|
Post by Shannon on Dec 7, 2009 1:20:07 GMT -5
That is to say, Wicca is a reactionary religion. "This is supported by various facts, ranging from Gerald Gardner's interest in naturism (nudism) during a sexually repressive period, as well as the fact that much of contemporary Wicca developed alongside the hippie movement of the 1960s." www.ravenkindred.com/wicatru.htmlThe article found in the above link is specifically addressing the ....legitamacy? of worship between Asatru and Wicca. I'm not so much interested in that particular distinction, but the idea that (neo)Wicca is steeped in societal rebellion more so than in religious/spiritual growth stood out to me. I can see it, not sure if it's as black and white as that, but thought it'd make for an interesting discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on Dec 7, 2009 19:25:47 GMT -5
I am inclined to agree with that assessment, though I don't think the two are anywhere near mutually exclusive. Some grow by following expectations and others by challenging them, and many grow by both. However, I think it's relevant that Wicca grew in popularity (and the "eclectic" form most popular among the "neos" developed) during a time in which the rebellious thing to do was to go nude, be sexually uninhibited, and (there used to be a lot of this too) use drugs. A lot of people at that time were attracted to the idea that there once was a "Golden Age" during which repression of sexuality was unheard of (that having developed with Christianity, of course - never mind all the pre-Christian religions that specified celibacy or chastity; Zoroastrianism and Manicheanism coming to mind as early influences on Christianity itself in this direction) and that the Wiccan religion and/or other forms of Paganism was/were the religions(s) of that Age. Oh, and that that time was returning, as the "Age of Aquarius". What a bust, eh? I suppose that would make ours the "Age of YMMV". Or perhaps the Age of Aquarius came with Batteries Not Included. In any event, AIDS came along and you suddenly heard a lot less talk of that. Funny. I'd like to quote that article: I have to admit that in this regard I tend to agree more with the Asatru. While I believe firmly in equality for gays, lesbians, transgendered individuals, asexuals, &c (including the right to form socially and economically accepted pair-bonds, though that's a different post), in terms of sexual practices I favor a stronger set of sexual ethics than one often sees at neo-Pagan gatherings. I feel that when you've made a vow to someone you've made it, and you should keep your vows. I feel that casual sex with people you don't know well is probably a bit dangerous, along the lines of "you don't know where that's been". I don't judge people who do things differently from me, but I've seen a lot of things happen at these gatherings that I would not personally engage in, and that if I had children I would try to guide them away from. Social nudity doesn't horrify me exactly, as I've never seen anyone who had anything I hadn't seen before (except presumably the first time, of course). But I tend not to participate, and there are times when it seems a little "fetishized" by neo-Pagans - as if it were somehow better to be nude than not-nude. To be fair I've met trad Wiccans who feel the same way I do, and who reserve ritual nudity for just that, and aren't social nudists in the way I don't wear my ritual robes in public. But I think it's mostly the "neos" were seeing here.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Dec 9, 2009 11:44:10 GMT -5
Essentially, I agree with Den. I do think Wicca arose in a counter-cultural sort of way (and I also sometimes think it was also a handy excuse for Gardner to have lots of uninhibited sex with various "initiates") - but I don't think that this can't also lead to a valid and viable spiritual experience.
I would also, personally, say that Asatru is counter-cultural in its own way. The article admits that many Asatruar have problems with mainstream culture, but tend to go in the other direction in the ways they handle it (i.e. a return to "family values" and to a romaniticzed notion of "the good old days".) While Asatru, thus, embraces a different cultural moray, it's still counter-cultural in the sense that it runs counter to the mainstream culture. Yes, it's true, that as a religion, historically, it embraces cultural ideas of the Norse, etal - to follow it now is "alternative".
I also find it interesting that a lot of the differences in approach and communication and whatnot that the article discusses can also be summed up in a sort of "right" vs "left" mentality. (Though also find it odd how someone can be libertarian but also have a black/white moral mentality.)
