![Integral [+] Facticity](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!yhcJ!,w_120,h_120,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff8458843-3278-4fcc-accc-17ad21352205_1280x1280.png)
Revisiting Lukács’s Destruction of Reason
On Trumpism & the Future of Canadian Sovereignty
Abstract
A direct sequel to “Philosophy & Religion after Habermas,” this essay applies György Lukács’s diagnostic method from The Destruction of Reason to the present emergency of American imperial expansion and the threat to Canadian sovereignty. Where the Habermas essay traced the recurring philosophical pattern — the move to posit a mystical, cosmic, or divine depth beneath rational discourse, and the political catastrophes that follow when specific communities claim privileged access to it — this essay asks the harder question: how that pattern reproduces itself in the lives of millions of people, and why the dominant intellectual formations of both the contemporary right and left are structurally unable to resist or stop it.
The essay begins with John Ralston Saul’s March 2026 address on the unbroken line of American imperial violence and the normalization technique being deployed against Canadian sovereignty. Saul’s historical argument — that forty years of continental integration have systematically dismantled Canada’s east-west economic spine and left the country exposed to annexationist pressure — provides the political and institutional ground the diagnostic requires. But Saul’s framework stops at the political surface. It does not explain why American imperial violence keeps arriving dressed in the language of divine mission and sacred fury, or why it can mobilize mass spiritual allegiance to what is ultimately an imperial project.
That explanation requires two moves. The first is a constitutional contrast between American possessive individualism and Canadian communal stewardship — drawing on Macpherson, Tocqueville, and Saul — to show why the United States is structurally more vulnerable to irrationalist political formations than societies built on different philosophical foundations. The American constitutional philosophy of individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness creates a spiritual vacuum that irrationalist formations — from the evangelical Great Awakenings through nativist and white supremacist movements to the culture wars and MAGA — have filled cyclically with the promise of sacred belonging and divine national destiny. The Canadian constitutional tradition of peace, welfare, and good government encodes a different philosophical anthropology: community as the condition of human flourishing rather than the constraint on individual aspiration.
Lukács's concept of indirect apologetics — the mechanism by which irrationalist philosophy makes political catastrophe available regardless of anyone's intentions — is recovered as the diagnostic instrument that survives the book's Stalinist limitations. Daniel Tutt's sustained engagement with Lukács, including his interview with John Bellamy Foster for Historical Materialism, is credited as the work making this diagnostic newly urgent.
The diagnostic is then applied across six contemporary formations, traced through two genealogies. The first runs through twentieth-century Catholic theology: from Sarah Shortall's history of the nouvelle théologie, through Milbank's Radical Orthodoxy, to the Catholic Integralists now in the White House. Žižek's Christian atheism and Peter Rollins's pyrotheology are examined as the left expression of the same structural logic — formally atheist but structurally theological, positioning democratic accountability as a derivative rather than foundational. The Peterson-Žižek debate of April 2019 is read as the point where the convergence became publicly legible. Finally, the Tutt-Cutrone debate — conducted on Tutt's Emancipations podcast, with Cadell Last's Philosophy Portal serving as a wider node in the conversation — is examined as the most consequential exchange currently taking place on the Marxist left about whether the Lacanian ontological frame or the Lukácsian historical method provides the adequate diagnostic architecture for the present emergency.
The second genealogy traces the vitalist and process lineage running from Bergson through Whitehead through Gebser into the spiritual marketplace, and from there into the two integral formations that inherit it: the California Institute of Integral Studies and the process-relational tradition associated with it, and Ken Wilber’s integral theory. These movements and sociological formations are examined as the most ambitious attempts in the Anglophone world to hold contemplative depth and rational accountability together — and therefore the formations whose failure in the present emergency is most consequential. Wilber’s sustained endorsement of Andrew Cohen and Marc Gafni is read not as an accident but as a structural consequence of the nondual position overriding the post-metaphysical corrective.
The essay concludes on a constructive project. Drawing on Jacques Maritain’s integral humanism, the Canadian critical theology tradition of Charles Davis and Gregory Baum as documented by Marc Lalonde, Armour’s philosophic federalism, and Habermas’s Between Facts and Norms, it articulates a post-metaphysical alternative capable of carrying genuine contemplative depth into the democratic norms and procedures of justice where democratic life actually takes place — rather than holding it above that space as a sacred reserve exempt from accountability. The Canadian speculative philosophical tradition — with its founding commitment to peace, welfare, and good government, its philosophical anthropology of community over possessive individualism, and its century-long inquiry into how diverse communities hold themselves together without domination — is argued to be not merely a historical inheritance but a live philosophical resource adequate to the present emergency: one that could, if clearly articulated, demonstrate to the world that a democratic federation built on stewardship rather than power, on community rather than the sovereign individual, has resources for holding contemplative depth and democratic accountability together that the dominant formations of both the right and the left have failed to provide.
Tags: Georg Lukács, The Destruction of Reason, Indirect Apologetics, Irrationalism, Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms, Post-Metaphysical Philosophy, Democratic Norms, Justice, John Ralston Saul, Canadian Sovereignty, Canadian Philosophy, Possessive Individualism, C.B. Macpherson, Alexis de Tocqueville, Constitutional Philosophy, Leslie Armour, Philosophic Federalism, George Grant, Harold Innis, Ken Wilber, Integral Theory, AQAL, Pre/Trans Fallacy, Andrew Cohen, Marc Gafni, California Institute of Integral Studies, CIIS, Haridas Chaudhuri, Sri Aurobindo, Alan Watts, Matt Segall, Process Philosophy, Whitehead, Henri Bergson, Jean Gebser, Jeremy Johnson, Spiritual Marketplace, Meaning Crisis, John Vervaeke, Sarah Shortall, Nouvelle Théologie, Radical Orthodoxy, John Milbank, Catholic Integralism, Patrick Deneen, JD Vance, Jacques Maritain, Integral Humanism, Charles Davis, Gregory Baum, Marc Lalonde, Concordia University, Critical Theology, Slavoj Žižek, Christian Atheism, Peter Rollins, Pyrotheology, Lacanian Real, Jordan Peterson, Daniel Tutt, Chris Cutrone, Cadell Last, Philosophy Portal, Marxism, Frankfurt School, Trumpism, MAGA, Monroe Doctrine, Canadian Speculative Philosophy, Sean McGrath, German Idealism, Schelling, Heidegger, Fichte, Volksgeist, Kyoto School, Michael Brooks, Matthew McManus, Postmodern Conservatism, Nietzsche, McMindfulness, Enzo Traverso, Richard Tarnas, Brian Mulroney, Free Trade Agreement, John Turner, Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine, Robert Baldwin
I. Mysticism, Irrationalism, & the Present Emergency
This essay is a direct sequel to “Philosophy & Religion after Habermas: From Zen Buddhism to Post-Metaphysical Theology,” published on March 17, 2026. That essay traced a recurring structural pattern across the history of Western philosophy: the postulation of a cosmic, mystical, or divine depth beneath the reach of rational discourse, and the political catastrophes that follow when specific communities claim privileged access to it. Habermas spent his intellectual life resisting that move. The essay concluded by pressing the hardest version of his argument against Ken Wilber’s integral theory, and left the central question deliberately open.
But there was something the Habermas essay kept circling without being able to grasp directly — the question of how the philosophical pattern it traced actually reproduces itself in the lives of millions of people. Not at the level where Fichte posits a Volksgeist and Heidegger reaches for Being, but at the level where millions of people interpret their suffering through frameworks of spiritual longing and sacred national destiny rather than through frameworks of democratic demand and institutional accountability — where the escape from that suffering is offered through divine realization and striving rather than through the political transformation of the conditions producing it. The philosophical pattern the Habermas essay traced needed a different instrument — one that could track the same structural logic from the seminar room to the megachurch, from Schelling’s late metaphysics to the prosperity gospel preacher telling a working-class congregation that their poverty is a spiritual trial rather than a consequence of economic policy.
That instrument is Georg Lukács’s The Destruction of Reason — completed in 1952, first published in German in 1954, translated by Merlin Press in 1980, and reissued by Verso in 2021 with a historical introduction by Enzo Traverso. It is a nine-hundred-page polemic tracing what Lukács calls “Germany’s path to Hitler in the sphere of philosophy”: the post-Hegelian tradition running from Schelling’s late turn after 1848 through Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Bergson, and the broader currents of vitalism and life-philosophy, arriving at Heidegger. Lukács’s argument is not that these philosophers consciously prepared the ground for fascism. It is that their frameworks shared a structural logic — the systematic elevation of intuition, myth, and divine depth over rational critique; an aristocratic epistemology reserving genuine insight for the initiated few; the cultivation of national, spiritual, and cosmic myths that fill the space left by the abandonment of reason — and that this logic made fascism philosophically available regardless of anyone’s intentions. This is what Lukács means by indirect apologetics: not conspiracy but structural consequence. Bergson’s philosophy of morality and history did not lead to fascist conclusions — but without falsifying Bergson’s philosophy, as Lukács put it, Mussolini was able to develop a fascist ideology out of it. That National Socialism was not to the personal taste of Spengler no more exculpates him than it does Bergson. The philosopher may not intend the political consequence. But the structural logic of the framework makes it available, and once available, it can be used.
It is also the most contested thing Lukács ever wrote. The book’s Stalinist framework — the confident assignment of the Soviet Union as the apex of rational historical development — produces real distortions. The treatment of Schelling misses genuine philosophical importance. Some of the accusations against Wittgenstein and the pragmatists are indefensible. Daniel Tutt, whose sustained engagement with Lukács through his online seminars, his Emancipations podcast, and Tutt’s interview with John Bellamy Foster for Historical Materialism had been shaping my thinking for some time, has given the fullest honest account of these limitations. What survives them is not a comprehensive theory of intellectual history but a diagnostic method: the capacity to identify structural convergence across apparently disparate formations — philosophical, theological, cultural, popular — and name the consequences for democratic norms and justice when that convergence erodes the conditions under which rational public discourse can function.
Lukács was in the background the entire time I was writing on Habermas. I could feel the weight of it pressing against the edges of the essay, but the piece was already enormous and I made the decision to hold Lukács for a separate treatment. The philosophical argument alone was not enough. It needed a specific historical and political ground — something that could show the irrationalist formation not as an intellectual genealogy but as a live threat operating on actual democratic institutions in real time.
In March, 2026, John Ralston Saul stepped to a podium in a Toronto church and provided that ground. Addressing the Compassionate Justice Speakers Series, Saul delivered what I had not found in any purely philosophical account of the present crisis. He gave a historically grounded, institutionally precise analysis of the unbroken line of American imperial violence, the forty years of continental integration that had systematically dismantled Canada’s east-west spine, and the normalization technique now being deployed against Canadian sovereignty: the casual, repetitive invocation of Canada’s non-existence until the idea no longer registers as outrageous.
By the time Saul spoke, the emergency was already operational. In January 2026, the United States had launched strikes on Venezuela and installed a puppet regime, threatened Greenland with military force, codified the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine — the explicit claim that the entire Western Hemisphere is an American sphere of dominion — as national security strategy, and imposed an oil blockade on Cuba that the New York Times called the first effective American blockade of the island since the Cuban Missile Crisis, pushing the country toward humanitarian collapse while Trump declared he would have “the honor of taking Cuba” and proposed what he called a “friendly takeover.” It was bombing Iran in its largest Middle Eastern military operation since Iraq under the name “Operation Epic Fury” — language drawn not from military planning but from the vocabulary of sacred national destiny: the fury of a divinely authorized people carrying out what they understand as God’s work. And it was telling Canada, with increasing seriousness, that it should become the 51st state. Former US ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder put it plainly: under Trump, the rules-based international order has effectively ceased to exist. The normalization Saul was diagnosing was not an isolated provocation but one front in a hemispheric imperial project.
