Longing and Contradiction in
(Re?)Creating Modern Paganism
The emergence of
modern Paganism in the post-industrial West in the 20th and 21st
centuries presents a unique set of challenges and opportunities for those
engaged in critical reflection on the nature of this movement, on its defining
qualities, and on the specific character of pagan spirituality. The
difficulties and opportunities I will describe are very much those I have
personally come to identify. In engaging what I see as “difficulties” within
the modern Pagan movement, I am not intending to be dismissive or judgmental. I
am speaking as a Pagan who cares
deeply about the issues I intend to discuss. Clarifying these complexities helps
me make sense of my own experience, and I hope, may offer something to others.
I approach this
set of issues first and foremost as a scholar of religion. I have studied
religion for almost eight years, two of those as a teacher of undergraduates. I
inhabit that strange, middle space between insider and outsider that
complicates both the study of religion and the practice of it. In order to be
organized in my discussion, I want to introduce three Orders of Meaning in the
study of religion that I find helpful and use with my First Years. They are:
- First Order: The immediate experience of individual religious people in the practice of their religion.
- Second Order: The sustained, critical reflection of religious insiders on their own experience, and their attempt to express that reflection in organized ways to both insiders and outsiders. (Sometimes simply called “Theology.”
- Third Order: The theoretical perspective of scholarly outsiders, seeking to describe and explain religious practices in non-religious (i.e. social-scientific) terms.
Most pagans would
agree that our First Order experiences (which later then come to be described
as “pagan”) generally have some connection to a profound, transformative
relationship with the world itself. Many modern Pagans have shifted our
attentions from creedal religions of the dominant culture as a consequence of
some kind of powerful encounter with the physical world around them, an
appreciation for plants and animals, and a positive valuation of the material. It
is these experiences that continue to fuel the reflective projects of pagans
seeking to explain their experiences in ways that are clear, accessible, and
engaging for both insiders and outsiders.
But religion is
not simply “sheer experience.” Without symbolic systems, rituals, and
cosmologies, these experiences could be characterized as “nature appreciation,”
not “nature religion.” And so, recognizing this, modern Pagans look to pre-Christian,
paleo-pagan sources for inspiration. We draw on ancient lifeways in order to express
our experiences and structure our celebratory responses. We rightly recognize
that the pre-Christian religions of our distant, European ancestors also shared
this quality of radical engagement with, and positive valuation of, the world. In
order to do this, we turn to historical scholarship in order to gather reliable
information about what the paleo-pagans “actually did.”
Note that in
speaking about modern Pagans, I am discussing the experiences of Euro-descended
people who have little-to-no historically continuous connection to the ancient
cultures to which they seek to connect. Primarily, these are the descendants of
Christian European settler colonists who attempted to reproduce their home
cultures in new land, but over time the culture of those colonies transformed
and became something radically new. The situation is very different for those who
inherited some form of cultural identity with nearly-continuous roots in the
place where they still live - broadly, modern Europeans.
Difficulties
Here is where
difficulty emerges. Historical scholarship is not a neutral guide to what paleo-pagans “really did,” nor can we
totally grasp the complexity of paleo-pagan life and practice through
historical scholarship alone. This is not only due to the problem of sources
and the implicit biases of scholars, but also to the fact that, in most non-Christian, non-Islamic
societies, religion is not a separable
element one can detach from human life for its own, separate analysis. Religion,
for much of human history, has been deeply interwoven with the other adaptive
strategies humans have employed for responding to the realities of their
environments. We might even go so far as to say that before Christianity and
Islam, there was no such thing as
religion; only lifeways which included various techniques for managing a
community and structuring human and non-human encounters. Contrary to the
creedal, abstract systems at the center of the monotheisms, these techniques
would have no meaning apart from their relationship to other cultural modes of
kinship, food production, power and prestige, etc. Not only can we not analyze
paleo-Pagan religion, we cannot pull its wisdom (however profound) forward out of
its context and imagine that it will fit neatly into our own. The wisdom of
paleo-pagan religions (if we can call them that) was context-dependent.
