In the first half of the twentieth century, the Russian Christian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev (1874–1948) was one of the first to systematically articulate the concept of the new Middle Ages. The logic was simple – if Modernity started with the renaissance of Antiquity, the next historical stage should become the renaissance of medieval culture. Throughout the twentieth century many intellectuals, most notably Umberto Eco, explored the idea of the new Middle Ages. In the past decade, it, once again, attracted commentators representing different sides of political spectrum.
Visions of New Middle Ages
In conservative circles there is a certain optimism. For instance, Rod Dreher, writing in The American Conservative (2015), talks about “the Benedictine Option” as a religion-based remedy to shortcomings of modern society.
The Benedict Option is the term I use to describe this rising movement for a new Middle Age, a spiritual revolution in a time of spiritual and cultural darkness. The monk was the ideal personality type of the Middle Ages. Few of us will be called to the monastery, but all of us who profess orthodox Christianity are called to rediscover a monastic temperament, putting the service of God before all things, and ordering our lives — our prayer and our work, and our communal existence — to that end.
Progressive commentators are less optimistic but equally fascinated with the possible return of the Middle Ages. They focus on other aspects of medieval society, the aspects that are incompatible with modern democracy. Katherine Stone and Robert Kuttner in The American Prospect (2020), for example, talk about the rise of “neo-feudalism” as a sign of erosion of democratic institutions:
The history of the modern democratic state can be understood as a story of shifting authority and lawmaking, first from private potentates to sovereign monarchs, and then to publicly accountable democracies. Today, this centuries-long democratizing trend is rapidly being reversed. Western democracies are not simply embracing neoliberalism in the sense of deregulating the economy. Elites are pursuing something aptly described as a new form of feudalism, in which entire realms of public law, public property, due process, and citizen rights revert to unaccountable control by private business.
Indeed, nowadays we observe the rise of religious fundamentalism and the growing influence of the super rich that go hand in hand in many countries. The prospect of corporate CEOs as new feudal lords and messiah-like figures, with social and religious landscape characterized by the dominance of radical religious groups is dull.
However, the future does not have to be like this. The new Middle Ages do not have to be dull and dystopian. What we will take from medieval culture largely depends on us and our ability to imagine a better version of the future that will not collapse into dystopian neo-feudalism. Surely we can imagine something more inspiring, cannot we?
Berdyaev’s New Middle Ages
Berdyaev’s works represent an attempt to do precisely that. Far from being a conservative, Berdyaev saw his idea of the new Middle Ages as a call for a radical social and cultural reform. He did not argue for the return to the past but rather for the next stage. This next stage would combine medieval practices with the lessons of Modernity, which Berdyaev calls “a fine experiment in liberty” (Berdyaev, 1933, p. 79). The experience of freedom and the Renaissance celebration of human dignity are of great value for Berdyaev who believed that they would become the Modernity’s lasting legacy preserved for future generations.
However, he also believed that Modernity was nearing its end. Remember, he developed these ideas after the First World War and the Russian revolution while being in forced emigration, so he had plenty of of reasons for pessimism. In Berdyaev’s view, the people trying to preserve the status quo that was falling apart were the true “reactionaries.” In The End of Our Time (1924), he wrote (Berdyaev, 1933, p. 78):
A call for the crystallization of the principles established in modern times is a call for reaction in the worst sense of the word, it would be a huge obstacle in the path of all creative activity. The old worn-out world to which we can never go back is precisely the world of modern history: a world of rationalist prophets, of individualism and Humanism, Liberalism and democratic theories, of imposing national monarchies and imperialist politics, of a monstrous economic system compounded of Industrialism and Capitalism, of vast technical apparatus, of exterior conquests and practical achievements; a world of unbridled and endless covetousness in its public life, of atheism and supreme disdain for the soul.