Saul shows you the unbroken line of American imperial violence and the forty years of continental integration that left Canada exposed to it. What he does not show — because it is outside his analytical scope — is why that violence keeps arriving dressed in the language of divine mission and sacred fury, why it can mobilize mass spiritual allegiance to what is ultimately an imperial project, and why the dominant intellectual formations of both the contemporary right and the academic left are structurally unable to resist or stop it. That is where Lukács becomes indispensable — and where the present essay begins its diagnostic work.
II. Democracy on the Line
John Ralston Saul is not well known in the United States, and that fact is itself part of the problem this essay is diagnosing. Born in Ottawa in 1947, the son of a D-Day veteran, Saul earned his PhD at King’s College London on civil-military relations in post-Algerian War France, then spent years in the oil industry and intelligence world before turning to writing. His philosophical trilogy — Voltaire’s Bastards (1992), The Doubter’s Companion (1994), and The Unconscious Civilization (1995, which won the Governor General’s Literary Award and originated as his Massey Lectures) — established him as the most sustained diagnostician of the crisis of democratic reason produced by any Canadian thinker. He served as International President of PEN from 2009 to 2015 — the first Canadian to hold the position — championing freedom of expression and endangered languages. He co-founded the Institute for Canadian Citizenship and the LaFontaine-Baldwin Lectures, both designed to cultivate the active democratic citizenship his philosophical work argues cannot be taken for granted. He is married to Adrienne Clarkson, who served as Governor General of Canada from 1999 to 2005. He has been, for four decades, the public intellectual who has insisted most persistently that Canada does not know what it is — and that this ignorance is existentially dangerous.
The core of Saul’s March, 2026 address is a claim most Canadians have never heard clearly stated: that Canada is the oldest continuous democratic federation in the world, and that it does not know this about itself. The country has been told for so long that it is young, derivative, still getting going, that the actual historical foundation — March 11, 1848, when Louis-Hippolyte La Fontaine and Robert Baldwin, a Montrealer and a Torontonian, formed the Great Ministry that worked through riots and the burning of parliament buildings to establish what Saul argues are still the humanist foundations of modern Canada — has been simply erased from the story. Not argued away, not contested on the merits, but absent: replaced by frameworks of interest groups and trade-offs that have no room for the claim that a country was founded on humanist and ethical forms of leadership.
This is not the first time Saul has made this argument — he has been building it across four decades and multiple registers. Voltaire’s Bastards (1992) traced how the Enlightenment promise of reason-as-liberation was perverted into reason-as-management across Western institutions: the military, the corporation, the professions, the bureaucracy. The Unconscious Civilization (1995) gave the thesis its most concentrated form, diagnosing what Saul calls corporatism: the capture of democratic life by organized interest groups — commercial, professional, administrative — which reduce citizens from active democratic participants to passive functionaries within institutional structures. Saul’s argument is not that a conspiracy runs the system. It is that corporatism produces a kind of civic unconsciousness — a state in which individuals are, as he puts it, “relieved of personal, disinterested responsibility” for their society, going through the motions of democratic participation while the substantive decisions about how their world is organized have been transferred to managerial and technocratic systems that operate according to their own logics. The civilization becomes unable to see what has been done to it, because the very capacity for critical civic consciousness — the ability to step outside the corporatist structure and ask whether it serves human flourishing — has been hollowed out. A Fair Country (2008) extended the argument into Canadian specificity, insisting that Canada is fundamentally a Métis society built on the encounter of Indigenous, Francophone, and Anglophone traditions, and that the Indigenous philosophical foundations of Canadian political culture are not peripheral but constitutive. The institutional work — the LaFontaine-Baldwin Lectures, the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, a decade as PEN International president — expresses a conviction Saul shares with Habermas: that democratic traditions do not sustain themselves but require the active, ongoing cultivation of the institutions through which democratic life becomes possible and reproducible. The convergence between their projects has not been adequately named in the scholarship on either figure, and it is deeper than shared conclusions. Both diagnosed the same pathology from entirely different intellectual traditions and different continents: the hollowing out of democratic substance by systems that claim rational legitimacy while systematically excluding the substantive judgment that gives democratic frameworks their meaning. What Habermas called the colonization of the lifeworld by system imperatives — the displacement of communicative reason by market and administrative logics — is structurally identical to what Saul called corporatism: the capture of the democratic public sphere by organized interest groups whose internal rationality serves institutional perpetuation rather than human flourishing. Habermas’s insistence that the public sphere must remain the space where democratic norms are contested and renewed is Saul’s insistence that citizens must remain active participants in governance rather than passive consumers of managerial decisions — stated in different philosophical vocabularies but converging on the same non-negotiable claim: that democracy is a practice requiring continuous institutional cultivation, not a stable achievement that maintains itself. That two thinkers of this calibre, working independently from Frankfurt and from Toronto, arrived at the same structural diagnosis through such different intellectual routes is itself evidence of the diagnosis’s validity.
The Normalization Technique and the Forty-Year Surrender
Building on the La Fontaine-Baldwin foundation, Saul addressed the existential threat posed by the Trump administration’s annexationist rhetoric. He contends that the repeated suggestions of Canada’s non-existence are not mere outbursts but a calculated normalization technique. By constantly invoking these ideas, the notion that Canada should cease to exist eventually becomes something people stop reacting to. And Canada is not the only target. The same administration that tells Canadians they should become the 51st state has captured the president of Venezuela and installed a puppet regime, threatened Greenland with military force, imposed an oil blockade on Cuba while declaring his intention to “take” the island, and codified the claim that the entire Western Hemisphere is an American sphere of dominion. The annexation threat against Canada is not an isolated provocation — it is one expression of a hemispheric imperial project that has dispensed with even the procedural pretence of international law.
The weight of Saul’s address lies in his exposure of a persistent historical trajectory: an unbroken continuity of American imperial aggression and violence. He cites the 1847-48 seizure of half of Mexico’s territory, the 1914 incursions, and dozens of twentieth-century interventions across Latin America where supporting coups and enforcing government transitions became standard policy rather than anomaly. Beneath these geopolitical actions lies a deeper trajectory: the enduring impact of the slave economy and the Civil War — a conflict resulting in 700,000 fatalities and 1.5 million casualties — within a society where even the Northeast was economically dependent on slave-labor products. Saul argues that the subsequent dismantling of Reconstruction and the institutionalization of segregation were essentially the reinvention of slavery, a cycle only challenged by the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. This four-hundred-year history of foundational violence has never been fully resolved; it merely retreats from view when political necessity dictates, only to reappear when social structures begin to fracture.
Saul also addressed — and this was the sharpest passage of the lecture — how Canada arrived at its current dependency. The east-west economic and cultural infrastructure that once gave Canada its independent character was systematically dismantled. Walter Gordon’s 1963 budget attempted to make Canada function as an economically independent country; Bay Street mobilized against it until Lester Pearson caved. Gordon — one of the greatest political figures of post-war Canada in Saul’s estimation — was destroyed. Trudeau tried again in 1973 with the “third option,” diversifying trade away from the United States; it found no mainstream business or academic support. And then came 1988 — what Canadians still call the Free Trade Election, and what Saul insists was really a referendum on continental economic integration and the surrender of the east-west spine that had given Canada its independent character. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had negotiated a comprehensive free trade agreement with the Reagan administration and staked his re-election on it. Liberal leader John Turner, in a televised debate that remains one of the most watched moments in Canadian political history, accused Mulroney of selling out the country: “With one signature of a pen, you’ve reversed that, thrown us into the north-south influence of the United States and will reduce us, I am sure, to a colony of the United States, because when the economic levers go, the political independence is sure to follow.” A majority of Canadian voters agreed — more Canadians voted for anti-free-trade parties than for Mulroney’s Conservatives. But the opposition vote split between the Liberals and the NDP, and Mulroney won a second consecutive majority government with 43 percent of the vote and 169 seats. The free trade agreement came into effect on January 1, 1989, expanded to include Mexico as NAFTA in 1994, and Canada spent the next forty years reorienting every industry, every career path, every elite aspiration toward the American market — until the entire structure of economic and intellectual life ran north-south rather than east-west. And then Trump weaponized the dependency. In February 2025, he imposed sweeping 25 percent tariffs on most Canadian imports and 10 percent on energy, invoking emergency economic powers never before used for trade policy, on the fraudulent pretext that Canada was a fentanyl corridor — when US Customs agents had seized a total of 43 pounds of fentanyl at the Canadian border in the previous fiscal year, compared to 21,100 pounds at the Mexican border. Canada retaliated with tariffs on $155 billion of American goods. The trade war escalated through 2025 — steel tariffs doubled, automobile tariffs hit the integrated continental supply chain, softwood lumber duties reached 35 percent — and by early 2026, Trump was threatening tariffs of 50 percent on all Canadian goods, blocking the opening of the new Gordie Howe International Bridge, and cancelling trade negotiations after the Ontario government ran a public service announcement featuring Ronald Reagan’s own words warning against protectionism. The US House of Representatives voted to repeal the tariffs. Trump ignored the vote. The roughly $700 billion annual bilateral trade relationship — the largest in the world — entered its most volatile period in decades, and every Canadian who had built a career, a business, or an institutional life on the assumption that the American market would remain open discovered what Turner had warned about in 1988: when the economic levers go, the political independence is sure to follow.
Saul’s closing argument draws the consequence. The call for Canadians to pivot and diversify — to rebuild the east-west economic spine that forty years of continental integration dismantled, to reconstruct the transportation, energy, and industrial infrastructure that once gave Canada its independent character — is not a strategic trade adjustment. It is a generational project requiring the kind of nation-building ambition that has been absent from Canadian politics since the Trudeau-era National Energy Program. What is required is not merely new trade agreements but the reconstruction of sovereign economic capacity: east-west rail and port infrastructure, domestic supply chains for critical minerals, a national energy strategy that treats Canadian oil and gas as a strategic asset to be developed for Canadian benefit rather than exported raw to the nearest American refinery — and, at the limit, the willingness to consider the re-nationalization of energy infrastructure that previous generations understood as a condition of sovereignty rather than an ideological extravagance. The Carney government has begun the military dimension of this project — reaching the NATO 2 percent of GDP defence spending target for the first time since the fall of the Berlin Wall, committing over $81 billion over five years, launching NORAD modernization, and beginning to build the Arctic infrastructure and domestic defence industrial base that decades of American dependency had rendered unnecessary. The philosophical question Saul was pressing — whether Canadians can articulate what their country is well enough to defend it — has found at least a partial institutional answer in the defence buildup.
What remains conspicuously absent is a left that can hold the sovereignty question and the social justice question together. The NDP — the party of Tommy Douglas and the CCF, the party that once understood that national sovereignty and social democracy were inseparable — collapsed to six seats in the April 2025 election, its worst result in history, after running a campaign that its own internal review described as failing to respond to voters’ primary preoccupation: Trump, the tariffs, and threats to Canadian sovereignty. Its platform was assessed by the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy as largely absent on “major national infrastructure, security and defence” and on the “macro level economic actions to incent sustainability and resilience.” The party that should have been arguing most forcefully for the re-nationalization of strategic industries, for sovereign energy policy, for the east-west infrastructure that would reduce American dependency — the party whose founding tradition understood that economic sovereignty is the precondition of the social programs it claims to defend — was nowhere on the question that defined the moment. The NDP’s silence on sovereignty is itself evidence of the Lukácsian diagnostic: a left that has lost the capacity to connect its analysis of economic injustice to the institutional and infrastructural conditions that make democratic self-governance possible.
Canadians must be present in the streets, visible to their MPs, active in the public square. They must be, as Saul put it, calm, determined, and firm in public. Because what is at stake is not a trade dispute. It is whether this country continues to exist as a sovereign democratic federation grounded in the principle of peace, welfare, and good government — and whether the philosophical traditions that built it can be articulated clearly enough to make that existence non-negotiable.