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on Dec 9, 2009 19:48:08 GMT -5
As far as politics are concerned there are some complicating factors. One is, as you point out, that "libertarian" doesn't necessarily mean what most people these days think when they hear "right wing"; most especially, classic libertarians are heavy supporters of abortion rights, gay rights (though not necessarily things like gay marriage; more that it's not the government's business how people have sex. Back when the big thing was sodomy laws, libertarians came out much more strongly in favor of gay rights) and other such things that are associated with the libert ine as much as the libert arian. Many of them were for legalizing pot too; the same logic applied, plus they didn't like their tax money going to support the "war on drugs" (I don't either). Needless to say, the classic libertarians would be horrified by the Patriot Act. When people hear the term "right wing" in 2009 they tend to think of social conservatives, which the classic libertarians were not. Another complicating factor: the admitted presence of the racialists. These guys are far-right. They have gotten less high-profile lately, because the far-right is so enamored of conservative Christianity instead. But they were (and some still are) there, and they might have skewed things some. Yet another: there are different groups that are referred to using the term "Asatru". Most properly, the term refers to the Nordic Reconstructionists using the Icelandic sagas as their source material. These sagas are very popular by virtue of being very complete, and thus they influence all Norse/Germanic Reconstructionists to some degree. However, among Heathens there are a number of different groups; the racist ones traditionally use the term "Odinist" rather than "Asatru" (an insult to Odin in some of our opinions ). There are also Anglo-Saxon, Gothic (as in the Germanic tribe), Norman, and other Germanic Heathens (as well as Hellenists, Khemenists, and others who fall outside the scope of that article). It was interesting to see a discussion of where on the "political spectrum" people fell on an Anglo-Saxon list (now defunct) I used to participate in. Overwhelmingly, people in that group described "somewhere in the middle" politics on economic issues, and "libertarian" type ones (meaning less government interference) on the social ones. The tendency was to be pro-gay and abortion rights, but anti-gun control and iffy on affirmative action, with "medium" policies on market-y type things. That was that group. There are others. Again, complicated. Do the sagas themselves (or other older writings) have anything to say on these issues? Of course not. These matters didn't exist in the time and place where they were written. However, it does seem there's a particular personality type that is drawn to these practices: a "don't-tread-on-me" type who is likely to not want the government interfering with their lives and their families, but not want social pressure from others to be a sexual libertine or a drug user either. They tend to dislike "liberal markers" like vegetarianism or communal living, but this seems to be as much about not wanting any outside control (and not wanting to be a "pussy", which let's face it, is the image associated with those things) as with anything "moral". It is part of a strong emphasis on independence (though there's also the inter-dependent value of doing one's part); once you go past inter-dependence into outright dependence, the other guy's in charge, and here's where you really see the "counter-cultural" element of the Heathen: the average Heathen can't stand that. It's that personality. One last factor: that article was written a couple of years ago, and these things are always changing. The thing I'd notice in the Heathens I've encountered is a wider range of political views, rather than one thing predominating. There is some of that; it seems to be a version of the Golden Age thing. I would note, however, that "shieldmaidens" are found in modern Heathen groups increasingly often, joining the male "warriors" - the "family values" aren't quite Pat Robertson's ideal of same. Not all would support this, but, again, there's a wide range; at least a Heathen male who doesn't like shieldmaidens is a little easier to call out and argue with than these vague slippery Pagan-y visions of "male and female energies", which are as often as not used to support the exact same view. Views on the environment are frankly all over the map. But the issue is definitely not as emphasized within Heathenry as it is among neoWiccans(TM). Possibly this is because Starhawk wasn't a Heathen. I note that when I hung out with neoWiccans I was labeled "right wing" because I think atomic energy is a good idea. I'm a little more interested in the "democratic" nature of Reconstruction (the source materials are equally available for all to read) compared with the "mystery school" hierarchy of the (initiatory trad) Wiccans; as both a Heathen and a Ceremonialist I have ample opportunity to make an equivalent comparison. Partly because of this and partly due to other considerations, I keep the two practices entirely separate (there's a "Heathen LBRP" out there that makes me want to puke, but that's a different post). Heathenry is more about lore not "mysteries" in its approach to knowledge; it's got a few "mysteries", but they're sort of optional, not the backbone of the tradition as with the Wiccans. This contrast doesn't seem to apply as much to the "neos", who seem to lack both lore and mystery, but it's an interesting comparison between Heathenry and trad Wicca. Lastly, then I promise the Wall of Text is over, I'll add one side question: isn't "Wicatru" a bright yellow Japanese children's cartoon animal with weird powers? Just sayin'...
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Dec 10, 2009 11:03:13 GMT -5
Pikachu joke aside, I did find it interesting that the url of the article was called Wiccatru, since I've only ever heard that term used as a sort of insult from Asatruar towards 'Norse Wiccans'. I can't say I entirely disagree... as someone who does not believe that "all gods are one God" and "no, Odhinn is not the horned god"... but I still found it interesting that a term I've always heard used with a sneer and disdain was chosen for the name. Of course, as you say, this article was written awhile ago and perhaps it had not yet taken on the same connotation I've seen it used with.
Anyway...