The culturally
and ecologically context-dependent nature of religion is, I would hope,
something all pagans would readily acknowledge. The difficulty comes when we (I
think rightly) draw on ancient sources, but then lack ways of making them part
of our own cultural experience. One danger is that, in our hunger for systems
of meaning which speak to our experience of worldly integration, we may
ultimately become consumed with mimicking ancient cultural forms, which become
abstract “systems of belief” to which we direct our ultimate attention.
This is not mere
speculation; I have experienced this for myself. I have grown increasingly
focused on the trappings of pagan practice, and with which "hearth
culture" I should choose to structure my personal practice. In doing so, I
find myself studying the lifeways of the ancient Greeks and Norse, more than I
spend developing my relationship to the world around me. And yet there is no
ancient Indo-European culture whose Gods and lifeways "call" to me. I
feel no connection to any of these ancient people through my inherited culture
(White, Protestant American), nor through my "blood," which I find a
difficult concept in and of itself.
The claim of many
Pagans and Wiccans is that the mythologies of ancient peoples carry "universal"
themes that can be embraced by anyone, and integrated into one's celebration of
life and the depth experiences thereof. While I would agree in principle that
story-telling communicates Truth in many profound ways, I cannot submit to the
level of homogenizing these stories, which are expressions of unique cultures,
tied to their specific histories and bioregions, for my own spiritual
development. Nor do I find that the truth of their wisdom can be so neatly
abstracted. If I could not integrate the abstracted and infinitely
reinterpreted stories produced by ancient Israelites and early-first century
Judeans into my life in meaningful ways, because of distance of time and space,
how am I expected to do so in the case of the Norse, with whom I share no
cultural connection? Perhaps it is the poverty of the White American Protestant
culture of my upbringing that disconnects me from the wealth of folk traditions
that still exist in many parts of the Christianized world. But while
unfortunate, I cannot apologize for or change this fact. Nor can I "skip
over" this part of my own identity to go hunt for connections to a past
which is so distant as to be almost irrelevant.
Longing and Contradiction
The reason I spend
so much time pondering this situation is because I feel it speaks to a deep and
important longing among modern Pagans. We admire the non-creedal, integrated,
world-affirming lifeways of ancient paleo-Pagans and hope to (re)create that
form of religion for ourselves, working past centuries of religious alienation
produced by religions which insist that any experience of “depth” must be “Not
of this World.” But the societies in which ancient paleo-pagan religions were
practiced no longer exist; if we celebrate paleo-paganisms because of their seamless
integration with daily life, natural systems, and cultural milieu, then the
fact that we live in entirely different circumstances means that, even if we
could recover these systems, we could not successfully integrate them into our
own lives, which is the goal in the first place.
We cannot do as
they did and expect to reproduce the same qualities that we uphold as admirable.
Simply practicing as they practiced can create a new form of practical
dogmatism: the symbols and practices themselves become the priority, rather
than the orientation they are meant to produce and reinforce. Also, there is
the problem that religion in ancient paleo-pagan cultures (as in many modern
indigenous cultures) serves to reinforce socio-cultural systems and their
norms; norms to which we may, as moderns, reject out of hand, e.g. patriarchy,
execution of prisoners, veneration of the State, etc.
But
neither can modern Pagans build uncritically within our own, modern,
post-industrial Western culture. We recognize that paleo-pagan religion was
part and parcel of the social order, and served to reinforce socio-cultural
systems and their norms; this is still the case in many indigenous religions
today. We acknowledge that we do not
want religion to serve this function for our own culture, as we’ve seen the
dangerous ways in which extremist forms of Protestant Christianity have done so
in American society and politics. There are also aspects of American culture,
apart from Christianity, which most pagans find distasteful. So in our attempt
to (re)create a form of religion that is integrated into life in the way of
non-creedal, indigenous lifeways, we run into the problem of producing a system
that emerges out of a cultural experience to which we may hold strident
objections. We must start from where we are, but the reality of a pluralistic society historically dominated by Christianity means that we already exist in a complex (and often tense) relationship with the signs and systems that were here before us.
Opportunities: Back to the Orders
So what is the solution? Create a protest
driven sub-culture? This can compound on the problems above. How does this
sub-culture interact with the dominant culture? How does it respond? How does
it avoid the pitfalls of isolationism and escapism? How can modern Pagans integrate
their “pagan lives” with their “regular lives” if the sub-culture stands
insistently apart?
