Defining Paganism
The Parliament of World Religions (PWR) plays a vitally important role in facilitating interfaith dialogue. This year’s PWR had a strong emphasis on indigenous spiritualities.
The pagan contingent at the PWR sparked off controversy in allegedly proposing a very restricted definition of paganism. The information was provided by Ed Hubbard in his on-going commentary on the PWR:
http://paganmichigan.ning.com/forum/topics/updates-from-the-parliament-of
The core definition was:
“’Paganism’ is a collective term that most aptly defines Indigenous cultures of pre-Christian Europe, the Celtic and Germanic Tribes, The Balts, The Scandinavians, The Basques, The Slaves [sic] and many others.”
The problem with this definition is that it limits itself to reconstructionists and those lucky enough to be part of still living family traditions in Europe (such as family traditional witchcraft or hereditary witchcraft). The “art” of the reconstructionists involves recreating dead pagan religions, but not necessarily as they were once practiced, as they should be relevant to contemporary society. It should be noted that reconstructionists and those coming from family traditions make up a very small minority within the pagan community.
Further to this, EarthSpirit founder and Parliament Board of Trustees member, Andras Corban-Arthen, was quoted as saying that Wicca could not be seen as an indigenous Pagan faith practice and was instead a modern syncretic movement. Under this description Wicca “would not fall under the definition of Pagan, and would be squarely a New Religious Movement…”
A few days later, The Wild Hunt provided a statement from Andras Corban-Arthen, where he confirmed some of the things which Ed Hubbard wrote, but refuted others. Importantly he stressed that he did not state that Wiccans weren’t pagans, but rather neopagans. Corban-Arthen actually proposed three categories of paganism:
Traditional paganism (survivals of Indigenous European beliefs and practices)
Reconstructionist paganism (modern recreation through the study of literary, historical, linguistic, and archaeological sources)
Neopaganism (syncretic modern forms)
These groups were apparently in keeping with categories normally used in the interreligious community.
While I can understand the desire of the pagan contingent at PWR to “fit in” with the other participants, I am somewhat surprised by the strong European focus which somewhat artificially narrows the categories.
The traditional paganism category should include shamanism from all over the world. Whilst numbers are admittedly small, I have come across Westerners engaged in practicing shamanism from Asia (India, Mongolia, Tibet and Indonesia), South America (Amazonian entheogenic explorations) and African (particularly South African).
The reconstructionist paganism category should include those recreating American (Aztec, Incan and Mayan), African (especially Egyptian, e.g. the Kemetic faith) and Middle and Near Eastern (Sumerian, Babylonian and Canaanite) faiths.
The neopagan category opens a can of worms, as it is heavily influenced by the plethora of contemporary occult writings.
The influence of “The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” pervades many contemporary occult writings. The Golden Dawn was founded in the late 19th century fusing Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, Qabala, Hermeticism, Alchemy, Theosophy, Enochian magick, medieval grimoires, as well as ancient Egyptian and Greek elements. This was essentially a mish mash of influences incorporating almost everything esoteric that was known at the time, the scope of which went way beyond Europe. There is Golden Dawn influence in derivative systems of ceremonial magick (such as Aleister Crowleys’ Thelemic Magick and Nema’s Maat Magick), Wicca, witchcraft, and various other neopagan systems.
Many of the eastern teachings we take for granted now (such a chakras, karma, reincarnation) were introduced by Madame Blavatsky into her Theosophical teachings. Eastern teachings are also very pervasive in contemporary occult writings.
It is evident that many contemporary occult writings are saturated with concepts which are not of indigenous European in origin, which will find themselves being incorporated into many eclectic spiritual paths.
My concern is that quite a number of people who I consider to be pagans, but who have non-European influences in their spiritual practices are effectively squeezed out of the definition. On a personal note, I remember being upset a number of years ago when I spoke to a sociologist who informed me that her definition of a pagan was someone who practiced an earth-based spirituality and worked with the wheel of the year. While some of my reconstructionist practices tap into an agricultural calendar, it is different to the Wiccan wheel of the year, while my Graeco-Egyptian and ceremonial magick workings were certainly not earth-based. I was effectively excluded.
Perhaps we should investigate what paganism really is.
The genesis of the term pagan goes back to roughly the 4th century and originally meant “country dweller.” Historically it has been used as a derogatory term by adherents of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) to indicate a disbeliever. Applying this definition to a contemporary worldwide concept would mean that all non-Abrahamic religions – including world religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism and so on – are pagan.
Historically, however, the term pagan has been applied to small indigenous polytheistic religious groups. I personally do not think it is appropriate to refer to the non-Abrahamic world religions as pagan. To me, paganism is an umbrella term for the many small religious groups outside of the world religions.