I agree that this is a good article to cover the basic differences of focus between Wicca and Asatru. I would say that, aside from some of the specifics, you could probably swap out 'Asatru' for most of the Recon paths - which are all more orthodoxic, in their ways. Actually, it was my 'discovery' that Wicca is more orthopraxic, along with my disgust for the New Ageisms infiltrating neoPaganism in general, which lead me to look more into the Celtic Recon path, though I would never say I'm quite as much a stickler for historicity as some of them are. But I am orthodoxic leaning myself, and Wicca seems to me to be 'just' a branch of ceremonialism with a specific, erm, satyrical focus. *grins* (Of course, I'm also a bit at a loss how one is to experience to Mysteries of the Gods of the Wicca when one does not even, apparently, have to believe in them... )
But, anyway, I think that, in some ways, the Recon emphasis on historicity is a contributing factor to why some neoWiccans (as the Trad Wiccans I've met acknowledge the mythic aspect of the 'Old Religion') cling so desperately to this heritage is precisely because of the fallacy that older = truer. I think if we acknowledge the 'Old Religion' to be a myth (of debatable usefulness) - then it becomes no more or less 'silly' than following any other myth. (Because, yes, I am of the opinion that myths have symbolic truths but are not literally true. I know some Asatru disagree with me there, too, taking the Eddas to be historical - which I, personally, think is right up there with insisting the Prehistorical Matriarchy is historical. But that's just me. Of course there's some historicity to it - but, then, there's some historicity to the Bible, too. Doesn't make the Garden of Eden true, though.)
Anyway - everything was 'made up' at one point. I think if people didn't insist that something 'made up' hunderds of years ago is implicitly more *symbolically* true than something 'made up' 50 years ago, then some of the arguments about the validity of the 'Old Religion' would disappear, because there would be no need for them.
This might sound odd coming from me, as I am something of a stickler for history - but only insofar as people claim historicity. I do hold, to a certain degree, that "what works for me" is also part of a viable and valid personal spiritual path.
I also liked the point that the article made about being an earth-based or, as I prefer it, a nature-based religion. I've heard many Recons argue they are not nature-based because they are god-based, but these has always seemed a specious argument to me. But, again, from a personal perspective, the ceremonial aspect of Wicca with its "seasonal celebrations" on fixed dates, with the gods being almost more of a magical focal point than a source of reflection or worship, and almost no focus on local spirits, never meshed well with me in my attempts to actually be nature-based. I mean, sure, it's all well and good to hold your rituals out of doors to be in with nature, but if the energies aren't meshing with what you're trying to do, then you're not really basing your practice on nature, are you? You're expecting nature to attune to you instead of you attuning to it.
Anyway, long story short - I prefered "my version" of what I thought Wicca was to what I discovered it to be... and for all my semantic arguments over calling a spade a spade and all that, I have my issues with it. But, then, that's why I don't follow it.
But, at the same time, for all my emphasis on following nature, for my grab-bag of historicity and "go with the flow" - I still believe in and have respect for the Mysteries, or the concept of the Mysteries. I believe my old Pseudonomicon quote, which didn't fit in this signature - each god has its own mysteries. To truly be a devotee of that god is to experience those mysteries, and to let that madness wash over you.
Of course, not everyone is called to do that, either - and that's cool, too.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Dec 10, 2009 11:09:14 GMT -5
To Shannon:
Here's a little something for you.
Wicca was a reaction to the time in which it was 'created'. Many people today become Wiccan, neo or otherwise, or 'Pagan', in general, as a reaction to their times and to their disatisfaction with their upbringing - their need for fulfillment, of some sort, which isn't being met elsewhere.
Many who turn to the Recon paths were, and still are, sometimes going there as a reaction to their disatisfaction with Wicca or neoWicca - since that is often the first introduction that many people get.
Ages and ages and ages ago, stories were created as a reaction to fear and lack of understanding and awe - to explain things that they could not explain.
Everything in life is a reaction to something. Sometimes those reactions develop into something far more profound than its origins... speaking of truths on a deeply symbolic and spiritual level. Sometimes those reactions turn into persecutions. Sometimes they turn into reasons to have a big party and give out presents. *grins* And sometimes the excuses to have a party can also touch a deeply personal need...
That said - I'm still trying to decide if Wicca is even a religion, or if its more of a practice...
