Hierarchy, not equality, is the natural order of both the universe and our social reality. Whereas the West renders deference to the individual as the core principle of social organization, the East renders hierarchy and deference to hierarchy as the core principle of social organization. Hence, the most basic and fundamental rift between East and West, and what results from this rift is the far-too common accusations of “authoritarianism” and “dictatorship” and “human rights” flying from one side towards the other side, while accusations of “hypocrisy” and “sowing chaos” and “manufacturing crisis” end up flying from one side towards the other side. To borrow from René Guénon:
“The principle of the institution of castes, so completely misunderstood by Westerners, is nothing else but the differing natures of human individuals; it establishes among them a hierarchy the incomprehension of which only brings disorder and confusion, and it is precisely this incomprehension that is implied in the ‘egalitarian’ theory so dear to the modern world, a theory contrary to all established facts and belied even by simple observation, since equality is really nowhere to be found – but this is not the place to enlarge on a point we have already treated elsewhere.”
Hence, it is hierarchy, not equality, which is the core principle or tenet of our social organization and social reality, even if we are in denial of it here in the Western world. The division of labor and how social functions and social tasks are naturally distributed also suggest that some sort of hierarchy, rather than equality, is at the heart of our social organization and reality. To borrow from Guénon: “In effect, each man, by reason of his proper nature, is suited to carry out certain definite functions to the exclusion of all others; and in a society established on a regular traditional basis, these aptitudes must be determined according to precise rules, so that, by the correspondence of the various functions with the principal categories in the classification of ‘individual natures,’ each finds his proper place (barring exceptions due to errors of application which, although possible, are reduced to a minimum), and thus the social order exactly expresses the hierarchical relationships that result from the nature of the beings themselves.”
It follows that hierarchy and social order are mutually dependent upon one another. Hierarchy exists in order for social order to exist. Without some sort of hierarchy, there can be no enduring social order. Hierarchy is overturned and social order is undermined when the “inferior functions” of “temporal power” have “in their turn laid claim to supremacy, resulting finally in total confusion, negation, and the overthrow of all hierarchy.” This overturn of hierarchy and social order and the subjugation of “spiritual power” to “temporal power” is entirely manifest in our present era. What modernity does is “invert the hierarchy of relationships between the different orders of reality.” There is a “superior order” on one hand and an “inferior domain” on the other hand which correspond to one another through various laws and symbols, and the inversion of these hierarchical relationships leads to the kind of disorder and confusion we experience today in Western capitals and in Western societies, with the disorder and confusion then emanating outward towards the rest of the world. To borrow from Guénon:
“All things, in every order of existence, are connected and correspond to one another so as to contribute to universal and total harmony; for harmony, as we have already said, is nothing other than the reflection of principal unity in the multiplicity of the manifested world; and it is this correspondence that is the true foundation of symbolism. This is why the laws of an inferior domain can always be taken as symbols for realities of that superior order which is their ground, and which is both their principle and end; and we note in passing the error of modern ‘naturalistic’ interpretations of the ancient traditional doctrines, which purely and simply invert the hierarchy of relationships between the different orders of reality.”
Of course, and as Guénon noted, our realization of such issues or our failure to realize such issues is guided by the kind of philosophical discourse we subscribe to, in the sense that we are guided either by a traditional or “sacred” philosophical discourse which takes hierarchy into account, or by a modern and “profane” philosophical discourse which leads to a “real mental deformity” that ends up omitting and overlooking such subtle but nevertheless important and significant issues.
Adam A. Azim 