The article analyzes the concept of tradition / traditionalism, highlighted by the
Petersburg orientalists as a subject of oriental studies [Introduction, 2011, p.]. The need to adjust
the status of the discipline (subject, theory, conceptual apparatus, etc.) has gained particular
relevance as a result of the appeal of orientalists of St. Petersburg State University to the study
of living cultures of the East. Previously, they studied mainly written monuments (in history,
philosophy, law, etc.) stored in the funds of Europe and St. Petersburg, within the framework of
classical oriental studies. The article considers the use of “tradition” from which “traditionalism”
is derived in related disciplines: ethnography and socio-cultural anthropology. The author comes
to the conclusion that, starting from the Enlightenment, and to this day it does not contain signs
of scientific character, rather it is used as an axiological category, the content of which is largely
determined by the political context. Progressives (evolutionists, Marxists, etc.) assessed “tradition” negatively, as an obstacle to the progressive development of society. However, the German
Enlighteners (Kant, Herder and others) understood “tradition” as a unique substance, thanks to
which the society retains its originality in the evolutionary process. This vector in understanding
the concept led to the sacralization / mystification of tradition, which was reflected in the works
of Guénon and his Russian followers. The views of anthropologists of the 70–80s (Eisenstadt
S., Shils E.) are analyzed who, after the failure of the non-evolutionist theory of modernization,
which considers the development of the East as a struggle between “tradition” and “modernity,”
again turned to the analysis of tradition. The postmodernist project is critically analyzed, which,
identifying “culture” and “society”, does not see the heritage of the past (traditions) in modern
unique cultures. Postmodernism in this context is largely motivated by considerations of political
correctness, which also takes tradition beyond the scientific framework. V. V. Bocharov proposes
a methodology that avoids absolutization, whether it be universalism in the understanding of
tradition, or, conversely, uniqueness. This is achieved by separating the concepts of “culture”
and “society”, which at different rates in the historical dynamics of the socio-cultural process,
as a result of the past (tradition) is thought of as a natural result of the conservatism of “culture”
relative to “society”. Weber’s ideal type “traditional society”, supplemented by the author with
new characteristics, is used as a basis for understanding “traditionalism”. This “type” is used to
measure the socio-cultural realities of the East, which, being traditional in content and predominantly modern in form, just represents “traditionalism” — the subject of oriental studies.