For the purpose of minimizing confusion, I'd like to explain my usage of the terms and 'neo-Pagan.' In my opinion there are too many terms floating around in the Pagan communities, such as they are. It is confusing at the best of times and divisive at the worst.
By 'neo-Pagan' I mean any faith or path that is inspired by or seeks to revive ancient pre-Christian religions. Wiccans, Druids, Heathens, Celtic Reconstructionists, Witches et cetera all fall under this category, in my opinion. I realize of course that there are vast differences between the religious practices of an Alexandrian Wiccan and a Druid, and even between an Alexandrian Wiccan and an Eclectic Wiccan, but seeing as how we all face many of the same challenges and base our practices on various different views of the past, I see no reason not to adopt the use of a convenient 'umbrella term', while still being aware of the innumerable differences between the many neo-Pagan paths. Obviously 'Pagan' will serve just as well as an 'umbrella term' for most of us, and I am guilty of switching between the two terms, but every so often it is a good idea to just remind ourselves that we are all, in form if not in essence, 'neo.'
To some, 'neo-Paganism' has become a derogatory term, implying a lack of seriousness or authenticity. However, the fact remains that Pagan practices have not survived unchanged or unbroken since pre-Christian times, and therefore they are being revived, reconstructed or reinvented - ergo, they are 'new' as opposed to 'old.'
In my line of thinking, using the term 'neo-Paganism' in a derogatory fashion implies a belief that one's own religious practice is The Ultimate Authentic Truth as well as an unbroken tradition. This is both unbelievably arrogant and denotes a lack of the most basic historical knowledge.
Apart from that, there are the debates concerning who is and who is not a 'Fluffy Bunny' and whether or not one should be a 'Hard Polytheist' or 'Hard Reconstructionist' as opposed to a 'Soft' one. Come now. How are we going to have a fair and objective debate if we adopt unfair and subjective terms to describe one another? Would anybody really name him or herself a 'Fluffy Bunny?' Clearly not. It's a derogatory term. Likewise, would anybody appreciate their beliefs being termed 'soft?' To me at least, 'soft' implies a silly, spineless and shallow attitude, whereas 'hard' implies seriousness, sturdiness and authenticity.
What's in a name? A lot, apparently. Many of these terms have become the norm in the many debates, and since most agree to use them, they are very convenient. I simply think we should excercise a bit more caution before deciding what to call other neo-Pagans who don't agree with us.
Good post, Selkie. I agree with you on the use of terms and definitions. Though I generally just use "Pagan" myself I'd prefer "polytheist" (except not all Pagans are polytheist...). But I went with Pagan because I agree with Pierre Chuvin (A Chronicle of the Last Pagans) that Pagan means "person of the place" (or ethnic religionist). Neo-Pagan might be more accurate as you say, but like the scholars who have argued this case I have to, like them, throw up my hands in defeat.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely we should be avoiding dissing each other through the use of definitions. Diversity is the name of the game, and it is our strength. It is the one thing we have, by the way, that monotheism does not, and will never, have.