- Horton, the one of the few Western anthropologist living permanently in Black Africa today, seeks, in his article on the topic of tradition versus modernity, Black Africa versus the West, to probe this issue and to determine to what extent tradition and modernity are merely two sides of the same coin. Africans may have no greater fan than Horton, yet we will see that he is locked into Western thinking, incapable of defending tradition except by proving its high quality based on Western modern criteria not on its own criteria. Horton calls man a social being, but speaking about patterns in creativity and approach, he describes him as a solitary being, and does not view him as a social individual. He conclusively determines that man transmitted and transmits his ideas, his philosophy, and his creative works within the society that he lives, an inter-generational transmission, but he doesn't address man's motivation for engaging in these matters. He speaks about man's possibilities, not about his reasons and motives. He depicts man as an intellectual, not emotional being, an approach as we have seen in earlier sections of this book that this is typically Western. We know our nature. We act due to internal and external incentives -not because we possess the ability to do so. Ability is the limit of possibility, but without a reason and incentive to act we would do nothing, not even examine our capabilities. In comparing modernity and tradition, Horton does not perceive that modernity was achieved in a secular environment while tradition is preserved in a religious one. When he notes that tradition is remarkable in that we receive a tradition handed down from earlier generations without argument, Horton neglects to ask - whether this isn't because - being religious - we ascribe the tradition to a divine source? Isn't the modernistic approach that exalts competition of ideas and approaches an inevitable consequence of the loss of a divine source of action. Isn't it because we lost a divine authority that we felt free to search - from the void that we found ourselves in - for new truths, without feeling a sense of obligation to uphold a previous 'truth.' No truth possessed inherent holiness, since every new 'truth' came from us, from our consciousness, and 'the mouth which decreed can also retract.' This is what distinguishes a religious individual - who is traditional because he believes in a deity (or in Africa in idolatry, which is within the definition of deity in this book). The deity sanctified the truth it imparted to us, and only it can sanctify an alternate truth; it and not we. Therefore, Horton does not probe deeply enough when he notes that Africans cite tradition as the reason they adhere to their own truths. We should recognize that the African who insists that his unqualified reason for action is 'that this is what was passed down to him by is fathers' is in effect saying that this custom is sacrosanct, since it was commanded by deities and passed down to him by his fathers. A summary of the critique of Horton's approach: Therefore, when Horton speaks about African traditionalism vs. Western modernity, and when he notes that during certain eras, traditionalism ruled in the West, it would not be a distortion of the truth, if he asserted that Africans today are not only fundamentally traditionalist, but also fundamentally religious. For part of them this religious source is a primitive one but also for the most of them that are Muslims or Christians the origin of their traditional medicine is from primitive religion. Westerners today are not only fundamentally modernistic, but also secular. Their thinking is shaped by secularism and by the freedom that secularism offers them, a freedom that Westerners did not enjoy during eras in which religion governed them and their actions. Another separate question is how does the secular modern individual grapple, emotionally with this situation. He has lost his divine guide and now must find a substitute within himself. It is difficult for him and also burdensome. An alternative possible thesis consistent with the writings of other philosophers: One can view the transition from traditionalism to modernity, of which Horton speaks, as a shift from religious belief in a deity to secularism, as we will see later on, Horton also deals with the topic in his own way. According to the approach that is suggested here, belief in a deity is belief in a supreme or transcendental force, in a force that is effecting from its supernatural standing. This force has its first incarnation in man's consciousness, as a fatherly spirit, such as I described in the first section of this book. We speak of that same father that saved him when he was a young child from beasts of prey and from natural forces. Now, that the father has died, the son who has grown up looks around and sees nature renewing itself. His father's death, he realizes, was not the end; his connection with his deceased father has not been severed. In his imagination - analogous to nature which does not disappear or end, which is infinite and regenerating - the son creates his father's spirit, from which - he believes - salvation will spring forth. Since his father's spirit is not part of his reality, it seems to belong to a world that is beyond - beyond reality. Being transcendental, this spirit can influence reality and being a spirit, it exists in the formative world, and not in the world that is formed (this world) - and accordingly and in accordance with his desire, his father's spirit can save him. His father has always been ready to help; this is the image of the prototypical father. This same image, in its evolution later on, in the age of modern religions, ascended to a higher sphere, to embody the entire world, a God that symbolized unity and that was credited with creating the world. This evolution to an exalted eternal religion parallels the transition Abraham underwent when he shattered, according to the Midrash, his father's man-made idols. It is a transition to something more spiritual, that is not 'manmade.' In the era that follows - the modern era - modern civilization comes and proclaims 'God's demise.' In place of God - who until that point had governed man's fate - man instates himself. It is now man who sits on the throne - he will, from this point on, lead himself, using his own intelligence and understanding. This is apparently the transition from the age of sentiment to the age of reason. (This is what transpired, but as we will describe further on, luckily it failed and emotion continued to govern man's fate due to man's atrophic intelligence.) In effect, after human civilization moved on from primitive religion, of manmade idols, to a spiritual religion, that was not a product of his own hands - after Abraham shattered the idols, (modern) man reverted back to the age of idolatry. Only this time he instated himself in place of an idol that