CHAPTER X
FORMATION
TRADITION, ITS TRANSMISSION, AND SPIRITUAL FORMATION
CHARLES MAES
FORMS AND FORMATION
TRADITIONS
The
concept of formation is always a reference to the shaping or forming of human
life; at the same time it is applicable also to the formation of the human
world, society, culture, etc. This paper in-tends first of all to define the
foundational meanings of the concept of formation tradition. In some measure all
of us have been formed, implicitly and explicitly, by one or the other formation
tradition or by some mixture of them.
To
begin, it is natural to ask: whence do these traditions emerge; how do they
influence our receptive and creative patterns of formation of the self, of
society, and of the world; what is their deeper or foundational meaning; and are
particular formation traditions here to stay? In the analysis of formation
traditions, what can we learn to enrich our own perspective, namely, the science
of foundational human formation? We must question the specific formation
tradition to which we may be personally committed and search how we can relate
in a meaningful way participation in our tradition to the scientific study of
formation. These are some of the critical questions regarding the emergence of
this new science of human formation in a pluralistic society.
The
key construct, mystery-of-formation, enables all forms in the cosmos to emerge,
expand and maintain themselves. It re-cognizes for all forms, animate and
inanimate, a foundational po-tency in terms of which their form persists,
unfolds, expands and assimilates whatever can serve their maintenance and
expansion.
Contemporary
physics helps to elucidate this by showing how forms in the cosmos follow a
principle of rising and falling. The moment all effectiveness to receive or to
give a form is exhausted, this specific form disappears or emerges as other
forms. Minerals, plants, atomic and subatomic particles form themselves in auto-matic
consonance with their form direction: they have a built-in for-mation readiness.
Among the cosmic forms are living organisms or organismic forms equipped with
instinctive directives. These in-stinctual directives correspond only with those
appearances of the world relevant to the survival and expansion of these
specific or-ganisms.
Only
the human life form appears on the cosmic scene with almost no instinctual
directives. Devoid of sufficient preformed life directives, the human life form
has to disclose its own. Accordingly, the human life form has to bring into
relief those appearances of the world that correspond to its self-forming life
directives. By such enhanced, compatible world appearances the human life form
shapes life and world in accordance with its own chosen directives. This
anticipates the self-initiating human life form which is es-sentially connected
to the emergence of a formation tradition (van Kaam, 1983, p. 198).
Thus,
the human life form discloses receptive and creative di-rectives and their
corresponding attracting objects. In this process, human societies develop a
whole universe of symbols as the only way to disclose and maintain
trans-instinctual directives and their chosen objects. It is only by means of
symbols that these can be set apart in the human mind and world. As humanly
meaningful objects are not articulated as such in nature, human symbols are
nece-ssary to point to humanly preferred form objects in nature by which certain
world appearances are symbolically highlighted or staged, as it were, and put
into relief as formationally relevant. Situation, world and society thus become
articulated for human life in form-ation symbols. This universe of formation
symbols and their implied potential directive constitutes, as it were, a life of
its own in the realm of formation (van Kaam, 1987, p. 3).
"The
formation tradition is the fruit of co-creative disclosures by countless
generations-in-formation. Not only humans of one passing generation, but those
of many generations disclosed toge-ther the symbolic form directives thought to
be ideal for the form-ation of life and world" (p. 3). No one human being,
no one gene-ration, nor a few fleeting generations alone could amass sufficient
experience to propose a set of symbolic form directives which would constitute a
style of distinctively human or spiritual form-ation.
Moreover,
emerging formation traditions themselves have to be purified steadily by many
generations. They must separate ac-cidental historical accretions due to
particular historical situations from the disclosure of foundational truths of
human formation. Such universal, transcultural form directives may be hidden
within the particular form directives handed over by past generations.
Our
very word "tradition" comes from the Latin tradere, which means
handing over. Formation tradition thus refers to the form di-rectives that have
been handed over from generation to generation. Foundational formation tradition
refers to that aspect of the forming tradition that has a universal directive
validity. It is no longer bound exclusively to the particularities of past or
present socio-historical situations. Any concrete formation tradition is a
mixture of universal and particular socio-historical accretions. These may
remain form-atively effective and contribute positively to the culture or to a
sub-culture for whatever length of time the socio-historical situation needs
that response.
Formation
traditions have been the leading depositories of form directives for human life
and society. Their continuity has been supported by the religious or humanistic
belief systems in which they are rooted. This accounts for their perdurance as
they support their adherents through writing, symbols, creative myths, rites and
customs which rendered vital and powerful the ageless form dire-ctives. Even
though the classical form traditions may have lost some of their power for
increasing numbers of people, for the ma-jority of humanity they remain among
the significantly formative, if implicit, influences in their lives. Many people
no longer realize how much they are influenced continually by such traditions
embodied in the customs of their cultures and societies.
