Find other posts related to this topic on the link round-up post!
A vital element for genuine community and solidarity is a shared and accepted body of values.
Reconstructionists and members of ethnic polytheistic traditions feel that there is a significant difference between their own beliefs and values and those of Neopagans to feel justified in regarding themselves as a separate and distinct religious community. This difference (perhaps even conflict) of values revolves around where each community locates the locus of its values, ideas, and practices. Reconstructionist and ethnic traditions locate their beliefs and values in a pre-modern pagan era, where family, community, hierarchy, tradition, and honor are valued. Neopagans find theirs in a later era that perceived itself to have discredited pre-modern or classical beliefs and values, an era that roughly began with the Enlightenment, which values individualism and individual reason, non-conformity, secularism, and liberation.
These loci of values manifest very real differences in the religious priorities and practices among reconstructionists and Neopagans. Where reconstructionists prioritize the family as the principal unit of religious activity, Neopagans tend to practice solitarily or in covens of individuals. Where Neopagans value individual revelation and gnosis informing religious practice, reconstructionists accept as legitimate the constraints of history and tradition on religious practice; religious authority is vested in historical custom and communal consensus. For Neopagans religion centers on procuring mystical insight, advancing self-transformation and empowerment, and working magic, whereas reconstructionists understand religion as establishing the right relationships with various gods and spirits.
Theological differences also inform reconstructionists’ desire to separate themselves from Neopaganism. Neopagan theological discourse is often dominated by liberation and feminist theologies, and process philosophy, all whose propositions are inherently hostile to classical pagan theology and metaphysics, which is alienating to those whose theology is informed by, say, Platonism (which is the case for many people involved in “Mediterranean” traditions).
This locus in the pre-modern perhaps explains why Mr. Jacob can feel more comfortable and “at home” among Hindus and First Nations people than with Neopagans. And he is not alone in that sentiment.
I think that you are guilty of oversimplifying and stereotyping here. I’d imagine that neither category can be so easily boiled down to such a distinct and separate list of characteristics. I’d also imagine that more and more people are increasingly finding themselves somewhere in the middle of these approaches.
To highlight some of the basic and fundamental value distinctions between reconstructionists and Neopagans, I spoke in very general terms. Obviously things are not so general and basic out in the world. An individual Neopagan may very well emphasize family worship and historical practice in his/ her religious life, for example. The difference is how each community’s culture supports and reinforces certain values. Neopaganism does not emphasize the role of family life or historical tradition to the extent that reconstructionist traditions typically do.
Reconstructionists perceive Neopagan communities as supporting and reinforcing values different from their own and thus they feel estranged. These differences are real enough that many reconstructionists and Neopagans feel that they just aren’t part of the same community.
“Reconstructionists perceive Neopagan communities as supporting and reinforcing values different from their own and thus they feel estranged.”
Speaking as someone who would, I suppose, fall under the reconstructionist approach I can say that that sentence doesn’t feel true for me. If anything I often feel those feelings toward other reconstructionists as I might toward ‘neopagans’. I also can’t help but feel that your list of the priorities of reconstructionists are highly biased toward Indo-European traditions, worldviews and values which are not necessarily shared by those of us who practice Pagan traditions outside of the Indo-European type.
I think that you are guilty of oversimplifying and stereotyping here. I’d imagine that neither category can be so easily boiled down to such a distinct and separate list of characteristics. I’d also imagine that more and more people are increasingly finding themselves somewhere in the middle of these approaches.
To highlight some of the basic and fundamental value distinctions between reconstructionists and Neopagans, I spoke in very general terms. Obviously things are not so general and basic out in the world. An individual Neopagan may very well emphasize family worship and historical practice in his/ her religious life, for example. The difference is how each community’s culture supports and reinforces certain values. Neopaganism does not emphasize the role of family life or historical tradition to the extent that reconstructionist traditions typically do.
Reconstructionists perceive Neopagan communities as supporting and reinforcing values different from their own and thus they feel estranged. These differences are real enough that many reconstructionists and Neopagans feel that they just aren’t part of the same community.
“Reconstructionists perceive Neopagan communities as supporting and reinforcing values different from their own and thus they feel estranged.”
Speaking as someone who would, I suppose, fall under the reconstructionist approach I can say that that sentence doesn’t feel true for me. If anything I often feel those feelings toward other reconstructionists as I might toward ‘neopagans’. I also can’t help but feel that your list of the priorities of reconstructionists are highly biased toward Indo-European traditions, worldviews and values which are not necessarily shared by those of us who practice Pagan traditions outside of the Indo-European type.
