the Left.) Those who value that heritage are demonized and have been marginalized by the imposition of codes of “political correctness” under the banners of “diversity” and “tolerance”. This has made the Left entirely blind to the dangers and difficulties of indiscriminate immigration and the corrosive, destructive effects of relativism.  In response, we see the growth of the so-called “Far Right” or more exactly reactionary forms of nationalism and patriotic politics. In context, these are - up to a point - a healthy readjustment to the cultural suicide of the multicultural Left. 

Since the author is currently sitting in a tea house in Darjeeling looking out upon Chowrasta Square and a group of soldiers armed with AK47s, we might also mention here the case of Pakistan, a religious monoculture, in contrast to the Republic of India. The author has journeyed through both and must report, in all honesty, that India is richer and more prosperous precisely because it is more diverse; religious diversity is one of the treasures of India. Religious monoculturalism is a fatal flaw in the entire conception of the modern state of Pakistan. 

Yet there are - as there should be - natural limits to diversity if henoculturalism is not to give way to the chaos of polyculturalism. These are burning issues in today's India. To what extent is it "secular" (often a by-word for cultural relativism) and to what extent is it an essentially "Hindoo" nation? The Prime Ministership of Mr. Modi is bringing these questions into sharp focus. The answer, though - leaving aside the vociferous ideological chattering of the Leftist commentariat - is the same answer, mutates mutandis, as offered by Max Muller in the 19th C., namely that India, like Hindooism itself, is, always, a beautiful balance of one and many. India is - and has always been - an essentially Hindoo world. Yet it accommodates other religions: the Mahometans, the Jains, the Boodhists, the Christians, and a hundred others. 

This tolerance of others can only be viable where the primacy of Hindooism is acknowledged and respected. Thus too in Australia: tolerance of others can only be viable where the essentially British, European and Judeo-Christian character of the nation is safeguarded, cherished and respected. In India, and in Australia - as in the United Kingdom and Europe, and the United States - there is now an especially stupid Leftist intellectual culture that fails to grasp this and so poses a threat to the very ideal of tolerance and diversity it espouses. 

Yours,

Harper McAlpine Black