Note how atheism is just one of the targets of criticism here in the long list that includes absolute monarchies, imperialism, and capitalism, among other “outdated” things to be dismantled and replaced. What will come to replace them? Politically and economically, Berdyaev’s project is a form of syndicalism. He also sympathizes cautiously with Christian socialism, although taking care to point out that this name is a misnomer and that the true Christian socialism would not be a form socialism in the usual sense of the word (Berdyaev, 1933, p. 204). In his vision of future, modern forms of political representation will be dismantled in favor of professional unions that, unlike parties based on political ideologies, have more substance and represent real groups of people (Berdyaev, 1933, p. 112).
Social, economic, and political dimension, however, is just the tip of the iceberg. It is the cultural change that really matters and, as we dig deeper in Berdyaev’s oeuvre, his vision of the future becomes more and more complex and more and more magical.
Berdyaev’s Theory of Magic
My favorite work of Berdyaev is The Meaning of the Creative Act (1927), largely because of its chapter about magic and mysticism. Berdyaev considered magic an important element of culture that had been repressed with the advance of Christianity but should reclaim its rightful place in the future. Here is how Berdyaev defined magic (Berdyaev, 1989, p. 515):
Magic is an action [directed at] nature and power over nature through the knowledge of secrets of nature. Magic is a close relative of natural sciences and technology. Magic was pan-science and pan-technology, the universal key to all secrets of nature. Natural sciences and technology have forgotten their origin – they are of magical origin. Natural sciences, with all their applied practices, are akin to magic [and] strive for the power over nature. Modern science, like magic, strives to create the philosopher’s stone and make gold, create the elixir of life and use it to prolong life, etc. Modern science inherited from dark magic the selfish desire to seize control over nature and extract from it that which will increase human power. All psychology of natural sciences and natural technology is akin to dark magic.
In Berdyaev’s view, Christian rejection of magic and paganism was a temporary measure necessary to restore the hierarchy of creation. However, after the restoration of this hierarchy, the next step would be to restore magic itself, as well as the panpsychist notion of living nature associated with it. After all, materialist science, for Berdyaev, is a form of evil magic that led to the erosion of human freedom and the destruction of environment due to human selfishness. The solution? Reintroducing magic as the central component of our culture while reimagining science in magical terms (Berdyaev, 1989, p. 515–517):
Christianity banished natural spirits as evil demons and mechanized nature. The great Pan died. Nature had to be chained to be redeemed. For natural spirits had governed over humankind leading to chaos. . . . Christianity also has power to resurrect Pan and spiritualize nature once again. Natural spirits will return to us, nature will once again be alive. But these spirits will not scare us and will not rule over us as chaos. . . . Humanity will rule over the hierarchy of natural spirits. . . . Magic is distinct from science and technology in that it always perceives nature as being alive and that it interacts not with mechanical forces but with natural spirits. . . . When great Pan will returns and nature becomes alive again for the Christian world, magic will inevitably return as well. Science and technology will transform into magic…
Berdyaev’s Significance
I am far from suggesting to accept Berdyaev’s vision of the future uncritically. Naturally, as we are reading him a century later, there are quite a few things that one might want to criticise in his project. However, there is also a lot we could learn from it. In particular, I believe that his diagnosis of the condition of the modern society, according to which the suppression of magic from public sphere contributed to the problems of the twentieth century is accurate at least in some respects.
The repressed magic has not disappeared from society. Similarly to how in psychoanalysis repressed memories can lead to neurosis, repression of magic led to transformation of technology and politics in forms of dark magic, threatening human agency and freedom. Or, to put it in Berdyaev’s words, today “psychology of natural sciences and natural technology is akin to dark magic.” If we are to defeat this malevolent spell, we have to, first, recognize it for what it is – a form of magic. After that, we can build a magical practice of our own that would empower us to achieve freedom and to take control of our lives.
In humanities and social sciences, it means that the history of esotericism should become integrated in studies of other areas of culture – science and technology studies, political science, economics, and so on. Strategically, the study of esotericism should aim for more than a simple historical description of esoteric currents. Rather, it should attempt to create a comprehensive theory of culture and human nature. After all, what are humanities if not a study of what it means to be human?
References
- Berdyaev, N. (1933). The End of Our Time. Sheed and Ward.
- Berdyaev, N. (1989). Filosofija Svobody. Smysl Tvorchestva. Pravda.