The historical record Saul assembles is devastating. But it stops at the political and economic surface — and this is not a criticism, simply the limit of his analytical scope. He identifies the unbroken line of violence, the corporate capture of democratic citizenship, the normalization technique being used against Canadian sovereignty. What he does not do is explain why the United States is so chronically susceptible to irrationalist political formations in the first place — why Trumpism arrives dressed in the language of divine mission and sacred national destiny, why it is able to mobilize mass spiritual allegiance to what is ultimately an imperial project. That requires two moves Saul’s framework does not make: the constitutional contrast that reveals the structural susceptibility, and the Lukácsian diagnostic method that names what fills the void.
III. Possessive Individualism and the Politics of Sacred Destiny
The constitutional contrast is the place to begin the philosophical analysis, because it reveals the structural susceptibility at its most fundamental level. The Declaration of Independence grounds American political life in “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The British North America (BNA) Act grounds Canadian political life in “peace, order, and good government.” Saul has pointed out, across his body of work, that the original pre-BNA formulations actually read “peace, welfare, and good government” — the well-being of the citizenry was the founding intention before it was bureaucratized into the more neutral “order.” But even in its bureaucratized form, the Canadian constitutional tradition encodes a fundamentally different philosophical anthropology than the American one.
The American formulation centres the individual and individual aspiration. Happiness is something each person pursues according to their own conception of it, protected from interference by the state and by other individuals. Liberty is primarily liberty from — from constraint, from collective obligation, from the demands of community. This is the possessive individualism that C.B. Macpherson traced in the liberal tradition, and Alexis de Tocqueville already diagnosed its paradox in the 1830s: radical individualism atomizes citizens, and atomized citizens become spiritually hungry. They lose the communal traditions, the civic associations, the shared moral frameworks that give life its meaning and belonging. And into that spiritual hunger — that vacuum left by the evacuation of genuine democratic community — the irrationalist formation moves. Divine revelation, national destiny, the promise of sacred belonging to a chosen people or a blessed nation: these provide exactly what individualism destroys and cannot replace from within its own philosophical resources. The appeal to God and cosmic meaning fills the void that “the pursuit of happiness” opens and cannot close.
The Canadian formulation centres the community and collective governance. Peace is a shared condition requiring active maintenance. Order is not mere conformity but the institutional framework within which diverse communities can coexist without domination. Good government is stewardship — governance oriented toward the common good rather than the protection of individual liberty from collective obligation. This is not a perfect tradition, and Saul has been more honest than most about where it has failed: the suppression of Indigenous peoples, the treatment of French Canadians, the betrayals of the 1988 free trade integration. But the philosophical anthropology it encodes is structurally different. It does not create the same spiritual vacuum. It does not generate the same hunger for divine authorization of political life, because it does not begin from the premise that individuals are sovereign atoms whose only legitimate political relationship is the protection of individual liberty from collective obligation. It begins from the premise that community is the condition of human flourishing — a premise that has Indigenous philosophical roots, as Saul argued in A Fair Country, that predates Confederation.
The mechanism that Habermas identified as the colonization of the lifeworld operates differently in a society built on possessive individualism than in one built on communal stewardship. When communicative rationality is hollowed out by market and administrative logics in the American context, citizens do not become neutral secular individuals. They become atomized individuals stripped of the communal and civic traditions that once gave their lives meaning — and therefore available for the irrationalist formation in ways that a more communitarian tradition is not.
What gets weaponized politically in this condition is the promise of divine revelation — the claim that God, the Absolute, the national spirit, the sacred community has spoken, and that certain people have privileged access to that metaphysical knowledge. When workers are told that their suffering has redemptive spiritual meaning, that their national or ethnic or religious identity connects them to something sacred and transcendent, that their real enemy is the cosmopolitan financier or the godless liberal rather than the system that actually generates their conditions of life — the appeal to God and national destiny has performed a specific political function. It has replaced solidarity with spirituality, economic demand with spiritual belonging, class consciousness with mysticism.
This mechanism is not unique to America, but the American constitutional philosophy of individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness makes the United States structurally more vulnerable to it than societies built on different philosophical foundations. It is why American political culture cycles through irrationalist formations with a regularity and intensity that has no real parallel in the Canadian political tradition — from the Great Awakenings that periodically swept evangelical Protestantism into the political sphere, through the nativist Know-Nothing movement, through the Klan’s fusion of racial terror with Protestant revivalism, through McCarthyism’s anti-communist crusade, through the culture wars that reorganized American politics around mythologized moral absolutes, to the Q-adjacent cosmologies now circulating in the MAGA movement. Each formation is historically distinct. What they share is a structural logic: the substitution of sacred belonging for democratic solidarity, and the promise that divine or national destiny will deliver what political organizing and institutional accountability have failed to provide. It is why MAGA could mobilize a mass movement around a billionaire real estate developer by giving him the aura of divine mission and national destiny. And it is why the annexation threat against Canada is not simply a policy position but a theologically inflected imperial claim: God, liberty, and destiny require the completion of the American project. This is the formation Lukács was diagnosing — not as an American peculiarity but as the political expression of irrationalism at the imperialist stage of capitalism, surfacing when the procedural constraints weaken and the cultural infrastructure of mystical substitution is already in place.
IV. Georg Lukács and the Destruction of Reason
György Lukács (1885–1971) was a Hungarian Marxist philosopher and literary critic, widely regarded as the founder of the Western Marxist tradition. Born into a Jewish banking family ennobled by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, he lived through two world wars, a brief tenure as Hungary’s People’s Commissar for Education during the 1919 Soviet Republic, years in Stalinist Moscow, the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, and subsequent Soviet house arrest. He was a philosopher who had lived inside the catastrophes he was diagnosing.
History and Class Consciousness (1923), his most celebrated work, developed the concept of reification — the way the commodity form structures not just economic relations but the very form of objectivity through which people experience the world — and had enormous influence on the Frankfurt School. Habermas engaged directly with it in The Theory of Communicative Action, crediting it as a foundational contribution while arguing it remained trapped within the philosophy of consciousness, unable to account adequately for the intersubjective and communicative dimensions of social life. The Young Hegel (1948) was a major contribution to Hegel scholarship. The late Ontology of Social Being attempted to ground Marxist theory on irreducible levels of being — material, biological, social — without the reductive materialism of Soviet orthodoxy.
But the work that concerns this essay — introduced at length above — is The Destruction of Reason. It is the most contested thing Lukács wrote, the work his admirers most often wish he hadn’t, and the one that Tutt’s work has been making newly urgent.
The book’s stated purpose is tracing “Germany’s path to Hitler in the sphere of philosophy.” Its argument is that the post-Hegelian philosophical tradition — beginning with Schelling’s late turn after 1848, running through Schopenhauer, through Kierkegaard’s leap of faith, through Nietzsche’s aristocratic vitalism, through Bergson’s life-philosophy and the broader irrationalist currents of neo-Kantianism, to Heidegger’s Being — constitutes a structurally coherent development of what Lukács calls irrationalism: the systematic disparagement of reason and rational critique; the uncritical glorification of intuition, myth, will, and instinct; an aristocratic epistemology that reserves genuine insight for the initiated few; the rejection of historical progress; and the cultivation of myths — national, spiritual, biological, cosmic — that fill the space left by the abandonment of rational critique.
What Lukács shows — and what is most directly relevant to Saul’s argument — is the specific political mechanism by which irrationalist philosophy connects to political catastrophe. It is not that philosophers consciously prepared the ground for Hitler. It is that when philosophy elevates myth, intuition, and divine depth over rational critique, and when that elevation enters the cultural atmosphere, it provides the intellectual and spiritual infrastructure for a very specific political maneuver: the replacement of class solidarity with mysticism, of economic demand with national or cosmic destiny, of democratic accountability with deference to divine authority. Workers who might otherwise demand decent wages, political representation, and institutional change are instead offered sacred meaning — membership in a chosen people, a destined nation, a cosmic order — and the demand for justice dissolves into spiritual aspiration. The ruling class benefits from this substitution without necessarily engineering it. The irrationalist formation provides the cultural condition. History provides the political vehicle.
This is what Lukács means by indirect apologetics — not that Nietzsche or Schelling or Heidegger intended to enable fascism, but that the structural logic of their frameworks made it available. The diagnostic instrument that survives the book’s Stalinist framework is this: apparently disparate cultural, mystical, and philosophical formations can share a structural logic that systematically undermines the democratic norms — the space between facts and norms, as Habermas would put it — through which justice is pursued and political accountability maintained, regardless of the intentions of individual actors within those formations.
What survives the book’s limitations is the capacity to trace structural convergence across formations that appear unrelated and identify how that convergence dissolves the normative foundations on which democratic justice depends. Applied to the American formation in 2026, through Saul’s historical argument about the unbroken line of violence, this method yields a diagnosis considerably more alarming than either Habermas’s procedural critique or Saul’s institutional analysis can provide alone.
V. Postmodern Theology and Its Failures
The first application of the Lukácsian diagnostic to the contemporary landscape begins not with the vitalist and process formations Lukács himself analysed — those will come — but with a genealogy he could not have traced, because it was still taking shape as he wrote: the twentieth-century Catholic theological revolution and its unexpected political descendants. Sarah Shortall’s Soldiers of God in a Secular World provides the indispensable map.
Shortall’s central argument, developed through her history of the twentieth-century French Catholic theological renaissance, is that the forced exile of the Jesuits under the Ferry Decrees of 1880 had a productive rather than destructive effect on Catholic thought. The Jersey exiles — Henri de Lubac, Gaston Fessard, Yves de Montcheuil among them — developed, in conditions of intellectual isolation from both ecclesiastical control and French mainstream culture, a critical theological project that was simultaneously a counter-politics: addressing fascism, human rights, and the collapse of secular modernity by retrieving the resources of patristic and medieval theology rather than accommodating to Enlightenment frameworks. This movement — the nouvelle théologie or ressourcement — reached its institutional apex at Vatican II.
What Shortall’s epilogue demonstrates is that this same theological lineage branched after Vatican II into formations that appear opposed but share a common genealogy. Gustavo Gutiérrez and the liberation theologians drew on de Lubac to value human action in history and the building of a just society. John Milbank and the Radical Orthodoxy movement drew on the same de Lubac — and on the same patristic ressourcement — to develop a sophisticated postmodern theological critique of secular modernity, arguing that secular reason itself is a heretical theological position and that genuine justice requires the recovery of Augustinian participatory ontology. And a third branch extended into what Shortall calls the “theological turn” of contemporary continental philosophy — the newfound interest in Paul among leftist philosophers like Badiou, Žižek, and Agamben, who share with Catholic antimodernism a deep suspicion of Enlightenment universal reason and historical progress.
All three formations — liberation theology, Radical Orthodoxy, and the theological turn of the academic left — emerge from the same mid-twentieth-century Catholic intellectual revolution. All three represent what can properly be called postmodern theology: the deployment of pre-modern and patristic theological resources against the alleged failures of secular Enlightenment rationalism. And all three posit a theological or quasi-theological depth — divine revelation and participatory ontology, the grace of God preceding and exceeding rational justification, the Pauline Event — that secular public reason cannot reach and cannot correct.
The political trajectory from this shared genealogy to the present requires careful tracing, because the formations that emerge from it are distinct even as they share a common root.
It is crucial to be precise about who is and who is not a Catholic integralist. Milbank’s Radical Orthodoxy is not Catholic integralism in the technical sense. Catholic integralism proper — the position of Deneen, Vermeule, and Vance — is a more recent and specifically American political theology that has drawn on, but is not identical to, Milbank’s project. The political trajectory running from the nouvelle théologie through Radical Orthodoxy to the Catholic Integralists now in the White House is real and traceable.