FAITH TRADITIONS AND FORM
TRADITIONS
The
power of these form traditions lies in their presuppo-sitions concerning the
formation mystery and its epiphanies. The deepest question concerns the mystery
of the ultimate nature and meaning of formation processes, for we do not have a
definitive and compelling explanation of their ultimate meaning. The effective
constitution of our daily living can proceed effectively only if some-how we
abandon ourselves to this mystery, at least in some implicit elementary faith,
hope and consonance. Formation traditions find their strength in symbols,
stories, rituals, and writing that are deeply meaningful and nourish living
faith, hope and consonance in the formation mystery. Such beliefs or convictions
and their immediate symbols and implications are the heart of a religious or
humanistic faith tradition.
The
central concern of the subsequent formation tradition developed on the basis of
such beliefs differs from the elements mentioned. The belief systems of specific
form traditions function as necessary vitalizing, inspiring and controlling
predispositions, accompanied usually by attempts at rational explications, expla-nation
and legitimations. They may develop into self-consistent and rational systems of
an ontological or theological nature. The scien-ces that emerge are not as such
the primary concern of that form tradition, but are utilized to study the
tradition in order to achieve understanding of the presuppositions of its basic
faith.
"Form
tradition" refers primarily to the practical and formative customs,
methods, styles, exercises, etc., developed and trans-mitted by generations
committed to the same religious or humanist faith tradition. The form directives
by which people guide their lives have been disclosed partly in answer to the
presuppositional specific beliefs concerning the nature and meaning of the
formation mystery as envisioned in the particular tradition. What distin-guishes
a form tradition from a faith tradition as such is the fact that its practical
formation answers have been developed in dialogue (interaction) with the
concrete everyday concerns and requirements of people-in-formation within
practical situations and social interaction situations. Form traditions are
defined by tension be-tween two fidelities: the primary fidelity is to the
foundational faith presuppositions concerning the nature and meaning of the
form-ation mystery; the other fidelity is to the facts and meanings of changing
form situations and societies in which the faith tradition must concretely be
incarnated.
Apparently,
form tradition is much more plastic or flexible and more open to change than the
foundational faith tradition. This dif-ference remains always true. The form
tradition as practical must change with the changing factual knowledge of the
specific nature and demands of each human life, its form structure, its field of
formation and the multifarious form dynamics (p. 7).
Ideally,
any change in praxis should not be contrary to the foundational faith
presuppositions of which the form tradition is an expression. When our
understanding of formation changes pro-foundly, we may see more clearly that
certain formulations of the foundational faith presuppositions were not precise
enough to exclude in the minds of followers certain temporal accretions. When
such problems arise, they are referred to the philosophers or theologians of the
tradition whose expertise focuses upon the presuppositions.
ULTIMATE AND PROXIMATE
THINKING
Until
the 18th century, remote or ultimate thinking, mainly phi-losophical and
theological in nature, prevailed in Western culture. Consequently, pronounced
attention was given to the basic pre-suppositions of human formation, which gave
rise to a great depth of understanding of such presuppositions. Spiritualities
developed in this period were compelled to connect this presuppositional thought
that focuses on ultimate human concerns with the practice of proximate spiritual
life formation. The spiritual masters of form-ation developed a way of thought
which was primarily or mainly proximate. They initiated form traditions or
developed already existing ones. Something similar happened in the Orthodox and
the far Eastern religious traditions. Along with their own basic faith tradition
and its philosophies and theologies, they developed spirit-ualities or specific
form traditions.
These
form traditions took into account the available know-ledge of life form
structures, the form field and the dynamics of life and field, but concrete
factual knowledge was very limited. Pro-ximate knowledge gained immensely with
the development of pro-ximate thinking in and through the development of the
natural and social sciences. The findings of the new proximate sciences com-plemented
the knowledge of the remote sciences of philosophy and theology. With this
immense increase in proximate knowledge, it would become possible for the
various form traditions to refine their formation customs and symbols by
engaging in a fruitful dialogue with the proximate knowledge provided by the new
sciences.
This
dialogue was temporarily delayed for a number of rea-sons. Firstly, the new
scientists reacted strongly against the past dominance of form traditions,
rejecting or ignoring their crucial role in the past and for the future of an
historic humanity of faith, hope and consonance in the primordial formation
decision of people. They ignored the necessity of traditional symbols, myths,
and rites, and their rational elaboration by corresponding philosophical and
theological sciences. Through reason these sustain, deepen and spark the
primordial and foundational human spiritual acts of faith, hope and consonance.
Without these distinctively human virtues, people miss the motivation to
implement in their lives the insights that serve the function of a consonant
life and world formation.
In
turn, people steeped in the existing form traditions over-reacted against their
rejection by some proponents of the new pro-ximate sciences, especially when
these turned scathingly against the transcendent faith presuppositions of the
various traditions. The presuppositions of a faith tradition can neither be
proved nor disproved by the methods of the proximate sciences. With the
"explosion of knowledge" which resulted from the findings of the new
sciences, great confusion and fragmentation also ensued.