I am not sure how to answer any of the questions
above. But if we are to look for resources to help us generate creative visions
of modern Paganism that critically engage the issues above, we need look no
farther than our own, modern context.
The
profound opportunity of modern paganism, especially humanistic,
scholarly-engaged paganism, is that this movement is creating a conversation
among religious "insiders" that spans all of the Orders of Meaning
mentioned at the beginning of this post. We are self-consciously engaged in
creating religion; and as much as we may want that to happen
"naturally," in the way of all other religions of the past, our
historical situation makes that approach highly unlikely. The very existence of
the comparative study of religion as a field has made modern Paganism possible.
The existence of modern Paganism as a site of resistance to prevailing cultural
and moral norms gives it a critical stance that members would be wise to
embrace. Even the rise of modern science, which has carved out an imaginative
space in which moderns can reflect on their lives and world in non-Christian
ways, has had a role to play.
Those engaged in
reflecting on modern Pagan experiences (2nd Order work) would benefit from
engagement with the 3rd Order scholarship in religion, because that scholarship
allows for a broader view of the modern pagan project. It roots this project in
the wider context of religion as a human activity. In understanding religion as
human activity, we come to see better the ways in which it speaks to all parts
of the human self, integrates into the fabric of human life, and gives voice to
the full range of human experiences. By working consistently within this wider
field of vision, we may hopefully avoid a tendency toward parochialism - not because our goal is a kind of
Universalism, but because we refuse to focus on the details of localized symbol systems rather than the human-world relationship itself, which is at the core
of our 1st Order experiences.
Michael York
writes, "Paganism is an affirmation of interactive and polymorphic sacred
relationship by individual or community with the tangible, sentient, and
nonempirical" (Pagan Theology, 161).
By "polymorphic," he means "multiple forms." Any form a
Pagan chooses to use to affirm this relationship, as long as it works for that
person and helps to build community, is, I argue, a valid form of Paganism. I
am not interested in arguing which forms/models/symbolic systems individual
Pagans ought to use in order to do this. But I do argue that serious, 2nd Order
work on the part of scholars like myself ought to consider the relationship to
be our primary concern, and ought to ask whether our forms of expression are
enabling or hindering that primary relationship.
For those engaged
in 2nd Order work like myself, I would argue that we ought to ask
ourselves not "What is the content of our religion?" (Polytheism?
Animism? Pantheism?) but rather, "What kind of religion are we
building?" "What orientation toward the world are we seeking to give
shape and expression?" For it is
not the symbolic content that makes a practice pagan. For me, and I would think
for many humanistic Pagans, paganism cannot only be the attempt to revive
ancient paleo-pagan practice for modern people. As much as I honor that goal,
it is not enough. I say this as a person who has done serious scholarly work in
the past, and considers themselves a historian. For me, in order for Paganism
to be a religion I can live, I must resist the temptation to turn it into yet
one more historical pet-project. Historical and sociological research have
dominated my academic life up unto this point; however, now that I am seriously
pursuing 2nd Order work as a self-identified Pagan, I know that I have to shift
gears. This is difficult for me, and represents a serious level of dedication.
I once promised myself and others that I would
never do theology, and here I am, about to enter a Philosophy and Theology
program in order to engage these questions in a sustained and critical way. My
hope is to engage emerging modern philosophies – like ecstatic naturalism and
process philosophy – from a Pagan perspective, in order to see how these might help
frame Pagan experience in ways that speak to the modern heart and mind.
As much as I value
2nd Order activity and intend to pursue it as an academic, it is
important to note that this work is supplemental;
it is not an exchange for the actual being
and doing of Paganism. My speculative engagement with these philosophies
ought to support that being and
doing, not replace it. The problem with the abstract is not that it is abstract,
but that it is divorced from lived experience. By engaging critical issues, we
challenge ourselves to live more deeply, more authentically, and more
thoughtfully as a consequence. Whether we honor the Aesir or the Goddess,
meditate silently or pour out offerings, let our practice affirm our sacred relationship
to this world and its many Beings – however we envision them.