Matt McManus’s The Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism (2020) provides the political genealogy that makes this trajectory legible. McManus argues that the postmodern epoch has produced a distinctly new form of conservative politics — one that relies on alienation and resentment rather than rational argument, deploying appeals to tradition and identity in place of the rational standards for adjudicating facts and values that both classical liberalism and democratic socialism presupposed. What McManus documents is not merely a political strategy but a structural condition: when the postmodern left abandons universal rational standards (the Habermasian performative contradiction), the cultural space that opens is filled by formations that weaponize tradition, hierarchy, and sacred belonging for reactionary ends. Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed is the most sophisticated philosophical expression of this formation — a sustained argument that liberalism is not merely flawed but constitutively self-undermining, and that its failure requires the recovery of pre-liberal communal life rooted in Christian civilization. As I argued in “Beyond the Master Signifier,” drawing on McManus’s framework, the postmodern conservative pattern operates across registers: from Peterson’s mass-cultural mythological retrieval through Deneen’s academic critique of liberalism to the Catholic integralists who now occupy positions in the White House. Each retrieves pre-modern resources — Jungian archetypes, Aristotelian-Thomistic virtue, Augustinian political theology — without the post-metaphysical means to test those retrievals against the democratic norms they claim to serve.
What Milbank’s postmodern theology provides — intentionally or not — is the philosophical infrastructure that makes a Catholic integralist politics feel like it has genuine theological depth rather than mere political ambition. When Vance frames his politics in terms of the restoration of a social order rooted in Christian civilization, he is drawing on a postmodern theological tradition that has spent thirty years arguing, in the most sophisticated academic vocabulary available, that secular liberal democracy is itself a theological heresy. That argument did not produce Vance. But it built the intellectual road he walks on.
Sean McGrath’s Secular Christ podcast — which I engaged at length in “The Lost Road and the Post-Metaphysical Challenge” — diagnoses this vacuum from the contemplative side with a precision none of the formations traced above can match. McGrath’s Episode 3, a sustained critique of Peterson’s archetypal reading of Christianity, insists that “Christ is not an archetype” — that the contemplative Christian tradition offers something Peterson’s Jungian retrieval cannot: not “rules for life” but the radical grace of a self that cannot help itself, a transformation that begins precisely where self-help ideology breaks down. His Episode 4 takes on Žižek’s “gnostic” Christian atheism, identifying with equal precision what Žižek’s Lacanian framework refuses to follow to its contemplative conclusion. McGrath was already diagnosing, from within the Western contemplative tradition, the same structural pattern McManus documents from political theory and this essay traces through Lukács: the irrationalist formation fills the vacuum that democratic reason’s self-inflicted collapse has opened, and neither the mythological right nor the dialectical left can close it.
The Žižekian Left: Christian Atheism and Pyrotheology
On the left, the Žižekian-Lacanian framework shares the structural feature Lukács identified, and shares the postmodern theological genealogy Shortall traces — but it has developed, over the past two decades, into a theological project of its own that makes the irrationalist structural logic most visible. Žižek’s sustained engagement with Paul — the Event, the rupture that exceeds ordinary historical causation, the moment of grace that cannot be deduced from prior conditions — is not a strategic deployment of theological vocabulary. It is a genuine intellectual inheritance from the same mid-twentieth century theological revolution, now filtered through Lacan and Hegel rather than through Augustinian ressourcement. The Lacanian Real functions politically in exactly the same structural position as divine revelation on the right: a depth beneath rational discourse that cannot be submitted to democratic deliberation without being falsified.
Christian Atheism: How to Be a Real Materialist (2024) — Žižek’s most extended theological work — makes this structural logic explicit. The argument is that the only authentic path to atheism runs through Christianity: that Christ’s cry of abandonment on the cross — “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” — is not merely a moment of doubt but the moment in which God himself becomes an atheist, abdicating his own sovereignty and leaving an egalitarian community of believers thrown into radical freedom without a transcendent guarantor. What Žižek calls Christian atheism retains the Event structure of Pauline theology while emptying it of its transcendent referent: the death of God is real, the Holy Spirit is transposed onto the human community, and what remains is an emancipatory collective that must act without any “big Other” to underwrite its commitments. Walking in the path of Schelling, Hegel, Feuerbach, and the death-of-God theologians like Thomas Altizer, Žižek presents this as radical materialism. What the Lukácsian instrument identifies is the irrationalist structural signature: the insistence that genuine political transformation requires passage through a theological register — that secular democratic reason is insufficient, that the Pauline Event exceeds what communicative rationality can process, that something must rupture the symbolic order from a depth it cannot contain. The framework is formally atheist but structurally theological, and the political consequence is the same: democratic accountability is positioned as derivative rather than foundational.
The reception of Žižek’s theological project has been consequential. Peter Rollins — the Belfast-born philosopher whose work draws directly on Žižek, Lacan, and Hegel — has developed what he calls pyrotheology: a “religionless” interpretation of Christianity that views faith not as a set of beliefs about the world but as a particular way of engaging with the world, centered on the experience of God’s absence rather than God’s presence. Rollins’s project — developed across Insurrection (2011), The Idolatry of God (2013), and The Divine Magician (2017), and performed through experimental communities and festivals — takes Žižek’s Christian atheism and builds from it a practice: a liturgy of lack, a communal confrontation with the void at the center of the sacred. The influence has been reciprocal; Žižek’s own work on radical theology has drawn on the Durruti phrase — “the only church that illuminates is a burning church” — that gives pyrotheology its name. What Rollins demonstrates is that Žižek’s theological framework is not merely a theoretical curiosity. It is producing communities, practices, and formations — what Rollins explicitly calls “subversive community freed from contemporary ideology” — that reproduce in a left register the same structural move the vitalist and integralist formations reproduce on the right: a depth posited beyond democratic deliberation, exempt from accountability, and offered as the ground on which genuine community can be built — as though the space between facts and norms where democratic life actually takes place were not deep enough.
The Convergence Made Visible
The convergence of Milbank and Žižek — which their dialogue in The Monstrosity of Christ (2009) made briefly visible before both retreated from it — is the structural signature of the contemporary irrationalist formation in its most philosophically sophisticated academic expression. Both refuse the Habermasian post-metaphysical threshold. Both treat democratic deliberation as philosophically insufficient — as unable to reach the divine revelation or ontological depth that genuine human flourishing or genuine political transformation requires. Both posit something sacred or quasi-sacred that must remain prior to the forum of public reason. And as Shortall’s genealogy suggests, this is not coincidental: both are drawing from the same early-twentieth century theological revolution that positioned itself against Enlightenment secular reason, and both carry the structural features of that revolution even where they appear to oppose each other.
Jordan Peterson makes the mass cultural version of this irrationalist move most visible — and the famous Peterson-Žižek debate of April 2019 in Toronto, billed as “Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism,” demonstrated the structural convergence in real time. Peterson’s Jungian-mythological framework substitutes the promise of sacred cosmic order and divine meaning for the demand for democratic accountability, positioning democratic egalitarianism itself as the spiritual pathology from which authentic life must be recovered. Žižek, who was expected to defend the Marxist position, instead refused to defend Marx at all — identifying himself as a Hegelian, agreeing with Peterson on the inadequacy of happiness as a political telos, and finding common ground precisely where the Lukácsian analysis would predict: in the shared conviction that human suffering is ontologically given rather than politically produced. As Jacobin observed, neither participant outlined a specific alternative to capitalism. What the debate revealed was not a clash between irrationalism and its critique but a convergence: two formations, one mythological and one psychoanalytic, united in their refusal of the Habermasian post-metaphysical threshold — the insistence that democratic accountability, not ontological depth, must remain the non-negotiable ground of political life. As I explored in my review of Cadell Last’s Real Speculations (”A Rosy Cross of a Book,” August 2025), this convergence between the Žižekian framework and the cultural right it claims to oppose is one of the most consequential features of the contemporary intellectual landscape, and one that the Lukácsian diagnostic method is uniquely equipped to name.
The irrationalist structural logic, then, operates across the political spectrum. It is not a property of the right alone. When depth is posited beyond democratic deliberation — whether as divine revelation, the Lacanian Real, or Pauline Event — the normative conditions under which justice can be pursued are systematically eroded. But the Lacanian framework examined above raises a further question that the preceding analysis of Žižek and Rollins has made urgent: if the Real functions as another depth beyond democratic accountability, can it serve as the diagnostic instrument the Marxist left needs for the present emergency — or does it reproduce, in its own philosophical register, the very irrationalist move it claims to name?
VI. The Trumpian Real: Tutt, Cutrone, Last, and the Limits of the Lacanian Frame
The debate between Daniel Tutt and Chris Cutrone — conducted on Tutt’s Emancipations podcast in January 2025 — is the most consequential exchange currently taking place on the Marxist left about what Marxism requires in the present emergency. The question at stake is not which formation to diagnose but which diagnostic method is adequate to the task: the Lukácsian historical instrument or the Lacanian ontological frame.
Cadell Last’s Philosophy Portal has become an important node in this wider conversation, hosting Cutrone, Tutt, Žižek, and Rollins in separate engagements, and Last’s own Lacanian-Hegelian framework provides the theoretical environment in which much of the debate unfolds. But it is the direct Tutt-Cutrone confrontation — their unmediated disagreement about what Marxism requires in the present moment — that makes the structural problem most legible.
Cutrone’s structural analysis of Trump is more analytically precise about the economic genealogy of Trumpism than most available commentary. His argument that Trump and Sanders are parallel figures of neoliberal crisis, both emerging from a dissent against Reaganism rooted in 1987’s Black Monday and deepening through the Obama disappointment, cuts through the personality-driven liberal reading and identifies something structural. Trump’s entire political career has been organized around tariffs and executive economic action — instruments the liberal centre treated as political aberrations rather than coherent positions with a long genealogy. This is genuinely illuminating.
Last’s engagement through the Lacanian frame of the “Trumpian Real” attempts to give the disruption its proper ontological weight: something has erupted that the symbolic order of neoliberal globalism could not contain. The parallel to Saul’s argument about the American unconscious surfacing is real — both are arguing that Trumpism reveals something that was always structurally present beneath the procedural surface. The Lacanian vocabulary gives this a theoretical precision the political science literature lacks.
But this is precisely where the tension with Tutt’s Lukácsian approach becomes most consequential. Last’s most recent essay — “The Fantasy of Sanders Socialism and the Bitter Pill of Trump’s Revolution” (March 28, 2026) — extends the analysis in ways that make the structural problem most legible. He writes of “conservative communism” and “Christian atheism” as dialectical concepts through which the direction of world society might still point toward emancipation. He wonders whether the right-wing counter-culture — Trump, Peterson — represents a “necessary moment in a larger movement that is doomed to swing back around towards the direct challenge of global capitalism itself.” He concedes he might still be “trapped in a necessary transcendental illusion.” This is honest. It is also exactly the political consequence of a framework that posits the Real as its ground: the Lacanian Real cannot be submitted to democratic deliberation without being symbolized, and symbolization always fails. The result is a framework that can diagnose Trumpism with genuine sophistication while being unable, from within its own commitments, to insist that it must be stopped.
Tutt’s Lukácsian framework produces a fundamentally different political orientation.
For Tutt, the irrationalist formation is not a Lacanian Real erupting through the symbolic order’s inconsistency. It is a historically specific phenomenon tied to the imperialist stage of capitalism, in which the inability to sustain progressive ideological formations produces a systematic retreat into irrationalist cultural politics: mythology, national destiny, divine revelation, mystical community — anything that can substitute spiritual belonging for class solidarity and prevent the working class from developing the rational consciousness that would actually threaten the system. The Trumpian disruption, on this reading, is not the irruption of the void but the latest expression of a formation that has been building since the post-1848 political retreat of the European bourgeoisie, and that has taken specifically American forms through the evangelical, occultist, and nationalist currents that constitute the country’s distinctive irrationalist inheritance.
The political consequence of this difference is not abstract. The Lacanian frame gives the disruption ontological priority: the Real cannot be submitted to democratic deliberation without being symbolized, and symbolization always fails. The result is a framework that cannot hold the disruption democratically accountable, because the disruption’s ontological status places it prior to and beyond the accountability structures democratic deliberation requires. What Saul is asking Canadians to do — be firm in public, present to the argument, hold the democratic line — is simply not conceivable within a framework for which the political moment is primarily an encounter with the void.
