Add new comment

It's been said already but to repeat. Neither tradition nor novelty is good in itself. It depends what the contents are.

In the global South, "tradition" is usually juxtaposed to "modernity", and refers to whatever people do or did or think they did, which is different from western modernity. This encompasses local/indigenous knowledges such as traditional ecological knowledge, but also (for example) social hierarchies invented or increased during the colonial era (as well as any which existed before), and neo-archaisms invented by ethnoreligious nation-builders like the Hindutva movement. It's similar in the North but less pronounced: "tradition" encompasses local knowledges and tried-and-tested ways of meeting needs and desires, and it encompasses resistances to statist simplifications and modernisations, but is also encompasses hierarchies and systems (including capitalist ones) which have been around for awhile, and bullshit passing as common sense which was invented a decade ago but which everyone assumes was obvious to everyone else always.

On a different note, I'm also impressed with traditionalists for being the most consistent lockdown resisters (e.g. the Amish, Roma, Hasidic Jews, certain churches). Dispersal of power is always a good thing, and it surprises me that even conservative traditions can provide a power of dispersal.

Hence I'd draw up four lists:
Good traditions we should defend, preserve and follow: local/indigenous knowledges (e.g. of local ecosystems), established ways of meeting needs and desires (where effective and not harmful), alternative lifeways juxtaposed to/limiting the reach of the state, the right/ability to follow traditions one finds attractive, desirable or true, things which provide barriers to capitalism/statism/industrial civilisation, traditional customs/rights/ways of doing things which limit the powerful.
Bad traditions we should either smash, avoid, or not copy: hierarchies, dogmatic beliefs which use past existence as proof of validity, passive acceptance of ascribed/imposed lifeways without critique or activation of desire, morality as force juxtaposed to desire, capitalism/modernity repackaged as tradition based on its longevity, tradition mobilised as force of reactive desire (as in Hindutva, political Islam etc).
Good novelty: anything expressing repressed/inhibited (active) desires, anything which disperses power (or strengthens defensive against offensive power), anything which helps meet a desired end (smashing the state, saving the planet...), anything which increases critical power and/or self-oriented choice of lifeways instead of passive acceptance, novelty as means of feeling alive/empowered.
Bad novelty: anything which concentrates power, anything which destroys/undermines/replaces good traditions with something worse, novelty for the sake of novelty, anything which helps meet an undesired end (suppressing protest, increasing corporate profits...), anything which increases alienation, anything which is new but doesn't work as well as the old, deskilling/McDonaldisation/dumbing down etc.

Obviously a lot of things will be both "good" and "bad", and a few will be both "traditional" and "novel".

Bolo'bolo is a good balance between tradition and novelty: people can (and probably do) very often live by longstanding lifeways which they have no desire to change, but it's also quite possible to form new bolos based on new/untried lifeways, so whether there's change or continuity depends on the desires of those involved, and the system facilitates both very rapid change and total continuity. I suspect in practice this would mean most people stick with anarchic local-knowledge cultures which persist through time, but with local exceptions, circulation of individuals based on psychological type/needs/desires, and periodic exodus if cultures become stultifying/oppressive for certain groups. Hard to know though.