I also think it is putting most pagans into too tight a box. I am what people might call neo-pagan (though I was originally trained and practiced for 11 years at a traditional Wiccan). And while I do seek individual insight and relationship with my gods, I also share the older values of family being my first and foremost unit of sharing my spirituality with.
I do think looking to the past to be the authority as to looking at the gods is very limiting. Gods change and grow as we do. They may always be revealing new information and as our society grows and changes, our pratices must adjust and grow as well.
Most pagans I know also hold many of the same values. There is a political leaning to the left, but I think that comes from a socially open mind toward “other-ness” and being tolerant of alternatives in sexuality, lifestyle and a concern and compassion for those with less. I do know plenty of libertarian or even conservative pagans. Almost none I know are of the current GOP “neo-con” variety in all of their views. Anyway, I don’t think there is the big gap that the current flow of opinion from some people believe there is.
Now some of these reconstructionist groups are isolating themselves and refusing to socialize at all at festivals and gatherings with other polytheistic or pagan people. This, I think, is a poor idea. There is much that can be learned from each other.
In the end, I see these changes as the modern pagan/polytheistic movements “growing up”, if you will…maturing, which often involves growing pains and conflict. So really it’s a good thing. Just that some of these discussions feel like they are making harsh judgments on the general neo-pagan movement and community and that makes me sad.
I also think it is putting most pagans into too tight a box. I am what people might call neo-pagan (though I was originally trained and practiced for 11 years at a traditional Wiccan). And while I do seek individual insight and relationship with my gods, I also share the older values of family being my first and foremost unit of sharing my spirituality with.
I do think looking to the past to be the authority as to looking at the gods is very limiting. Gods change and grow as we do. They may always be revealing new information and as our society grows and changes, our pratices must adjust and grow as well.
Most pagans I know also hold many of the same values. There is a political leaning to the left, but I think that comes from a socially open mind toward “other-ness” and being tolerant of alternatives in sexuality, lifestyle and a concern and compassion for those with less. I do know plenty of libertarian or even conservative pagans. Almost none I know are of the current GOP “neo-con” variety in all of their views. Anyway, I don’t think there is the big gap that the current flow of opinion from some people believe there is.
Now some of these reconstructionist groups are isolating themselves and refusing to socialize at all at festivals and gatherings with other polytheistic or pagan people. This, I think, is a poor idea. There is much that can be learned from each other.
In the end, I see these changes as the modern pagan/polytheistic movements “growing up”, if you will…maturing, which often involves growing pains and conflict. So really it’s a good thing. Just that some of these discussions feel like they are making harsh judgments on the general neo-pagan movement and community and that makes me sad.
I know quite a number of Reconstructionists for whom mysticism is an extremely important part of practice. It was ever so historically, as well, as any look at the history of oracles, divination, dream interpretation and poetic inspiration will illustrate. Certainly both Hinduism and Native American religions have ample examples of mystical impulses. We don’t fit into two separate baskets. At its most separate, the relationship between Reconstructionists and Reopaganisms could be considered a Venn diagram of interrelating communities.
And it is exactly that larger milieu created by cross-cutting ties that I think is best described as “pagan”.
I know quite a number of Reconstructionists for whom mysticism is an extremely important part of practice. It was ever so historically, as well, as any look at the history of oracles, divination, dream interpretation and poetic inspiration will illustrate. Certainly both Hinduism and Native American religions have ample examples of mystical impulses. We don’t fit into two separate baskets. At its most separate, the relationship between Reconstructionists and Neopaganisms could be considered a Venn diagram of interrelating communities.
And it is exactly that larger milieu created by cross-cutting ties that I think is best described as “pagan”.
Bang on! The sterotypical contrast between the hammer and pentacle; the bearded conservative gun nut vs the polyamourous liberal tree-hugger is fair to neither, but at the same time there is enough truth within it to outline the negative sterotype each communit has held towards the other.
When I was first reaching out to the community after years as a solitary heathen, I was advised by every Wiccan I met not to mention I was Asatru until people got to know me better (I guess or they would start looking for the jackboots?). When I first found the Heathen Community and I urged greater participation in the broader Pagan community, there was a very real fear of exposing our children to “those people’s ways”.
Moderates of both stripes seem to get along fine and play nicely in public. We even combine to make some exciting things possible, but there are very real segments in each community that find the other as strange and disturbing as the loudest Bible thumper.
In what sense do you think I have negatively stereotyped reconstructionsits and Neopagans?