While pagan groups tend to be polytheistic I personally do not see a problem in incorporating monotheism or henotheism. For example, the Pharaoh Akhenaten venerated the sun god Aten above all others gods, but did not deny their existence. Perhaps one day a group of reconstructionists will follow in his footsteps?
Coming back on track, while the various PWR definitions of paganism may make sense in bridging the gulf between pagans and other religious groups, they leave out significant numbers. The sad reality is that pagans are a religious minority and are hence subject to discrimination. The only way that all pagans can negotiate recognition and proper treatment is by banding together. The most appropriate logo I have come across for this is unity in diversity. It would be ideal if pagans could come together for political reasons while maintaining their own individual practices and beliefs.
Those who are negative towards paganism can readily use a “divide and conquer” type approach. Why should we help them by dividing ourselves?
Tony Mierzwicki
Well said. So much of this ‘defining’ that is going on reminds me of how European philosophers defined religion. We are still living with those mistakes. I agree that unity is more important, and as you’ve said, the definition proposed seems to smack of European ethnocentrism (although I have a feeling that such a thing was not intended).
« For example, the Pharaoh Akhenaten venerated the sun god Aten above all others gods, but did not deny their existence. Perhaps one day a group of reconstructionists will follow in his footsteps ? »
It seems to already be happening : http://www.templeofaten.org/
I liked what T. Thorn Coyle had to say in her blog about this. One excerpt that really caught my attention was : « In these conversations about which Pagans are “indigenous” and which are “neo-Pagans” how long is it before indigenous comes to equal authentic and authentic comes to equal pure and pure comes to equal superior? »
A member of my Kemetic Temple made the following comment :
« On my Gardnerian side this sounds great and wonderful, but on my Kemetic side (which is gaining ground rapidly) I wonder what box would I fit into. In one sense, yes, I am Pagan because of my faith and my roots. Where does that leave my Kemetic side ? ….. What label does [Kemetic reconstructionism] go under, Earth-Based Spirituality ? No, not quite right, because so much is also based on Astronomical events. Perhaps we are outside the box, they mention “For many self-described Pagans, this is a different lens to view themselves with, and offers a chance to reexamine their faith as Pagans, Earth Spiritualists, New Religious Movements, or something else yet to come.” Are we the yet to come… Or the New Religious Movement, that does seem right either. So I ask, what box do we fit into? Or are we our own thing ? Are reconstructionists left out in the cold by these labels ? »
My thought is this :
I wonder why such labels are needed and debated at all. Can we not simply practice whatever spiritual path we do without it having to fit in, in some way, to a broader umbrella term that will likely work or make sense for some, yet cause consternation for others ?
I don’t worry about what my practice might be labelled as. It simply is my practice. And, similarly, I don’t worry about whether what we do as a Kemetic temple is this, that or the other. It is simply my and our service to the gods. Personally, I don’t need to worry about whether what I do means that I am « left out in the cold » because it doesn’t fit under this or that label. I simply shrug my shoulders and go on about the business of my practice, service and worship of the gods. The ancient Egyptians seemed to understand this as they seemingly had no word for « religion, » therefore not seeming to feel the need to label and compartmentalise and limit what they did. They simply did. And, as a Kemetic, once again I am reminded why I refer back to them for wisdom and guidance, for even in this matter, they seemed to grasp a larger understanding of what is and isn’t needed without forgetting the truth inherent in the actual act of practice and service rather than the pointless emptiness of debate and worry over what to call it.
And are we not all human beings, born of and living on this planet, therefore we are all indigenous to this planet.
Anyway, there’s my rambling… ;)
Hi Gene,
I would hate to think that any pagan elders would knowingly exclude people because their practices weren’t indigenous European in origin. I’m inclined to agree that the full ramifications of the PWR definitions just weren’t thought through. Perhaps we can look forward to futher retractions or qualifications?
I like to see the pagan net cast out as wide as possible so as to include as many as who want to be included. As pagans we’re still very much a minority religious group and should all support each other.
Tony
Hello HiC,
Thanks for the link to the Temple of Aten site. I hadn’t come across it before.
I agree with you totally that labels are unnecessary. What is important is that we’re all pagans trying to forge links with our deities of choice using the practices which intuitively feel most appropriate.
I have run a number of workshops where, in order to illustrate the differences between Hellenismos and Graeco-Egyptian magick, will perform invocations to the same deity using the two different techniques. Thus, during the workshops I alternate between European indigenous paganism (which fits the PWR pagan definition) to non-European indigenous paganism (which falls outside the PWR pagan definition). If, during the workshop, I’m supposed to alternate between a warm fuzzy feeling of belonging and one of rejection, then it’s just not happening for me. The definition clearly makes no sense in my case. Thanks for sharing the thoughts of your fellow Kemetic Temple member, they’re a further illustration of the PWR definition just not working.