was the work of his own hands. Just as the idol was subjective, and specific to a certain ethnic group, and just as God, in the early Biblical period, was viewed more as a national God than as the creator of the heavens and earth, the post-modernists with their moral relativism came, and instituted moral relativity. They rejected any notion of an objective Kantian truth and declared that morality would be determined according to the inclinations of a group of Western liberals. If we now return to our broader understanding of primitive man's adoption of the father figure, as described above, this understanding, though not the only possibility, seems closer to man's nature than Horton's model that represents man's change through a logical process, in which emotion played no role. Man, however, is not by nature merely a rational being, as Horton depicts, but also an emotional creature, as described by Otto, James, and Luther, and as described at length in the first two sections of this book. In contrast to Horton's depiction of the solitary man as the sole cause of the evolution of religion, we claim that man is a being that operates in a social framework, that his accomplishments are the product of a group effort. This is Kaufman's view, and a view that seems correct even though exceptional men of spirit have stood out throughout history. The individual's spirit and his wisdom have always sprouted from fertile soil, the soil of human society, a soil enriched by wisdom passed down by those who preceded him. The theory that I offer as an alternative to Horton's is not only consistent with the philosophy of Otto, James, Luther, and Kaufman. It is also consistent with the view that the primordial ethnological groups shared a father spirit that represented the unity of the relevant ethnological group that adopted this belief and did follow it. This group joins with, and creates, an ethnic society that is larger than the family unit and even the extended family. This group, preserves a symbolic blood tie through their connection to the primordial father figure, a tie that exists even between people who do not know each other and who would not feel any emotional attachment if not for the primordial father figure they share. Relating the alternate thesis to anthropological studies: This theory connects to something that Horton does not deal with, though it seems central to the topic, more central than Horton's secondary theory of medical or technological benefits. I speak of the formulation of a moral code - a code specific to each social group, and one of the central components in determining each society's unique nature. A society or group of people bound themselves to the commandments of their deity - the primordial father. Without this code of conduct, it is impossible to sustain an organized society Man's emotional tie to the primordial father figure, that rescues him developed and later on into the image of God or a deity that the man and the group all turn to for salvation. This appeal, made in time of distress, is an emotional appeal, and consequently so is the adherence to the command of the primordial father or deity or God. This is the earliest connection between morality and emotion, and it is the basis for man's generally emotional approach to moral principles even when he is not facing misfortune. Modern man loses this tie to emotion if he foregoes not only his God but also religious morality. It seems strange that religious morality should still govern man's life even in the modern age, even after God has been banished from his reign Presumably, modern man, due to some healthy instincts he still possesses, is unwilling to allow religious-divine morality to desert him completely, leaving him all alone. In spite of all his rational, dry, a-emotional morality that modernity has introduced him to, modern man continues to cling to the emotional, ancient morality - that speaks to his heart. This theory - that I offer as a possible anti - thesis to Horton's, is also consistent with a fact, proven by anthropological studies, that man from his inception was a social being bound by an ancient established (social) code of conduct. Incontrovertible authority to command indisputable principles - could only come from an external source, and not from within the society itself. Naturally, the possibility arose that the source of these ethical principles - that comprise the code of conduct - would be supernatural - and that is how God was "discovered." In general, cause and effect are related. If my courteous behavior has favorable consequences, it is likely that my courteous behavior from its outset was intended in order to achieve those results. Similarly: if courteous conduct brings positive results to a particular person, it is likely that he will be motivated to behave courteously. Therefore, if cleaving to the father spirit resulted in social bonds and alliances, the implication is that the spirit shared by the group - the father spirit - was intended to enable them to bond as a society, or that, post factum, as a result of the blessed consequences of social bonds, they clung to the idea of a father spirit. Religious faith served both directly and indirectly as a uniting force through: a)direct divine intervention to the social group that sought a divine sign after creating one in its consciousness b)indirect divine assistance through creating an emotional familial bond between the members of the group based on their common tie to the primordial father spirit c)additional indirect divine intervention in the form of a divine command to adhere to a code of conduct that facilitates societal life d)offering spiritual support for the members of the group, an address to turn to in times of distress, since the mere existence of the God-primordial father, even before he actually offered any tangible help, provided emotional succor. On the relationship to Hinduism from Horton's perspective: Horton speaks about the world of the first theory. This world is the invisible, hidden world. The hidden world is the part of the world that is concealed, while the real world is manifest to all. Both are parts of one world, therefore it is natural to draw, according to Horton, analogies to these two parts of the world, that are together one unity. This idea of Horton's is reminiscent of the 'dharma' in Hinduism. The 'dharma' is an eternal, universal, constant value that unites the divine with everything in existence. The dharma reveals 'individual divine providence' over the individual's deeds that takes into account the individual's behavior, as well as 'general-social providence' over the lives of the entire Hindu community. One should recall, the other theory I presented verges on a philosophy that holds of the existence of a transcendental being, a deity who has created everything, who influences and is not influenced, and an understanding of whom can be attempted through analogy