You have not stereotyped either community, rather you have highlighted the cultural differences that do give rise to the stereotypes that elements within each community hold of the other.
The stereotypes are as unfair to individuals as any stereotype will be, but do show real differences in worldview, deeper than those of our practice.
Bang on! The sterotypical contrast between the hammer and pentacle; the bearded conservative gun nut vs the polyamourous liberal tree-hugger is fair to neither, but at the same time there is enough truth within it to outline the negative sterotype each communit has held towards the other.
When I was first reaching out to the community after years as a solitary heathen, I was advised by every Wiccan I met not to mention I was Asatru until people got to know me better (I guess or they would start looking for the jackboots?). When I first found the Heathen Community and I urged greater participation in the broader Pagan community, there was a very real fear of exposing our children to “those people’s ways”.
Moderates of both stripes seem to get along fine and play nicely in public. We even combine to make some exciting things possible, but there are very real segments in each community that find the other as strange and disturbing as the loudest Bible thumper.
In what sense do you think I have negatively stereotyped reconstructionsits and Neopagans?
You have not stereotyped either community, rather you have highlighted the cultural differences that do give rise to the stereotypes that elements within each community hold of the other.
The stereotypes are as unfair to individuals as any stereotype will be, but do show real differences in worldview, deeper than those of our practice.
Vopiscus, I have got to say you are expressing EXACTLY how I feel. Well done. I don’t think you have said one is worth more than the other but that there is an important difference in communities and language. There is nothing wrong with that.
Vopiscus, I have got to say you are expressing EXACTLY how I feel. Well done. I don’t think you have said one is worth more than the other but that there is an important difference in communities and language. There is nothing wrong with that.
I am seriously wondering were I belong in this story.
And I really feel this is a very different perspective than the one offered by Drew Jacob on his blog.
I am seriously wondering were I belong in this story.
And I really feel this is a very different perspective than the one offered by Drew Jacob on his blog.
I agree that the different Pagan groups need to articulate their values more clearly.
I stopped calling myself Pagan after a number of things convinced me that contemporary Paganism had moved away from what I meant by it when I started calling myself Pagan. One thing was the very gendered nature of Pagan discourse; another was the insistence on reburial of ancient human remains (er, shouldn’t people be getting worked up about the environment, or third world poverty, or something?); another was that polytheism (particularly the hard variety, and particularly the view that says a deity will choose you to serve them) stopped working for me; another was the surge of interest in the selfish side of the occult, and in replacing scientific and historical explanations with occult ones (I’m not against the occult, just the selfish way it gets used); and the final straw was the uncritical support by some Pagans for the slaughter of thousands of animals in Nepal, just because Christians were criticising it (and so were lots of Hindus and Buddhists).
However, I am a mixture of the two positions outlined in the article: I value community and honour, but I am a post-Enlightenment person. I value mystical insight, personal transformation, and small-group working, but I think that they should be tempered by reason and checked with community consensus. However there’s always an important role for religious rebels. I also really like the Vanir and the Aesir, especially Odin, but I also like deities from other traditions. They are my household gods, if you like. Also, I regard deities as manifestations of the numinous, not as people (I know that’s offensive to many polytheists, but it’s how I experience it; your mileage may vary).
I agree that the different Pagan groups need to articulate their values more clearly.
I stopped calling myself Pagan after a number of things convinced me that contemporary Paganism had moved away from what I meant by it when I started calling myself Pagan. One thing was the very gendered nature of Pagan discourse; another was the insistence on reburial of ancient human remains (er, shouldn’t people be getting worked up about the environment, or third world poverty, or something?); another was that polytheism (particularly the hard variety, and particularly the view that says a deity will choose you to serve them) stopped working for me; another was the surge of interest in the selfish side of the occult, and in replacing scientific and historical explanations with occult ones (I’m not against the occult, just the selfish way it gets used); and the final straw was the uncritical support by some Pagans for the slaughter of thousands of animals in Nepal, just because Christians were criticising it (and so were lots of Hindus and Buddhists).
However, I am a mixture of the two positions outlined in the article: I value community and honour, but I am a post-Enlightenment person. I value mystical insight, personal transformation, and small-group working, but I think that they should be tempered by reason and checked with community consensus. However there’s always an important role for religious rebels. I also really like the Vanir and the Aesir, especially Odin, but I also like deities from other traditions. They are my household gods, if you like. Also, I regard deities as manifestations of the numinous, not as people (I know that’s offensive to many polytheists, but it’s how I experience it; your mileage may vary).