Further to your statements about the ancient Egyptians, I’d like to point out that the ancient Greeks also had no word for religion, as it was something part and parcel of their lives. There was no sense of separation between the sacred and the profane as we have now.
T Thorn Coyle’s comments about the perceive superiority of different forms of spirituality are very important. All too often I hear of people claiming that their practices are superior to those of others. I believe that no practice is superior to another in an absolute sense. It’s up to all of us to find the practice that works best for us. Leave the proselytizing for the Christians.
I can think of no better quote than from Crowley’s Book of the Law, Book 1 Verse 3:
“Every man and every woman is a star.”
It means that each one of us has a right to our own path (as the stars do). We should respect the paths of others and in turn have our own path respected by others. The world would be a much better place if everyone lived by this credo.
Tony
Nicely said, Tony. I’m Sumerian, and I am always upset when the Europeans leave us Middle Easterners out of the Big Picture.
We do need an ‘umbrella’ term for our collective group; people may not like labels, but it’s how the modern world understands and ‘files’ groups. It would be detrimental to everyone who practices and worships as we do to each take a separate path when it concerns a name for the umbrella. We do need the numbers.
Out of curiosity, I sent an email to Graham Cunningham, author and co-author of many scholarly books on the ancient middle east, and asked him if there was another word that people like us should be using. His response was,
“Um, never really thought about this. To some degree a word can mean what a group of people use it to mean. Presumably, though, different groups use the term pagan in different ways. My instincts are that it refers to religions outside what are termed the world religions. Either way, though, if you’re neo-pagans you presumably have to use the term pagan in parallel with neo-pagan.”
Hi Michele,
We are in total agreement about the need to group together for the sake of numbers. It would be wonderful if all pagans had the same recognition and rights that the wiccans enjoy.
Graham Cunningham’s definition of the term pagan is exactly the same as mine. I’m less convinced about the term neopagan, although the Wikipedia article about it attempts to apply it as an umbrella term for us all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopaganism
The advantage that the term pagan has is that it’s been around for almost two millennia, and while not everyone likes it, everyone is at least familiar with it. Yes, the term is loaded with baggage, but historically, minorities have embraced terms of derision as a way of taking their power back – consider African Americans and gays. There is much that we can learn from their example.
Blessings,
Tony
When I’m asked for a definition, I make it easy. Any spirituality not of the tribe of Abraham is pagan.
I can see ‘neo=pagan’ as a path within ‘pagan,’ Tony. For me, when I think neo, I think of the people who use things like crystals and wands as part of their ritual tools. There is no evidence that the ancients used these types of tools, so they belong in the ‘neo’ catagory. I consider Wicca to be neo-pagan, especially since it was created in the 19th century. Bits and pieces of it may be older, but the rites themselves are new.
I hardly ever do a full rite. I am of the ‘in service to the gods’ catagory. It would never occur to me to say to the gods, “ok this is what I’m doing for you, what are you going to do for me?” For me, ritual is about the gods, and the gods alone. It isn’t a place to ask favors or to do magic. Magic is a personal thing for personal gain, it isn’t to honor the gods. Magic doesn’t belong in a temple rite.
The ancient rituals that are actually written, and most are NOT, all revolve around praising the gods. There are no magic rites in them.
For me, people who practice their spirituality in this manner, in the way the ancients did, are pagan, not neo-pagan.
See the difference?
I wonder if this whole ‘paganism is european’ thing is coming from “The Triumph of the Moon?” I happened to be scanning through it for something and I ran into,
“Pagans themselves sometimes try to locate their traditions within a wider group of ‘native’ religions. Thus, Paganism is ‘native European religion,’ in a family with ‘native American religion,’ ‘native African religion,’ and so forth. This does have the merit of coming close to the original meaning of the word paganism itself, in Chuvin’s sense of the pagus, the local unit, and convays the qualities of rootedness and immemorial ancestry associated with the ancient European religions.”
You can read more on page 414 of Hutton’s book.
Page 415 has a paragraph which says, “…as Vivianne Crowley has pointed out, that pagan witchcraft has only identified itself closely with the natural world since the 1970s; before that it was not a nature religion but (in part) a fertility religion, which is not the same thing.”
I understand what Mr. Hutton is saying and I agree with him. The problem is that we still need a name which unifies us. Herding cats, you say? Yes, well…. Be that as it may, in this modern world, a group of people will only be heard (no pun intended) if the rest of the world is able to file them under a catagory.
Hi Michele,
I commented on your comments in the comments field where others have uploaded their definitions of paganism:
http://hermeticmagick.com/blog/2010/01/09/patrick-mccollums-take-on-the-pwr-and-the-definition-of-paganism/
I’m just trying to keep everything together.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Tony