Devil's Advocate Counterpoint: Traditions are means of conveying survival strategies that produce stable social relations pre-capitalist economies where in high-scarcity environments compelled high intra-group cooperation for survival against famine, invasion, and power imbalances.
Traditions and traditionalist values are technologies of the self which have managed to last up to 4000 years, which means (in evolutionary terms) they have something going for them if they allow a group of people to survive over that length of time. Specific protocols for hygiene, family relations, class dynamics, sexual mores, etc... they all didn't come into existence ab initio. Humans do things for what seem like sensible reasons, and if those thing happen to work, then the survival of the group (and the individuals who make it up) , then they have proven useful. If those traits can continue to carry on over time and continue to allow the group (and individuals within it) prosper, then by definition they are useful!
The reason folks spurn tradition is because, in a capitalist economy, the means for prosperity and survival are far more individualized, and that spurning group cohesion to pursue individual goals produces more wealth than adhering to group traditions. At best, traditions become a charming affectation in such economies, at most, they are irrationaal inhibitions to the mode of individualized wealth-seeking behaviours that produce optimal financial returns.
This is why traditions are important. They have helped the communities that cultivated them thousands (or tens of thousands) of years of survival, and by adhering to them, they are preparing the group to survive long after the fall of capitalism*!
*This is, of course, a very bad faith reading of a somewhat true principle. Customs and traditions are means of cultural transmission that predate modern communication technologies, and do operate as 'technologies of the self' which at once allow individuals to self-assess and self-actualize within their cultural frameworks.
However - just because an adaptation can survive over long periods of time doesn't mean it's especially good or healthy. Sickle-cell anemia is borne of some traits that allow carriers of the gene to resist malaria, but sometimes those traits manifest in ways that can make the life of the gene's carrier's painful and exhausting and hellish. Adhering to the rites of your ancestors might be the exact worst thing to do, given the environment you find yourself in, or the kind of person you are, or any number of factors. Blind obedience to these customs is stupid at best, cultural suicide at worst.
But I'd also like to point out the logic of Chesterton's Fence. "“Do not remove a fence until you know why it was put up in the first place." I find this a fascinating principle because, while it is conservative, it's conservative in a way that assumes people are not stupid - traditions, like fences, emerged for comprehensible reasons. If those reasons aren't apparent, looking into the circumstances that made them emerge could make that understandable.
It also doesn't disallow reform or change. In fact, it encourages an understanding of how and why these practices emerged, to seek understanding and knowledge, and not just throw away technologies of the self that can keep [people healthier long after the logical, scientific explanation has vanished. (Regular bathing and washing of hands in many cultures has prevented the spread of disease, even long before germ theory came along and simply got refined after that scientific explanation elucidated why.)
I'd argue that living traditions should learn to adapt, understand the rationale why they do what they do, and seek to adapt as often as possible to ensure optimal human happiness. Blind obedience to the past is stupid and the last refuge of the incurious mind. But understanding why the past was that way, and why it persists into the current day... that's a very different question to ask.
gummygunk
pixelskylines
dededos
izzy806
jacobvanloon
ellievsbear
jbbartram-illu