Tutt’s Lukácsian framework, by contrast, names the irrationalist formation as a historical and political phenomenon with specific conditions, sustained by specific cultural formations, and available to be politically contested. The darkness Saul names in the American unconscious is not an encounter with the void. It is the American irrationalist tradition surfacing when the procedural constraints weaken — a formation with a specific genealogy traceable from the slave economy’s foundational violence through successive waves of nativist, revivalist, and anti-communist mobilization to the MAGA movement’s fusion of all three — and one that requires active democratic resistance rather than ontological theorization.
The neoliberal genealogy of Trumpism that Cutrone is developing — and that Last is hosting and engaging through the Philosophy Portal — is serious work. The question is whether the Lacanian ontological frame is the right architecture for that analysis — or whether it ends up, despite its genuine insights, reproducing in its own philosophical register the very irrationalist move it set out to diagnose: a depth posited — the Real, the void, the abyss of pure negativity — that cannot be submitted to democratic accountability without being falsified.
The theological and Lacanian formations examined in the preceding two sections have been diagnosed primarily through their philosophical and political consequences. But there is a second genealogy of the irrationalist formation — one that Lukács himself was already tracing and that has produced its own distinct cultural infrastructure in the Anglophone world. Where the theological genealogy runs through twentieth-century Catholic thought and its Lacanian inheritors, this second lineage runs through the vitalist and process traditions that emerged from European Romanticism and found new institutional homes in North America. It is this lineage that feeds directly into the two formations that have attempted most ambitiously to synthesize contemplative depth with rational accountability — and whose failure in the present emergency is therefore most consequential.
VII. The Revival of Irrationalism: Vitalism, Process Cosmology, and the Spiritual Marketplace
Something has been happening in the Anglophone philosophical world over the past decade. The German Idealist tradition — the philosophical lineage running from Kant through Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel — has come back to life, not primarily as a subject of historical scholarship but as a living resource, treated by a growing network of independent philosophers, theologians, and contemplatives with a devotion that resembles a religious revival movement more than an academic trend. Discord servers, podcasts, YouTube channels, reading groups organized around Schelling’s positive philosophy and Hegel’s logic — this infrastructure did not exist fifteen years ago. It exists now, drawing an audience far beyond the academy.
The revival has a genealogy. It emerges from a cultural formation that has been building since the mid-twentieth century — one that Lukács was already beginning to diagnose even as it was taking shape. The lineage runs from the German Romantic and Idealist traditions through the Theosophical and Anthroposophical movements, through Henri Bergson’s life-philosophy and its vitalist descendants, through Alfred North Whitehead’s process cosmology and the American appropriation of European speculative philosophy, through Jean Gebser’s structures of consciousness and their influence on integral theory, and into the contemporary spiritual marketplace where these currents have found new distribution channels and new audiences.
Bergson is the figure Lukács identified as the key transmitter of irrationalism into the register of biological and temporal experience. Bergson’s philosophy of the élan vital, of creative evolution as the fundamental reality beneath the mechanical abstractions of natural science, of intuition as the authentic mode of knowing that analysis always falsifies — this was enormously influential across European culture from the 1890s through the 1920s. It established the conceptual infrastructure that made vitalist and organicist thinking available simultaneously across philosophy, biology, politics, and aesthetics. Lukács’s argument is that this provides indirect apologetics: it positions biological authenticity, racial vitality, and organic national community as categories of genuine philosophical depth, making their political weaponization easier — not because Bergson intended this, but because his framework displaces the rational-critical discourse through which democratic norms are contested and justice is pursued, replacing it with an appeal to vital depths that cannot be held accountable in the space between facts and norms.
The Bergsonian formation did not remain in Europe. It crossed the Atlantic, and in its American reception it found institutional homes and new philosophical idioms that carry the structural logic forward into the present.
Whitehead’s process cosmology, which has become one of the primary intellectual resources for the contemporary spiritual revival in the Anglosphere, is the American inheritor of this Bergsonian formation. His critique of the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness” is philosophically important, and his attempt to restore experience, feeling, and aesthetic value to the fabric of nature responds to real limitations in mechanistic materialism. Matthew David Segall’s process-relational panexperientialism — developed at the California Institute of Integral Studies and in his Physics of the World-Soul (2021) — represents the most philosophically rigorous contemporary expression of this Whiteheadian lineage. But in “On God, Absolute Freedom, & the Post-Metaphysical Turn: Revisiting My Dialogue with Matt Segall on Michael Brooks & CIIS,” I pressed on the specific epistemological problem this creates: the process cosmology distributes experience throughout all of nature and posits, at its apex, a God who is in reciprocal creative advance with the world — a cosmic ground of divine experience that has precisely the structural features Habermas spent his career warning against. The framework absorbs all counter-evidence as moments in its own self-development, and the political question of what follows from the divine ground is left radically underdetermined.
Jean Gebser represents another branch of the same formation. His magnum opus, The Ever-Present Origin (1949), mapped the structures of human consciousness — archaic, magic, mythic, mental, and integral — as successive mutations in humanity’s relationship to what he called the Origin, arguing that the contemporary crisis represented the irruption of an integral consciousness capable of transparency to that Origin in the present moment. Jeremy D Johnson, the current president of the International Jean Gebser Society and a PhD candidate at CIIS, has done the most sustained work in making Gebser available to an English-speaking audience through Seeing Through the World: Jean Gebser and Integral Consciousness (2018). Segall’s 2015 presentation at the Jean Gebser Society conference — “Towards an Integral Cosmology, with Help from Bergson and Whitehead” — makes the lineage between these formations explicit: Gebser, Bergson, and Whitehead constitute a single intellectual formation, each approaching from a different angle the claim that cosmic consciousness, divine life, or sacred Origin is the ground of reality to which genuine knowing provides access. As I argued in the Segall essay, this formation has not passed through the post-metaphysical crucible.
What happens when these philosophical formations leave the academy and the study group and enter the broader culture? The answer is already visible.
When these formations intersect with the popular spiritual marketplace — the New Age industry, the McMindfulness phenomenon, the contemporary occult, German Idealist, (neo)Platonic, and Stoic revivals flourishing across social media — the Lukácsian irrationalist formation becomes most legible in its mass cultural form. What John Vervaeke has called the “meaning crisis” — the pervasive sense of disconnection, purposelessness, and spiritual hunger that accompanies the collapse of shared moral and narrative frameworks in late modernity — creates the cultural conditions in which these formations thrive. Millions of people, stripped of the communal and civic traditions that once gave their lives coherence, turn to frameworks of spiritual awakening, cosmic alignment, divine revelation, or energetic transformation rather than to frameworks of class interest, democratic demand, and institutional accountability. What they are seeking is real: genuine communion, a sense of belonging to something larger than the isolated self, relief from the atomization that possessive individualism produces and cannot cure. But the political function of that seeking — regardless of its sincerity — is the substitution Lukács diagnosed: the promise of sacred belonging replacing the solidarity of democratic citizenship, the appeal to cosmic destiny replacing the demand for justice in the space between facts and norms where democratic life actually takes place. The ruling class does not need to engineer this substitution. It only needs to let it happen — and it is happening now, at scale, across every platform and in every register, from the philosophy podcast to the megachurch to the wellness retreat to the Discord server where young men read Evola and call it self-improvement.
But the spiritual marketplace is the diffuse expression of the formation. The vitalist and process lineage traced here — from Bergson through Whitehead through Gebser into the mass cultural meaning crisis — has its most ambitious philosophical expression in two formations that have attempted to take these currents of contemplative depth and hold them within a framework of rational accountability. These are the formations that believed they had solved the problem this essay has been tracing — and whose failure in the present emergency is therefore the most consequential test of the Lukácsian diagnostic.
VIII. Two Integral Formations and the Present Emergency
The first — and historically prior — is the California Institute of Integral Studies and the process-relational philosophy tradition associated with it. CIIS was founded in 1968 by Haridas Chaudhuri and his wife Bina, growing out of the American Academy of Asian Studies that had been established in San Francisco in 1951 with Alan Watts, Frederic Spiegelberg, and Chaudhuri himself on the founding faculty. Sri Aurobindo — the Indian philosopher of integral yoga whose vision of the evolution of consciousness through the integration of material and spiritual dimensions shaped the institution’s founding — had personally recommended Chaudhuri for the position before his death in 1950. The genealogy is important because it predates and is independent of Ken Wilber’s integral theory: the “integral” in CIIS’s name refers to Aurobindo’s integral yoga, not to Wilber’s four-quadrant model, and the relationship between the two traditions has been genuinely conflictual rather than continuous. Through Chaudhuri’s Aurobindo lineage, through the connection to Esalen (whose cofounders Michael Murphy and Richard Price first met at Chaudhuri’s Cultural Integration Fellowship), through Thomas Berry’s new cosmology and Brian Swimme, and through the Philosophy, Cosmology and Consciousness program founded by Richard Tarnas in 1994, CIIS developed a tradition of process-relational philosophy that draws on Whitehead, Schelling, and the broader vitalist lineage this essay has been tracing. Matt Segall’s process-relational panexperientialism represents the most philosophically rigorous contemporary expression of this tradition. But as I argued in “On God, Absolute Freedom, & the Post-Metaphysical Turn,” it contributes to the structural problem from a different angle than Wilber’s formation. What is being posited here is not transpersonal realization through initiatory practice but divine cosmic creativity: God incarnate in every galaxy, a living cosmos saturated with experience and persuasive love, participatory knowing of an animate universe. By leaving perspective-differentiation and the Pre/Trans distinction undertheorized, process-relational cosmology produces what I called an enchanted flatland — warmer and richer than mechanistic materialism, genuinely committed to the reality of experience throughout nature, but still leaving the political question of what follows from divine cosmic creativity radically underdetermined.
Wilber’s Integral Theory and the Guru Problem
The second formation is Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory, which draws from many of the same sources — Aurobindo, the perennial philosophy inheritance running through Aldous Huxley and Huston Smith, the developmental psychology current through Piaget, Kohlberg, Graves, and Gebser, the contemplative depth through Tibetan Buddhism, Zen, Vedanta, and neo-Platonic Christian sources — but synthesizes them into a single four-quadrant integral model that took Habermas’s three modes of knowledge-inquiry more seriously than almost any other figure working in this synthesis tradition. That seriousness is real and should be named before what follows. As I argued at length in “Can the Real Wilber Please Stand Up?“ (February 2026), drawing on Zachary Stein’s placement of Wilber within American Pragmatism and R. Michael Fisher’s documentation of three decades of systematic misreading, there is a philosopher behind the cultural packaging who has never received the serious engagement his post-metaphysical architecture deserves. The post-metaphysical Wilber — who engaged Habermas carefully in A Sociable God (1983), insisted on the Pre/Trans Fallacy as the discipline preventing developmental frameworks from confusing regressive with progressive, and in Integral Spirituality (2006) explicitly attempted to hold contemplative depth within the epistemic constraints Habermas had articulated — represents a genuinely serious philosophical project, one that most thinkers examined in this essay never attempted.
But the perennial philosophy inheritance carries its structural features regardless of how sophisticated the synthesis. The integral framework posits nondual awareness — states of formless mystical union, prior to and foundational for all quadrants, levels, and lines — as the ground of reality to which genuine knowing provides access. The guru principle enters here not as an accident but as structural consequence. Wilber’s sustained endorsement of Andrew Cohen — the American spiritual teacher credibly accused of serious and sustained physical, psychological, and financial abuse of his followers, documented in books such as American Guru and on the critical blog WHAT enlightenment??!, and whose own EnlightenNext magazine (formerly What Is Enlightenment?) served for nearly two decades as the institutional voice of the integral spirituality movement, featuring the “Guru and Pandit” dialogues between Cohen and Wilber as its flagship content — was not external to the integral framework. It was an expression of its structural logic: if someone has genuinely accessed the transpersonal ground through mystical realization, how could ordinary citizens evaluate that claim from within ordinary developmental coordinates? Cohen was a founding member of Wilber’s Integral Spirituality initiative. The pattern repeated with Marc Gafni, the self-styled integral spiritual leader credibly accused of sexual misconduct spanning decades, with whom Wilber co-founded a Wisdom Council at the Center for Integral Wisdom and for whom he wrote the foreword to Your Unique Self — maintaining support even after allegations surfaced, describing Gafni as a “gifted teacher” and “genuine spiritual leader,” and never substantively distancing himself despite sustained public pressure. The nondual position, posited as the condition of possibility for all quadrants, effectively suspends the accountability structures the post-metaphysical framework would otherwise require. The guru is not an anomaly. The guru is where the framework’s own logic leads when the nondual ground is allowed to override the post-metaphysical corrective.