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on Dec 10, 2009 13:43:20 GMT -5
To Shannon: Here's a little something for you. Wicca was a reaction to the time in which it was 'created'. Many people today become Wiccan, neo or otherwise, or 'Pagan', in general, as a reaction to their times and to their disatisfaction with their upbringing - their need for fulfillment, of some sort, which isn't being met elsewhere. Many who turn to the Recon paths were, and still are, sometimes going there as a reaction to their disatisfaction with Wicca or neoWicca - since that is often the first introduction that many people get. Ages and ages and ages ago, stories were created as a reaction to fear and lack of understanding and awe - to explain things that they could not explain. Everything in life is a reaction to something. Sometimes those reactions develop into something far more profound than its origins... speaking of truths on a deeply symbolic and spiritual level. Sometimes those reactions turn into persecutions. Sometimes they turn into reasons to have a big party and give out presents. *grins* And sometimes the excuses to have a party can also touch a deeply personal need... That said - I'm still trying to decide if Wicca is even a religion, or if its more of a practice... So, I guess it's all a matter of which reaction holds the most value? ;D You know, I posted to this to 'listen' to you two. Thanks for calling me out.
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on Dec 10, 2009 18:04:11 GMT -5
Well actually, it doesn't sound odd, because that's one of the things I have always picked up on about you. I like it - it seems rational and balanced. Of course, that's possibly because it's near where I stand... Gotta admit that depends on the weather. I'm less involved with some of the neo-Pagan things, at least somewhat, because of the outdoor-ritual aspect; each year I grow more and more allergic to the standard complement of summer biting insects, as my metabolism gets...less youthful...I am more enamored of air conditioning, &c. As a scientist, I have also studied enough of nature to know that it isn't always my friend, and while there is "lip service" given to this fact in some of the Pagan groups ("Oooh! We worship a Death Goddess!!! Isn't that oogly-spoogly? Now be impressed!!!") I find the unrealistic attitude that nature is always cuddly to be distressingly more common. Part of my attraction to Lodge style ceremony is in fact that it is practiced indoors, out of the heat, the rain, the wind, the sun, and other discomforts. The Realtors as frequent denizens of indoor spaces are a small price to pay, especially when the individual ones in question are my friends. Don't get me wrong. I like occasional outdoor practice, and even going out in the odd storm or two. Just on my own terms. Nature is most emphatically not about one's own terms. Ever gotten really, really sick on a camping trip? Those are nature's terms. I've noticed this too and it's actually part of my diminishing interest in religion in general. I do "my thing" because it's good for me, and community things because I like sharing a beneficial practice with others who also find it beneficial, and that's more or less it. When whatever system I use was made up, or by whom, is less and less relevant. But of course I don't claim a huge amount of historicity to my practice. One of the things I've been doing lately (a particular meditation practice) is to my knowledge about a month old - I'm going by when I kloodged it together for myself. Unless someone else kloodged together the same thing a thousand years ago and I don't know, which is of course possible, it isn't very old at all. No matter. I don't need to claim anything about it, because the only thing relevant is that so far it seems to be good for me. If at some point I were to write an article on, say, a particular religious belief among the ancient Anglo-Saxons and submit it to a scholarly journal (or claim online it was a historical fact) my standards would be much different. Not higher - but different, using different criteria (scholarly evidence) than for my own practice (my observed results). I guess my standard is this: when it comes to something to do, I want it to work, i.e., be worth the effort of practice. When it comes to something to study, I want it to be the truth. Religion from books can't be the truth, or not the whole truth - because it's made up; one can't have truth in religion without one's own gnosis (that's the "mystery" part). The better practices should lead to that, and there's my usual goal. Even then, you have no guarantee that whatever you did or thought will work for someone else. What can be true or not from books is the record of what others have done or believed, but that's not religion, it's history; you aren't going to find out from it if what was believed was true or not, just whether or not they believed it. Interesting enough, but for a separate reason (that's the lore part). What I find disillusioning is all the infighting that seems the same no matter what the religious neck of the woods might be. Followers of some holy figure (Jesus, Mohammed, Zarathushtra) argue endlessly about which interpretation of surviving texts is more accurate, and which surviving texts are actually genuine. Wiccans and Recons argue about which system, of all the zillions of them out there, is oldest, or about what "the ancestors" actually did (survive, that's the relevant part). It gets exhausting. I like the actual academic controversies, but the "bitchcraft"? Thanks, but no thanks. Though those can be entertaining to read about if you're not actually involved.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Dec 11, 2009 9:48:42 GMT -5
So, I guess it's all a matter of which reaction holds the most value? ;D Which is, of course, an inherently subjective and personal opinion. *egrin* Well, I just felt we were diverging a bit too far off topic. I didn't want to get yelled at again.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Dec 11, 2009 10:02:43 GMT -5