between him and reality, futile as it may be. Primitive man, according to the approach that I am suggesting, does what his God requests of him. He does so in order to demonstrate loyalty to God's word and in order to adhere to his commands, and also to prove the purity of his intentions in turning to God and beseeching his help. Yet, the religious believer cannot forcibly influence the deity. The ultimate question, therefore is, what did primitive man think? Did he think he had the ability to manipulate his God, or did he recognize that he was dependent on his God's good favor, that his God had no obligation to help him, but that he would help as he saw fit. When a Roman commander offered a sacrifice before battle, he knew what God said to him, but he couldn't direct God's will. This approach is similar to one that I propose, but not to Horton's. Almost anecdotally, we mention Horton's overstatement when he suggests that primitive man came to an understanding of the revealed and hidden from his attempts to hurl a spear while he was concealed behind a shield. Horton, it seems, forgot, that primitive man had neither spear nor shield. Did Horton really suppose, that in a time before the totem pole, the beginning of religion, the beginning of primitive religious faith found man when he was throwing a spear and taking cover behind a shield. A comparison between modernity and traditionalism that ignores the role of religion - and its shortcomings: Horton explains that the similarity between the modernistic approach and the traditionalist approach is that both are searching for what is most useful and advantageous to them. Both seek to understand incomprehensible matters, to predict events and to control the progression of events. Traditionalists that Horton speaks about them, that its source is in primitive culture of African Tribes, presume that the means, methods and approaches adopted by earlier generations proved effective, else why would they have continued following a particular approach. Modernists assume that knowledge in general is constantly advancing. They think that is the way of the world, the wisdom of the past was less refined and of inferior quality to wisdom in our days, and in the future people will certainly discover knowledge even more beneficial than that which exists in our days. It is a Darwinian approach according to which the fittest and best will certainly survive. Therefore, one should not suppress new ideas and understandings that come to replace the old. Horton overlooks, however, the source of knowledge. He neglects to mention that the traditionalists - we speak about the primitive ones - were people who believed in God, who attributed their knowledge to God, and who believed in the divine origin of traditions passed down through the generations. African tribes embrace their fathers' traditions - since according to their beliefs these traditions originated from a God or from the primordial father's spirit. Horton overlooks a basic fact, that the 'primitive peoples' believe in a God, while modern man lost this faith, or abandoned it the moment they needed to solve a concrete problem in their lives. Modern man who is religious will say: 'Of course I believe in God but what does religious faith have to do with the practical problem I'm facing.' Once matters are portrayed in this way, then the reason for the difference between traditionalists and modernists and their differing approaches becomes clear and simple. This way of portray is the only one which does not omit a basic fact, that of the primitives' faith in God, a faith they possessed and which modernists have lost. Horton's analysis, therefore, is incomplete, and his equation of the traditionalist and modernist approaches, is patently false. There is no parallel here, but rather a basic difference. As we mentioned earlier, Horton's Achilles heel is his focus on logic, as the source of man's actions, when in fact man is an emotional creature, first and foremost. The Western theory of impersonal justice vs. the primitive's personal (adulterated) theory of justice: Horton's view is false, since justice is not coldly-logical but rather humane-personal-emotional. When we compare the primitive African tribes to Western modern people, we are not comparing a subjective personal, unjust notion of justice to a pure impartial justice. Western morality is ailing, and the symptom of its illness is its attempt to uproot emotion and to act only according to logic. The primitive African tribes' morality is one which draws on religious faith, and as such is more emotional than that which Westerners espouse. Fortunately, the analytic morality Westerners champion does not successfully eradicate from their hearts the morality that is connected to emotion - a blessed consequence of Western morality's failure. Modernity's difficulty in relation to in relating to traditionalism that contradicts science: Horton attempts to defend traditionalism, but he uses modern tools in order to do so. He argues that basically traditionalism has the same goals as modernity, but that it is less successful in achieving them because it is handicapped by certain false notions - eg. that something that has withstood the test of time has proven itself…that in order to derive the maximum benefit… - a modern concept imposed on traditionalism against its will and spirit - it refuses to discard old practices. Horton fails to appreciate the emotional succor that a traditionalist draws from religion. He refuses to recognize that the traditionalist desires to derive emotional support in times of distress, no less than he does actual physical support. In a later writing, by Robert Hind, the question is raised (through modern eyes) how is it that modern Western people embrace religion, when the particulars of their religious faith are not scientifically proven. Hind considers the possibility that religion provides emotional support and that it even encourages self sacrifice, social-communal discipline and compromise, and even social responsibility. Many of his insights are good, but since his perspective is external, rather than internal, he fails to attain the understanding that I suggest in this book. The difference between technology and morality: It should be absolutely clear that all criticism here is directed toward the realm of morality and not technology. There is no debating Horton's proof of the technological advances made possible by modern ideas of progressivism and competition, two philosophies that advance by working together. They raise modern man's physical standard of living - from this perspective - modernity is unquestionably superior. In the ethical realm, the modern world is also not inferior, but this is not thanks to modernity but rather in spite of modernity. The failure of modernity's secular spirit to present an alternate moral path that would replace the religious-divine approach - is a blessed failure.