What the Integral Silence Reveals
The guru problem is not incidental to either formation — it is the structural consequence of positing a ground of reality that transcends the accountability structures democratic life requires. Both CIIS’s process-relational cosmology and Wilber’s integral theory carry genuine philosophical achievements. But both contribute, through different structural logics, to the condition Lukács was diagnosing. The promise of belonging to something sacred and cosmic substitutes for the demand for democratic accountability. The cultivation of transpersonal realization or participatory cosmic consciousness substitutes for the slow, unglamorous work of building institutions that can actually constrain power. The initiatory community — whether the integral sangha gathered around a realized teacher or the cosmological community of fellow creatures awakening to the world-soul — provides the warmth of sacred solidarity without the accountability structures that genuine democratic solidarity requires.
Trump and a Post-Truth World (2017) shows what this means when the structural logic meets an actual political emergency. Wilber’s response to Trump’s election frames it as an evolutionary self-correction: a backlash necessitated by the failure of the postmodern “green” leading edge, whose elitism, political correctness, and internal contradictions had produced an explosive reaction. Some of this diagnosis is accurate. The progressive leading edge does suffer from the rigidities Wilber names, and the failure to engage all of Haidt’s moral foundations rather than only Care and Fairness is a real problem that integral theory was particularly well positioned to name.
The problem is not the diagnosis of what provoked the backlash. The problem is what the framework does with the backlash once it has been named. What the Lukácsian instrument identifies in Trump and a Post-Truth World is not a political position but a structural maneuver: by framing the backlash as an evolutionary self-correction — Spirit adjusting its own unfolding, nondual Kosmic consciousness working through the current period of disruption — the framework absorbs the rise of Trumpism into a developmental narrative that grants it quasi-metaphysical legitimacy. This is indirect apologetics in Lukács’s precise sense. Not intention but structural consequence. The integral framework’s account of evolution, in which the Kosmos self-corrects through whatever disruption is presently underway, makes that cover available regardless of Wilber’s intentions. When Spirit is understood to be self-correcting through disruption, the suffering of those on the wrong end of that correction can be absorbed into a developmental narrative that grants it a meaning they never consented to. The question of who is harmed, which emancipatory gains are being dismantled, whose democratic rights are being revoked — these become downstream questions, answerable once the evolutionary moment has run its course, rather than the primary accountability questions that democratic reason — the space between facts and norms that Habermas spent his career defending — is specifically designed to keep at the centre.
In 2017, this was troubling but still deferrable as a theoretical concern. In 2026, the deferral has ended. The United States has captured the president of Venezuela and installed a puppet regime. It is bombing Iran in its largest Middle Eastern military operation since Iraq under the name “Operation Epic Fury.” It has threatened Greenland with military force, imposed an oil blockade on Cuba while proposing a “friendly takeover,” and codified the claim that the entire Western Hemisphere is an American sphere of dominion. It is telling Canada — a sovereign democracy, its closest ally — that it should become the 51st state, and imposing sweeping tariffs to force the point. The theoretical has become operational. And the integral community’s response — its relative silence, its continued developmental stage mapping of the “post-Trump American Right,” its application of horseshoe theory to suggest Trump and Sanders are parallel anti-establishment alternatives — is now itself evidence. The framework that claimed to hold transpersonal realization and democratic justice together has not, in the present emergency, demonstrated the capacity to do so.
What the Lukácsian instrument reveals about integral theory in the present moment is not fascism in its 1930s form. It is the conviction that nondual Spirit is self-correcting — that the Kosmos tends toward greater depth and complexity regardless of what any particular disruption destroys — applied as a licence to watch democratic institutions be dismantled and frame the watching as developmental sophistication. That posture, applied to the present political emergency, is not a philosophical achievement. It is mysticism where democratic action is required.
Heidegger’s politics were not a distortion of his philosophy — they were a consequence of its structural logic, because the appeal to Being’s disclosure through a specific people’s historical destiny activated the same erosion of democratic norms as the Fichtean Volksgeist. The Kyoto School’s politics were not a distortion of their Buddhist philosophical synthesis — they were the same structural logic applied in a different national context. What integral theory’s structural logic produces is not Heidegger’s political catastrophe. It is the posture that watches democratic institutions be dismantled from above, that frames the watching as a sign of developmental maturity, and that cannot generate the political will to resist because the framework it inhabits has already absorbed the disruption into a narrative of cosmic self-correction.
Whether this is integral theory’s final word remains formally open. The post-metaphysical Wilber pointed beyond it. But the framework needs to say clearly — not as a personal political opinion but as a consequence of its own post-metaphysical commitments — that some disruptions are not evolutionary self-corrections. That the democratic accountability structures Habermas spent his career defending are not procedural afterthoughts to nondual realization but the condition of possibility for any genuine post-metaphysical integral politics. That question has not been answered. The silence is its own evidence.
The theological and Lacanian formations of Sections V and VI, the vitalist formations of Section VII, and the integral formations examined here converge on a single structural finding: when contemplative depth — however genuine, however sophisticated — is allowed to override the democratic accountability structures through which justice is pursued, the political consequence is the erosion of the normative conditions on which democratic life depends. The question is no longer whether the irrationalist formation can be named. It has been named. The question is what can be built in its place — and whether there exists a philosophical tradition capable of carrying genuine contemplative depth into the democratic space of peace, welfare, and good government rather than holding it above that space as a sacred reserve exempt from accountability.
IX. Canadian Sovereignty and the Philosophical Stakes
Saul’s March 23 address is not primarily about trade policy or military readiness. It is a philosophical argument about what democratic continuity requires and what threatens it. A country that does not know its own philosophical and democratic tradition cannot articulate what it stands for. And a country that cannot articulate what it stands for will be absorbed — not by military force alone, but by the normalization technique Saul described: casual, repetitive invocation of its non-existence until the population itself loses the capacity to respond. The country does not fall because it is conquered. It falls because it has forgotten the philosophical grounds on which resistance makes sense — because its citizens can no longer say, with precision and conviction, what distinguishes their democratic tradition from the imperial formation that seeks to absorb it. The annexation succeeds not when the border is erased but when the idea that the border protects something worth defending has been worn away.
When Trump announces that Canadians would be better off as the 51st state, he is not making an economic argument. He is asserting the superiority of one constitutional philosophy over another — the American model of individual liberty, divine national destiny, and the pursuit of happiness over the Canadian model of peace, welfare, and good government. The irrationalist formation traced throughout this essay is structurally continuous with this constitutional imperialism. Both substitute a grand narrative of destiny and spiritual authenticity for the slow, accountable, unglamorous work of maintaining the institutions through which democratic life becomes possible and reproducible. The annexation threat is not just a policy position. It is a theologically inflected imperial claim: divine revelation and national destiny require the completion of the American project. And “Operation Epic Fury” is not a military campaign that happens to have a dramatic name. It is the irrationalist formation at full operational scale.
The speculative philosophical tradition that runs from Watson and the nineteenth-century Canadian idealists through Armour’s philosophic federalism through Taylor’s moral pluralism through Saul’s democratic and reconstructive project — documented in detail in my earlier essay “On Speculative Philosophy & the Idea of Canada: Revisiting the Work of Leslie Armour“ — has been asking for over a century how a community holds itself together across deep difference without forcing premature resolution. Armour called this philosophic federalism: the many faces of reason, held in productive tension, without collapse into a single overarching system. As I argued in that essay, Armour’s achievement was to work across the divide between Anglophone idealism and Francophone Catholic thought while maintaining both speculative depth and intellectual humility — demonstrating that one can insist on the reality of value and meaning without claiming certainty about it. Saul enlarged the tradition to include the Indigenous philosophical foundations that Armour’s primarily European-descended framework did not fully map. What the present emergency reveals is that this tradition is not simply a historical inheritance to be admired. It is a live philosophical resource. And the question of whether it can be formally articulated, in post-metaphysical terms adequate to a plural democratic public sphere, is now a question with urgent political consequences.
But the Canadian speculative tradition, on its own, lacks the theological and contemplative depth the present emergency also requires. Armour’s philosophic federalism draws on the British idealist inheritance mediated through Canadian conditions. It is philosophically rigorous on the epistemological and political questions. It is not a theology. It does not carry the contemplative depths that motivate democratic resistance in the face of despair, or the theocentric account of human dignity that — as the alternative formations understood — provides grounding that secular humanism has repeatedly discovered it cannot hold through its own resources alone.
This is where Jacques Maritain enters — not as a Catholic authority to be deferred to, but as the philosopher who worked out most rigorously the architecture the present moment requires. Maritain’s integral humanism is the post-conciliar tradition’s most sustained attempt to carry theological depth into democratic pluralism without making that depth a trump card that closes deliberation. The central move in Integral Humanism (1936) is an explicit rejection of both options that keep reasserting themselves in the contemporary landscape: the integralist subordination of political life to ecclesiastical authority, and the secular humanist evacuation of the spiritual dimension of the person. His fourfold formula — personalist, communitarian, pluralist, theocentric — refuses both the possessive individualism that constitutes the ground of American structural susceptibility and the collective dissolution that the integralist right proposes as its cure.
The specifically political mechanism Maritain developed is what he called the practical cooperation of persons of different metaphysical traditions toward shared democratic goals. Believers and non-believers, Christians and Jews and Muslims and those with no religious commitment, can agree on the practical content of human dignity without requiring agreement on the theoretical foundations that ground those commitments for each tradition. The UNESCO consultation on the foundations of human rights demonstrated this practically: representatives of incompatible metaphysical traditions could sign a common declaration because each could affirm the practical conclusions from their own premises, without needing to agree on a single philosophical foundation. This is the model for how theological depth enters democratic public life without becoming a trump card: it contributes its cognitive and moral content to the shared practical project while holding its metaphysical foundations available for internal dialogue among those who share them.
Maritain is also the strongest available Catholic philosophical resource against the integralism now occupying the White House. He rejected Action Française before the Vatican condemned it. He broke with the Garrigou-Lagrange school precisely on the question of whether Thomism must produce authoritarian politics. He helped Saul Alinsky organize communities in Chicago. He co-authored the framework for the UN Declaration of Human Rights with scholars from incompatible metaphysical traditions. The integralists of Deneen and Vance’s stripe are not building on Maritain — they are, in the Lukácsian sense, one of the political consequences that became available when his post-conciliar reception was captured by formations that refused his fundamental pluralism. He is the counter to them, because he understood that the Church’s proper role in democratic life is to witness through the quality of its community rather than to impose through the authority of its hierarchy.
Maritain provides the architecture. But carrying that architecture into the post-metaphysical challenge of the present requires the specifically Canadian theological tradition that developed in his wake — the critical theology worked out at Concordia University in Montreal by Charles Davis and Gregory Baum, documented by Marc Lalonde, and constituting the institutional and intellectual ground on which my own formation took place. That lineage needs to be traced, because it carries resources the present emergency requires and that the formations diagnosed in this essay have not been able to produce.
