On the Metaphysics of Nations -- Chapter 2, Section V
The Ethnic Group -- A Critique of Guénonian Civilizations
Though we have found much insight in the work of René Guénon, our metaphysics of nations runs contrary to how Guénon approaches the concept of a nation itself. In Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines, Guénon defines a nation as a piece of a traditional civilization which, through dissident doctrines, disconnected itself from the unifying principles of the civilization in question. He holds that the nation is a modern concept resulting from the individualism and subversive Enlightenment from the West. To some degree, he is correctly identifying a certain phenomenon of that place and time and we will discuss the impact of the Enlightenment on the development of the concept of the nation later in section I of chapter 3. But we have asserted in section I of this chapter that nations or ethnic groups are a fundamental level of mankind and not a modern invention. If we are to diverge so much from Guénon's model of nationology, we must provide our own definition and model of the concept of a "civilization."
Guénon held that "civilizations" are modes of being around certain traditional understandings and manifestations of the true metaphysic in different temporal circumstances and that the term "civilization" is synonymous with "tradition."1 In our metaphysics of nations, such a concept aligns more closely with the formations of tradition and the "culture" of an ethnic group than it does a "civilization." And yet civilizations are observable phenomena.
In his works, Guénon identifies four major civilizations; Western civilization, Indian civilization, Islamic civilization, and Chinese civilization. There are obvious commonalities between nations within these civilizations. But we would disagree with the idea that these nations emerged from civilizations but rather civilizations are fundamentally one nation exerting major (hereby referred to as "civilizational") influence over other nations to the degree that certain folkways native to the civilizational core nation2 becomes readapted into the folkways of a nation within the civilization. It is here that I will define the concept of background which will become important as we continue this discussion. An ethnic group or nation can incorporate elements of folkways from other ethnic groups into their own folkways. The English ethnic group has some elements of Roman folkways within the English folkways, for example, despite the English ethnic group not being descended from the Romans. The English nation was simply influenced by the Roman nation which was the civilizational center of the Western civilization. Japan, within the Chinese civilizational sphere, incorporated Chinese characters in their writing; The Japanese ethnic group has a Chinese background contribution.
But note that backgrounds do not change the geist of an ethnic group. Rather, the background is adapted to the geist. Backgrounds may be external, aesthetic, superficial only. Japanese kanji, while being Chinese characters, are ultimately used for the Japanese language and are fundamentally different in use.
A background can be incorporated authentically if the background does not contradict or create issues in the native geist. I disagree with Guénon's theory that a nation is a rogue element of a civilization that has lost its civilizational principle — I believe the nation precedes the four civilizations Guénon put forward.
Nations are similar to other nations inside the civilization. It is also possible for an ethnic group to lack grounding in a specific civilization. It should also be noted that civilizations can clash and change geographically — consider Egypt which was the center of its own civilization before it was subsumed by Greco-Roman civilization, then by Christendom, before coming to its current placement under Islamic civilization.
There are admittedly several meanings to the word "civilization." I would not necessarily agree that a civilization is identical to a tradition though they at times do overlap in meaning. Another potential definition is that civilization is the status achieved by a traditional ethnic group that has gone through an agricultural revolution and thus developed a society based on traditional principles. In this scenario, "tradition" precedes civilization and the two are not synonymous.
Very often, the civilizational core nation is the nation that achieved agriculture earlier than surrounding ethnic groups. The development of agriculture provides a strong "gravitational pull," a locus of power, and advancement over surrounding ethnic groups who will naturally adopt the folkways of the civilizational core into their backgrounds.
Note that Western Civilization in particular has a certain uniqueness about it, that being that "Rome" as a civilizational core should be understood as also being composite with the philosophy and science of the Greek nation. Western Civilization, perhaps more accurately referred to as Greco-Roman Civilization, lasted until approximately 33 CE, the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. What followed was a several-hundred-year-long civilizational struggle in which the geist of Greco-Roman Civilization was completely gutted and replaced with that of Christ. There are theological considerations about why this was the case but we will not be getting into that topic here. What is important to note is that Greco-Roman Civilization became the host for Christian Civilization, or Christendom, centered around the Roman Empire which became known as the Christian Empire in some sources. This Christendom extended far and wide beyond the Greco-Roman sphere into places like Ethiopia, Eastern Europe, and parts of India. Unfortunately, Christendom saw cracks and schism early on, with events like the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 and the outbreak of the Protestant Reformation in 1517 ending Christendom's "golden age" and bringing about the beginnings of modernity. The modern West, then, is hard to speak of beyond "once being part of Christendom."