Internal criticism of tradition does not prove rejection of that tradition

Evidence

To represent the contemporary Islamic revival (known by those who approve of it in the Arab world as as-sahwa, “the awakening”) as a form of crypto-nationalism, to refer to it explicitly by the term “cultural nationalism,” is to propose that it is best understood as a continuation of the familiar story of Third World nationalism. That proposal renders the claim by Muslim activists to be part of a historical Islamic tradition specious because, as cultural nationalists, they must be seen as part of something essentially (though distortedly) “modern.” However, the fact that those active in the revival are usually highly critical of “traditional” teachers and practices does not prove that they are really rejecting tradition. Belonging to a tradition doesn’t preclude involvement in vigorous debate over the meanings of its formative texts (even over which texts are formative) and over the need for radical reform of the tradition. The selectivity with which people approach their tradition doesn’t necessarily undermine their claim to its integrity. — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 950 (#expands, via linked claim)

Tools and instruments deriving from a central domain, that is, from the very structures through which the domain itself was constituted, cannot be of service in reconstituting that domain. By virtue of their structure, such instruments can function as correctives and enhancements, but cannot perform tasks qualitatively at variance with the teleology of the domain itself. A paradigmatic critique of capitalism, for instance, cannot issue from within capitalism itself as a central domain, just as a structural critique of “liberal environmentalism” cannot derive from within liberal thought itself. — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 133 (#complicates, via linked claim)

It is precisely to this society that they owe that sensuous culture and impatient subtlety which brought them into conflict with Viennese conformism. The boldness of artistic renewal joined hands with proud negligence. In spite of all irony and scepticism, numerous categories of a still firmly integrated social and spiritual order were accepted. These categories provided a not inconsiderable prerequisite for the insubordinate tenderness of this generation. It was necessary, as it were, to be satiated with tradition in order really to be able to negate it and to be able to turn the unique vital force of tradition against ossification and self-satisfaction. It is only where that which was is still strong enough to form the forces within the subject and at the same time to oppose them that the production of that which has not yet been seems possible. — Theodor W. Adorno, The Culture Industry, 165 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Rational or moral correction from inside cannot touch Zionism’s founding religious claim — Nadim N. Rouhana and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, When Politics Are Sacralized:…, 563; Rejecting literalist Koranic exegesis did not make Avicenna reject Islam; Mastering a subordinating tradition can enable deviation from it (+12 more)

Broader Connections

• Criticizing tradition does not amount to abandoning it. #expands (0.97) — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 950
• Fundamental critique of a system cannot arise from within that system #complicates (0.85) — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 133
• Genuine artistic negation requires being saturated with tradition first #complicates (0.74) — Theodor W. Adorno, The Culture Industry, 165