Charles Davis arrived at Concordia in 1970, three years after A Question of Conscience had made him simultaneously the most famous and most controversial theologian in the English Catholic world. His public departure from the Roman Catholic Church in 1966 had been understood by many as an act of apostasy. What his subsequent career demonstrated — and what Lalonde’s editorship of The Promise of Critical Theology (1995) documents with precision — is that it was in fact an act of precisely the kind that the Lukácsian diagnostic method identifies as the opposite of irrationalism: the refusal to let institutional loyalty substitute for truth. Davis’s stated grounds were an “intellectual rejection of the Papacy” — a rejection of papal infallibility as a doctrine, and of what he identified as the systematic subordination of truth to institutional authority. As he told TIME magazine at the time: “There is concern for authority at the expense of truth, as I am constantly shown by instances of the damage to persons by the workings of an impersonal and unfree system.” Davis saw the Church as having become “a vast, impersonal, unfree, and inhuman system” — not because the theological tradition it carried was false, but because the institution had reversed the proper relationship between truth and authority, subordinating the former to the preservation of the latter.
This is the institutional form of the irrationalist move. Not the vitalist mysticism of Bergson, not the Pauline Event of Žižek, not the nondual Spirit of evolutionary integral theory — but something more banal and more pervasive: the conversion of an institution’s claim to truth into an instrument for its own perpetuation, the substitution of institutional solidarity for genuine inquiry. Davis’s subsequent work — culminating in Theology and Political Society (1980), the Hulsean Lectures at Cambridge — developed a political theology that explicitly engaged Habermas, that worked through the relationship between religious community and democratic political life, and that did so with a candor about the institutional failures of religious bodies that the post-conciliar Catholic mainstream could not sustain. Davis was doing post-metaphysical political theology before the term existed, and doing it in Montreal.
Gregory Baum’s trajectory from the same conciliar moment goes in a different but complementary direction. Where Davis broke institutionally while deepening his engagement with political theology, Baum remained within the Church while subjecting it and the entire theological tradition to the methodology he had learned from the Frankfurt School and Liberation theology: ideology critique, the systematic analysis of how theological claims function socially and politically regardless of their intended meaning. Baum’s appropriation of the Frankfurt School’s “end of innocent critique” — the recognition that no cultural or intellectual tradition is exempt from analysis of its social functions — produced a form of critical theology that shared its deepest commitments with the movement Davis had been developing: the insistence that theological claims must be tested against how they actually function in the lives of those they purport to serve. Both Davis and Baum were doing what Lalonde would later document as a single, if internally diverse, intellectual project — one that insisted the Church could only carry its genuine cognitive and moral content honestly if it submitted its institutional expressions to the same rigorous critique it applied to the world. Baum’s Massey Lectures, Compassion and Solidarity: The Church for Others (1988), represent this methodology in its most accessible form: the Church is only authentic insofar as it is genuinely oriented toward the flourishing of others, most especially the most vulnerable.
Baum’s connection of the Frankfurt School’s ideology critique with Liberation theology’s preferential option for the poor is the post-metaphysical corrective that neither Maritain’s integral humanism nor Wilber’s integral theory can generate — the sustained self-critical apparatus for examining how contemplative depth, developmental framing, and integral synthesis themselves function ideologically, how they too can become instruments for the perpetuation of privilege, the management of the oppressed, the substitution of spiritual elevation for political accountability. The preferential option for the poor is not just a theological commitment. In the context of the present argument, it is the empirical test of whether a framework that claims to hold depth and justice together has actually done so.
Lalonde’s scholarship — the editorial work that produced The Promise of Critical Theology, the sustained effort to keep the Davis-Baum tradition visible within the Canadian academic context — represents precisely the kind of institutional memory that Saul was insisting Canada needs: a country that knows its own intellectual history, that can name its own tradition, that can articulate what it stands for because it has maintained the living connection to the formation that produced it. That this tradition was transmitted to me directly, through Lalonde’s teaching and through the Concordia environment where Davis and Baum worked out the post-conciliar Canadian critical theology in conditions of genuine intellectual difficulty, is not just a biographical decoration. It is the specific material and institutional location through which the post-metaphysical theological project being developed here is grounded — and it is the reason this essay can draw on resources that the formations it diagnoses have not been able to reach.
What does this synthesis look like, articulated as a positive alternative to the irrationalist formations diagnosed in the preceding sections?
It looks like Maritain’s theocentric personalism without his Thomistic metaphysical closure — carried through the post-conciliar critique that both Davis and Baum made available, and extended through the enactive fallibilist methodology of this project. The person has both material and spiritual dimensions, and a political community exists to serve the full flourishing of the person rather than to manage the individual. Human dignity is not self-grounding — it is grounded in something that transcends the political order and therefore cannot be revoked by political decisions. But that transcendent grounding does not authorize any single institution or tradition to speak for God in the public sphere. It authorizes the demand for human dignity from every direction — theological, secular, Indigenous, contemplative — and requires that each tradition carry that demand into the practical cooperation that democratic life makes necessary.
It looks like Davis’s insistence that truth must remain prior to institutional loyalty — extended from the ecclesiological to the integral context. No formation, including the integral one, is exempt from the question of whether its truth claims survive honest inquiry or merely serve its own perpetuation. The enactive fallibilist posture — testing frameworks against the lived experience of those within them and reporting honestly when systems fail — is Davis’s demand, applied to the integral project itself.
It looks like Baum’s ideology critique directed inward — the insistence that the contemplative depth carried by the integral synthesis be examined for how it actually functions in the lives of those who practice it. Does transpersonal realization produce a posture that watches democratic institutions be dismantled from above — framing the watching as developmental sophistication rather than political failure? The preferential option for the poor as the empirical test: if the synthesis being developed here serves the flourishing of those most vulnerable to the irrationalist formations it critiques, that is evidence in its favour. If it provides sophisticated cultural cover for a stratum already insulated from the consequences of Trumpism and Canadian annexation, that is evidence against it — evidence the project must report honestly rather than absorb into a developmental narrative that grants the failure a spiritual meaning it has not earned.
It looks like Armour’s philosophic federalism — the many faces of reason held in productive tension without premature synthesis — as the epistemological architecture that allows this synthesis to remain genuinely pluralist rather than collapsing into a new comprehensive doctrine that replaces the ones it critiques. And it looks like Wilber’s insistence on perspective-taking and psychological flexibility held to the post-metaphysical standard he articulated but did not consistently apply — the insistence that contemplative depth, including genuine transpersonal realization and nondual awareness, must remain answerable to the question of its ideological function, must submit to the preferential option for the poor as an empirical test, must be carried into democratic accountability rather than above it.
The Canadian grounding is constitutive here, in both the political and philosophical senses. The peace, welfare, and good government that Canada’s founding document encodes as the foundation of political life is not a less compelling vision than life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is a different philosophical anthropology: community as the condition of human flourishing rather than the constraint on individual aspiration, stewardship as the political form of that commitment, and the slow, accountable, unglamorous work of maintaining the institutions through which diverse persons can coexist and develop without domination. That philosophical anthropology — carried in the specific Canadian intellectual tradition from La Fontaine and Baldwin through the speculative philosophers through the critical theologians through Saul — is not adequately defended by nostalgia or by asserting its historical priority. It requires articulation. It requires the philosophical architecture that can make its deepest commitments legible in a plural public sphere where many different metaphysical traditions converge. That is the project — incomplete, and made urgent by the present emergency.
X. What Canada Can Show the World
This essay has not argued for secular rationalism against the depth of the religious and contemplative traditions. Habermas was right: secular reason cannot generate its own motivational resources. The great traditions carry genuine cognitive and moral content that democratic life needs and cannot produce on its own. What this essay has argued is that when that content is allowed to do foundational political work in a plural public sphere without submitting to the corrective of democratic accountability, it systematically erodes the normative conditions under which justice can be pursued and democratic life sustained. Lukács saw it in Germany. Habermas spent seven decades building the philosophical architecture to hold the line against it. And the line is now being tested — not in the seminar room but in the real world, by an administration that names its wars after sacred fury and tells a sovereign democracy it should become a state.
The irrationalist formation has been named — by Lukács, by Tutt, by Saul, and now in this essay. The question is no longer diagnostic. It is constructive. Can the traditions that carry genuine contemplative depth submit that depth to the democratic norms and procedures of justice that Habermas spent his career defending — carry it into the space between facts and norms where democratic life actually takes place, rather than holding it above that space as a sacred reserve exempt from accountability?
Canada is where this question becomes concrete — and where it becomes an example. The country that encoded peace, welfare, and good government as its founding philosophical commitment, that built its democratic federation not on the sovereign individual pursuing happiness but on the community pursuing the common good across impossible geography and irreducible difference, that produced Armour’s philosophic federalism, Taylor’s moral pluralism, Davis’s critical theology, and Saul’s democratic reconstruction — that country is now being told, by an administration that names its wars after sacred fury, that it should not exist. The philosophical tradition that built it is being tested by forces that have already dismantled the sovereignty of Venezuela, threatened Greenland with military force, blockaded Cuba while proposing its annexation, and codified the claim that the entire Western Hemisphere belongs to a single power authorized by destiny to complete its project.
But Canada has something to show the world — not merely to defend, but to demonstrate. A democratic federation grounded in peace, welfare, and good government rather than in the pursuit of individual happiness. A philosophical anthropology that begins with community rather than the sovereign individual. A speculative tradition that has been asking for over a century how diverse peoples hold themselves together without domination. A critical theology that insists truth must remain prior to institutional loyalty. A constitutional practice of holding differences in productive tension rather than forcing premature resolution. These are not merely Canadian inheritances. They are resources the world needs — resources that the dominant formations of both the right and the academic left have failed to produce, and that the growing tyranny south of our border has made urgent for every democracy on earth.
If Canada can articulate what it carries — clearly enough, rigorously enough, with the philosophical architecture adequate to a plural public sphere — it will not only resist the normalization of its own absorption. It will offer the world a living demonstration that contemplative depth and democratic accountability can be held together, that stewardship is a more adequate ground for political life than aspiration, and that the slow, unglamorous work of building institutions worthy of persons is the only work that finally matters. That is the project this essay and this body of research exist to build. It is unfinished. And the emergency that makes it urgent is also the occasion that makes it possible.
Further Reading
“Philosophy & Religion after Habermas: From Zen Buddhism to Post-Metaphysical Theology” (March 2026) — The Habermas-Heidegger-Kyoto School structural argument, the Wilber question, and the post-metaphysical challenge in full.
“On Speculative Philosophy & the Idea of Canada: Revisiting the Work of Leslie Armour” (February 2026) — The Canadian speculative tradition, philosophic federalism, and the case for Armour’s framework in the present emergency.
“The Lost Road and the Post-Metaphysical Challenge: On Sean McGrath and the Case for a New Integral Humanism” (February 2026) — McGrath’s contemplative retrieval and the architecture needed to make it publicly communicable.
“Beyond the Master Signifier: Toward a Developmental Account of Psychological Flexibility and Virtue Ethics” (February 2026) — The case for integral political praxis: Haidt’s moral psychology, Habermas’s communicative theory, and the ACT Hexaflex, with Michael Brooks as the case study.
“On God, Absolute Freedom, & the Post-Metaphysical Turn: Revisiting My Dialogue with Matt Segall on Michael Brooks & CIIS” (February 2026) — The Whitehead, Gebser, and process cosmology formation examined through the post-metaphysical lens.
“Can the Real Wilber Please Stand Up? A Short Journey Through Wilberland” (February 2026) — The recovery of the post-metaphysical Wilber: Stein on Pragmatism, Fisher on misreadings, the 8 Zones, and the connection to psychological flexibility.
“Lament for a Nation: George Grant, Canadian Nationalism, and Religion in Canada” (February 2025) — The Grant essay this piece extends.
“Between Facticity & Grace: On Habermas, Modernity & Public Theology” (March 2025) — Extended engagement with the Browning-Fiorenza anthology and the post-metaphysical context for Integral Facticity.
“Critical Theology & Integral Humanism: Marc Lalonde, Charles Davis, & the Postmodern Conservative Challenge” (February 2025) — The Lalonde and Davis thread and the Canadian Catholic intellectual tradition.
“Truth & Relevance: Revisiting the Charles Davis & Gregory Baum Debate” (February 2026) — The Canadian culmination of the Communio-Concilium crisis.