The
imperialism of the form traditionalists also prevented the possibilities of
dialogue between the old knowledge and the new. Christians lived in nostalgia of
the glorious medieval time when a small part of the world, Europe, was given
direction by a unified Christian form tradition. Humanity would only very
gradually come to the realization that the "global village" must bear
with differences of form traditions; that no one formation tradition would be
able to convince or coerce all the others to establish world unity in its
exclusive image alone. It has become more and more painfully clear that often
wars, persecutions and much social injustice were caused by conflict between
competing form traditions. In many cases they were the ultimate source of
divisiveness, power ex-cesses, wars and social injustice. As the possibilities
of mutual annihilation increase, there is a growing awareness of the need to
respect the possible contributions that each form tradition can make.
It
is important that an elementary universal knowledge or science of the consonant
formation of life and world develop in such a way that it can be articulated in
each consonant form tradition. This must be able to be done without diminishing
their unique and rich complementarity, rooted in their belief system with their
assumptions or presuppositions. Our age proves convincingly that all attempts to
level the unique traditions of contemporary humanity can only destroy our
ultimate chance for social peace and justice.
Another
factor that causes a delay in the necessary dialogue regarding a universal and
foundational forming of humanity and society emerges out of the scientific
assumption that only through its methods could one arrive at a true science for
distinctively human formation. Scientists could develop compelling theoretical
frames of reference which nonetheless are not compelling for life. This
discloses the need for abandonment to the mystery of formation, for, despite the
integrational goals of scientists it is evident that no proximate science can
totally or exactly identify and demonstrate the ultimate sense or meaning of the
formation pro-cesses in the universe. It is impossible to engage oneself
whole-heartedly and creatively in these formation processes unless one does so
with some implicit and elementary faith and hope. The forming traditions alone
provide convincing, even compelling, ways to gain, maintain and expand a sense
of faith or hope. Without foundational valorization, without faith or hope, it
would be impo-ssible for the great majority of people to implement their
aspirations and ideals as proposed by a new creative synthetic knowledge. No
matter how well theoretical and proximate knowledge might be validated by the
fragmentary proximate sciences that would not suffice.
There
is a need to distinguish between the cosmic, the per-sonal-human and the
trans-human epiphanies of the mystery of formation. Every tradition can be
classified as prevalently con-cerned with one of these epiphanies. For example,
the Buddhist form tradition seems prevalently intra-cosmic; it deeply fosters
re-verence for, and understanding of, the mystery of macro- and micro-cosmic
formation. This also appears to be true of Taoism. The Confucian form tradition
seems prevalently inspired by the personal-social epiphany of the formation
mystery. This seems true also of the humanist and socialist form traditions.
Christianity, like Islam and Judaism, initiated form traditions based on a
belief in a trans-human revelation of the forming mystery. Faith in, and con-cern
for, the cosmic (nature) and the personal-social (human) epi-phanies is also
present for these three traditions. We can gain much from the practical
formation wisdom of any form tradition based on faith in any of the epiphanies.
Insofar as each tradition goes beyond its underlying faith tradition in its
attempts at practical implementation in daily life, it is the source of possible
formation insights or wisdom that can be clarified and validated through
dialogue with the different proximate sciences.
TRANSMISSION OF THE FORM
TRADITION
Many
agents transmit the directives of a tradition. Of course, in infancy and
childhood the primary agents of child formation are the parents. However, the
transmission of life-forming directives expands as siblings, the extended
family, teachers, and others, reinforce the primary agency of parents or their
surrogates. The transmission of the form tradition is effected under conditions
that modify the ideal form of the tradition so that the tradition can never be
transmitted in a perfect manner. There are many reasons for this; to cite but a
few: the parents as prime agents of the trans-mission always understand the core
of the tradition in the light of their personal biases, distorting the profound
directives contained in the heart of the tradition. As good but not perfect
specimens, their individual and subjective characteristics make for an imperfect
transmission of the life-forming wisdom of the form tradition. By their
vulnerabilities and limits infants and young children also contribute to the
problems of transmission.
Nonetheless,
the work of transmission intends a relative success in the formation of the
young. Ideally, the society, acting through its primary formation agents,
succeeds in providing a proper formation for the new human being. It intends the
formation of the core of the child’s personality which embodies or incarnates
the unity or web of beliefs that give meaning to life and to development as the
essential raison d’être of the tradition. If the essential aspects of
the tradition are appropriated and made one’s own they become part of the very
being of the individual formed. In childhood the form tradition is taken on
"externally" so to speak: the child conforms, which is all that it is
capable of doing. However, adulthood requires that one’s motivational life
change and that conformity yield to an "authorization from within" (Lacan,
1977, pp. 227-278).
This
shift in the motivational life of the one being formed has profound
significance. For example, there must be a decentering of the adult’s
motivational life. They must act no longer primarily be-cause of social
expectations, but should increasingly manifest the profound and transcendent
values of the form tradition. To live in this manner requires that one abandon
oneself to the mystery of formation as comprehended and fostered uniquely and
communally by the formation tradition.
Duquesne University
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
REFERENCES
Adrian
van Kaam. "Formation Tradition", 1987. An unpublished essay from which
the present paper derived many of its key topical ideas.
. Fundamental
Formation. New York: Crossroad, 1983.
. Formation
of the Human Heart. New York: Crossroad, 1986.
Jacques
Lacan. Ecrits. New York: Norton, 1977.