Well actually, it doesn't sound odd, because that's one of the things I have always picked up on about you. I like it - it seems rational and balanced. Of course, that's possibly because it's near where I stand... Well, that's good. Sometimes I get the impression that people seem to equate me with one of the hardcore "by the book" types. Well, it depends - to the "fluffies" I seem to come across as an unyielding traditionalist, and to the traditionalists I seem to come off as a bit 'fluffy'. The best Recon systems I've seen, though, make room for UPG and personal practice alongside the historical stuff. I agree with this. I'm not gonna do a ritual in nasty weather just because it's on a certain day where I'm supposed to do ritual or something. I'll either do it indoors, if I feel like I have to do it that day for some reason... or, more likely, I'll wait for a day that "feels" right. I feel most "intune", spiritually, when I am in nature - but I can just as easily feel miserable and closed-off if the weather is mucky... so I just wait for good days with good energy. Well, maybe I should say the right days with the right energy - depending on the particulars... I agree. It's funny - the other night I was talking to Darkk about the difference between my 'rational mind' and what it thinks and believes, or what it lets me believe... and my 'secret heart' and what it believes, or wants to believe. I think you need a blending of the rational, intellectual, historical and true along with the gnosis, the mysteries, the desires and wishes... That's one reason I like Basho's quote so much (see signature). If following the ways of the ancestors helps you find your path, then that's great... but if you do it a certain way just because that's "how it was done", then I feel you're missing the hearth of it. The whole 'letter of the law' vs. the 'spirit of the law'. As above - ideally you need a bit of both. Yeah... and it is one reason why I've pretty much stayed away from the community side of things. I've even stopped going to most of the pagan forums. I just can't be bothered with the same old arguments. There was a time when I needed them... relished them... but I've been there, done that, and I'm so over it. Every once in awhile I enjoy some of the snark stuff on that LJ comm, but a lot of times even that annoys me because they start snarking everything that's not done their way... I used to get a rush out of it... but now it's just wasted energy. Damn - I'm getting old... (we need a sighing icon... )
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on Dec 13, 2009 12:11:49 GMT -5
Here we go again with our mutual agreement society. Being fond of things like indoor plumbing and modern democracy, I don't hold much for the "let's do everything exactly the way our ancestors did it" school of thought. My reply is usually something like, that's easy to say while you still have all of your teeth. At an astonishing age compared to that of our ancestors, I might add. What is more, some of the philosophical differences between us and the ancestors have to do with the markedly different reality we live in. I don't mind if my views are better described as "refurbished" than "reconstructed" on account of that factor. A good study of the history part, though, can help one figure out which differences are actually due to it, and which are due to influences from "Middle Eastern religion" (among the "good guys", a code for fluffy New Age belief; among the "bad" ones, a code for Judaism). Even if one chooses to incorporate some of these influences, it is better to know what one is doing and do it consciously. Must be nice to have some balance. In me, it's like the "secret heart" has a pea-shooter and the "rational mind" has a flamethrower. Hence I find myself hitting reset and waking up atheist again and again. Then I go through the "stage" where a God could exist that was just a metaphor for the universe...then the one where different human principles could exist "symbolically"...then the interaction...then "this doesn't make sense" and back to atheist again. This can happen in the space of five days, it's frustrating. What I can't do is the New Age thing with all those separate realities that "aren't physical" but are always described as acting like it, all those "energies unknown to science", and all those other "dimensions" described by people who must be utterly math-illiterate and have no idea what the word "dimension" means. (We need a pukey icon too). We (more generally, not just on this board) also need a language for describing unusual experiences that does not evoke the above New Age images. Because I don't see these things as "energies" and "dimensions" but I know damn well the majority of New Agers do, and I'd like to be able to describe my own experience without sounding like a fluffy, a nutjob, or an idiot. Gotcha. I'll get back on the project when I have a bit more time, because I need to ensure we can find a good way to host them. But I might go find some to fill our glaring omissions like sigh, puke, and happy-dance a little sooner than that.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Dec 14, 2009 8:58:13 GMT -5
Refurbished... *snerks* I like that...
As for the language... well, I admit I'm guilty of referring to energies and dimensions (and vibes.). I have lamented in the past that the New Age has taken perfectly good terms and made them all fluffy... but, as you say, we don't really have better terms for it... Personally I'm ok with a differentiation between "spiritual energies" and "physical energy" - I just get irritated when they start using laws of physical energy and applying it to spiritual energies. If it's a different thing then it's a different thing... you can't have it both ways.
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on Dec 14, 2009 20:02:12 GMT -5
'Zackly. If I weren't a physical scientist by profession myself, I might be less irritated.
|
|