Suggested Reading
Leslie Armour and Elizabeth Trott, The Faces of Reason: An Essay on Philosophy and Culture in English Canada 1850–1950 (Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1981)
Gregory Baum, Compassion and Solidarity: The Church for Others (CBC Massey Lectures, House of Anansi, 1988)
Gregory Baum, Essays in Critical Theology (Sheed & Ward, 1994)
Henri Bergson, Creative Evolution (Macmillan, 1911)
Chris Cutrone, The Death of the Millennial Left (Sublation Press, 2023)
Chris Cutrone, Marxism and Politics (Sublation Press, 2024)
Fred Dallmayr, Integral Pluralism: Beyond Culture Wars (University Press of Kentucky, 2010)
Charles Davis, A Question of Conscience (Hodder & Stoughton, 1967)
Charles Davis, Theology and Political Society (Cambridge University Press, 1980)
Patrick Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed (Yale University Press, 2018)
Jean Gebser, The Ever-Present Origin (Ohio University Press, 1985)
George Grant, Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism (Carleton Library, 1965)
George Grant, Technology and Empire: Perspectives on North America (House of Anansi, 1969)
Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, 2 vols. (Beacon Press, 1984–87)
Jürgen Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (MIT Press, 1987)
Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (MIT Press, 1996)
Jürgen Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion (Polity Press, 2008)
Jürgen Habermas and Joseph Ratzinger, The Dialectics of Secularization (Ignatius Press, 2006)
Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (Vintage, 2012)
Harold Innis, The Bias of Communication (University of Toronto Press, 1951)
Martin Jay, Marxism and Totality: The Adventures of a Concept from Lukács to Habermas (University of California Press, 1984)
Marc Lalonde, ed., The Promise of Critical Theology: Essays in Honour of Charles Davis (Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1995)
Cadell Last, Real Speculations (Philosophy Portal, 2024)
Cadell Last, “The Fantasy of Sanders Socialism and the Bitter Pill of Trump’s Revolution,” Philosophy Portal Substack (March 28, 2026)
Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousness (MIT Press, 1971)
Georg Lukács, The Young Hegel: Studies in the Relations between Dialectics and Economics (MIT Press, 1975)
Georg Lukács, The Destruction of Reason (Merlin Press, 1980; Verso, 2021, with introduction by Enzo Traverso)
C.B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Oxford University Press, 1962)
Jacques Maritain, Integral Humanism (University of Notre Dame Press, 1973)
Jacques Maritain, Man and the State (University of Chicago Press, 1951)
Jacques Maritain, The Person and the Common Good (University of Notre Dame Press, 1966)
Sean McGrath, The Dark Ground of Spirit: Schelling and the Unconscious (Routledge, 2012)
Sean McGrath, The Lost Road (Christian Alternative, 2025)
Matthew McManus, The Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism (Palgrave Macmillan, 2020)
Matthew McManus, ed., What Is Post-Modern Conservatism: Essays On Our Hugely Tremendous Times (Zero Books, 2019)
John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason (Blackwell, 1990)
John Milbank, Graham Ward, and Catherine Pickstock, eds., Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology (Routledge, 1999)
Ron Purser, McMindfulness: How Mindfulness Became the New Capitalist Spirituality (Repeater Books, 2019)
Peter Rollins, Insurrection: To Believe Is Human; To Doubt, Divine (Howard Books, 2011)
Peter Rollins, The Idolatry of God: Breaking Our Addiction to Certainty and Satisfaction (Howard Books, 2013)
John Ralston Saul, Voltaire’s Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West (Free Press, 1992)
John Ralston Saul, The Unconscious Civilization (House of Anansi, 1995)
John Ralston Saul, The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinvention of the World (Viking, 2005)
John Ralston Saul, A Fair Country: Telling Truths about Canada (Viking, 2008)
John Ralston Saul, Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine and Robert Baldwin (Penguin, 2010)
John Ralston Saul, The Comeback (Viking, 2014)
Mark Sedgwick, Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century (Oxford University Press, 2004)
Matt Segall, Physics of the World-Soul: Alfred North Whitehead’s Adventure in Cosmology (SacraSage Press, 2021)
Sarah Shortall, Soldiers of God in a Secular World: Catholic Theology and Twentieth-Century French Politics (Harvard University Press, 2021)
Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Harvard University Press, 2007)
Michael J. Thompson, The Domestication of Critical Theory (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016)
Michael J. Thompson, Twilight of the Self: The Decline of the Individual in Late Capitalism (Stanford University Press, 2022)
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (University of Chicago Press, 2000)
Daniel Tutt, How to Read Like a Parasite: Why the Left Got High on Nietzsche (Repeater Books, 2024)
Daniel Tutt and John Bellamy Foster, “Georg Lukács and The Destruction of Reason“
Slavoj Žižek, Christian Atheism: How to Be a Real Materialist (Bloomsbury Academic, 2024)
Slavoj Žižek and John Milbank, The Monstrosity of Christ: Paradox or Dialectic? (MIT Press, 2009)
Part 1:
Erik,
I share the urgency that is animating your essay. We are living through a dangerous time. I have never been more outraged and mortified by what the US government is doing, and I've been critical of American imperialism since my early teens. Self-labeled Secretary of War Pete Hegseth fusion of Old Testament warlord theology and imperial nationalist myth is an extremely toxic brew. Raising the alarm in the face of he and other MAGA leaders' attempted sacralization of war and nationalism is more than understandable.
But your reading of my work, of Whitehead, of PCC/CIIS, and of the broader process-relational tradition proceeds as if we've never wrestled with the dangers you accuse us of enabling. There are a lot of unfortunate omissions in your essay. As I thought we'd clarified last month, much of my recently published work has been devoted precisely to distinguishing participatory metaphysics from authoritarian political theology. 
Reading your essay, one could easily be left with the impression that you find any appeal to metaphysical depth, divine immanence, or cosmic evolution as sooner or later regressing into an apology for irrationalist imperialism. Speaking of flatland, I'd say this flattens many crucial distinctions.
Whitehead reads the history of Christianity's political applications as a series of great betrayals of the teachings of Jesus. His is an evolutionary panentheistic protest against the image of God as an omnipotent totalitarian dictator. The process God lures rather than commands, works by tender care rather than force, radically distributes relevant novelty among a "democracy of fellow creatures," and so is quite impossible to recruit as metaphysical support for imperialism. 
My work on process philosophy has never been a defense of metaphysical reverie that spiritually bypasses the struggle for a more just political economy. I am committed to deliberative democracy, though as I argue elsewhere (https://footnotes2plato.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/ch.-7.-segall-schmitt-political-theology-process-intervention_segall.pdf), not necessarily to the thin liberal proceduralism that reduces politics and decisions about social organization more broadly to the counting of votes. As you also know, I defend a radically personalist political ontology that rejects both the abstract individualism of classical and neo-liberalism as well as the abstract collectivism of Communism (glad to see David MacLeod's note about Lukács' failures on this count). Human persons are not isolated substances floating free of their histories, bodies, and cultural inheritances. Nor are they merely organs of a state, of a class, or a Volkgeist. Human persons are emergent centers of relation whose dignity is revealed in and through mutual recognition, and whose flourishing requires both legal protection and material sustenance. As I'm sure you agree, formal liberties like freedom of speech do not amount to much if there is not also material freedom from hunger. I'm confident that a fair evaluation of my work would find zero evidence of any intended or unintended mystical evasion of democratic accountability.
Because of my work on idealism and process thought, you've ensconced me in a somewhat flimsily constructed lineage that somehow reproduces Lukács sense of an irrationalist drift from Schelling and Bergson into political catastrophe. I admit I have not read much of Lukács work, but I wonder how the political catastrophes this process lineage is supposedly responsible for compare to that of the Stalinist project he defended?
I do share a Hegelian influence, of course. Elsewhere (https://footnotes2plato.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2023-iwc-paper-whiteheads-philosophy-of-organism-turning-idealism-inside-out-1.pdf) I explicitly address the politically motivated caricatures of Hegel that proliferated in the Anglophone world after the World Wars. I do not deny that Hegel’s philosophy of history and of politics can lend itself to troubling readings. But a fair reading of Hegel’s political thought would better describe it not as proto-totalitarianism but as moderate constitutional reformism. I do agree with his enduring insight is that freedom is not secured by atomized self-interest but by participation in shared ethical life.
That said, I am hardly a Hegelian triumphalist. I contrast Hegel’s assimilationist posture toward history (the actual is the rational, etc.) with Whitehead’s more meliorative and open-ended sense of philosophy’s task. If Hegel sees philosophy arriving too late, after the fact, Whitehead sees it as helping to midwife unrealized possibilities. He is thus a philosopher of dawn, while Hegel remains a philosopher of dusk. Whitehead treats history as an adventure of ideas, yes, but insists that ideas alone are insufficient, since the more-than-human world is continually interrupting every human design. My process-relational orientation is not a sanctification of some grand historical developmental necessity. I refuse any philosophy of history (whether Hegel's or Marx's) that would transfigure catastrophe into dialectical destiny.
I grant that any spiritually inflected philosophical milieu can become complacent, self-congratulatory, evasive, or bypassing of political struggle. No tradition is exempt from ideological deformation. But to be frank the charge that process-relational thought is somehow structurally incapable of differentiating contemplative depth from democratic accountability just does not make any sense. In my review of Michael Hogue’s American Immanence (https://footnotes2plato.com/2020/12/18/a-review-of-michael-hogues-american-immanence-democracy-for-an-uncertain-world-2018/), I praise his effort to draw on James, Dewey, and Whitehead for democratic and spiritual renewal in the face of Trumpism, ecological emergency, and the ongoing crises of American empire. I affirm the need for a theopolitical vision that resists the Christian nationalist logic of exception and the neoliberal logic of extraction. I also offer some friendly criticisms of Hogue where I think he insufficiently defends Whitehead’s divine function. I do not think metaphysics and praxis can be so neatly divorced. My approach has never been to float above political life in some sort of nondual contemplative cloud of unknowing, but to articulate a more world-loyal and politically relevant philosophy.
I had shared with you an article I published recently on Rudolf Steiner’s social threefolding (https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069). I argue that one of the great pathologies of modernity is the failure to distinguish clearly between the economic, political, and cultural spheres. The result has been various forms of pathological fusion: under neoliberal capitalism, the economic sphere colonizes politics, labor, and culture; under fascism, a particular culture or ethnos subordinates the economy and suffocates political rights; under communism, the state bureau controls the economy and culture. Threefolding seeks a conscious differentiation (not a separation) of these domains so that each can be guided by its proper norm: solidarity in the economic sphere, equality in the political sphere, and freedom in the cultural sphere.
This is very interesting, but if Heidegger's philosophy is going to be questioned based on his connection to Nazism, so too should Lukács be held to the same standard, with his connection and support of Stalinism.
And if the argument being made is that Hegel and the other idealists poisoned the well, then it is important to note that Marx and Lukács were also students of Hegel.
Another very interesting thing to note is that the argument has also been made that Jean Gebser's social thought was strongly influenced by Lukács. This argument was made by Peter Pogany in his paper, "Tributaries to Gebser's Social Thought," which I highly recommend.
https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2633101636?profile=original
Pogany, a Hungarian/American economist, points out that Lukács was branded a heretic, and was excommunicated by the Comintern because of his book History and Class Consciousness.
Quoting Pogany, pp. 20-21:
"The heresy of Lukács began with reminding the world that the demiurge of dialectical materialism was Hegel's student after all.
'The strength of every society is in the last resort spiritual strength' Lukács quotes Marx (Lukács, 1999, p. 262), insisting that the reform of consciousness is the revolutionary process itself (p. 259.)
Marx: 'The reform of consciousness consists only of making the world aware of its own consciousness. In awakening it out of its dream about itself, in explaining to it the meaning of its own actions... Hence, our motto must be: reform of consciousness not through dogmas, but by analyzing the mystical consciousness that is unintelligible to itself.' (From Marx's letter to Arnold Ruge, under the title 'Ruthless Criticism,' September 1843.)"