Patrick McCollum’s Take on the PWR and the Definition of Paganism
I have previously written about the controversy surrounding the Eurocentric definition of paganism proposed at the Parliament of World Religions (PWR) as reported by Ed Hubbard in his commentary on the PWR. Andras Corban-Arthen, who was at the centre of the controversy, provided a clarifying statement in The Wild Hunt. The matter has not died down, as those who have been left out of the definition are still bitter.
I had the privilege and pleasure of chatting to Patrick McCollum yesterday about the PWR definition of paganism. Patrick was in attendance at the PWR and so has first hand knowledge of what actually transpired. Without going into details, Patrick, in my opinion, is a true pagan leader, having engaged in numerous legal battles for pagan recognition and rights.
Patrick states that Andras was quoted out of context regarding his definition of paganism. Andras did actually mention the now infamous Eurocentric definition as his own personal definition when explaining his activities to outsiders. It should be noted that this Eurocentric definition is just one of many that have been bandied about in academic circles over the last few years. However, Andras then went on to outline its inadequacies and he proceeded to discuss several of the groups which had been omitted. In the end, Andras and several other Pagans present in the Parliament discussions, continued conversations over who we are and how we should define ourselves, and as is generally the case throughout the Pagan community, no conclusions or particular language was given more credence than any other. The main point here, is that what was said was part of a discussion, and not some kind of, edict or authoritative statement officially defining Paganism as it is being portrayed on a number of blogs.
I personally feel that the positive outcome of the controversy is that many people have started thinking seriously about what paganism actually is, and who should be included under the pagan umbrella.
Patrick’s idea of who the pagan umbrella encompasses is virtually identical to mine, as he would like as many people included as possible. Patrick includes many indigenous religions as pagans, particularly those who see themselves falling within that umbrella. I had always included those who take up the shamanic practices taken from various indigenous religions, but I can see the wisdom of Patrick’s idea, and am happy to embrace it.
Patrick stressed that the more people we have under the pagan umbrella, the more seriously we will all be taken. There is no reason to compromise our beliefs, as we can all agree to differ. What matters are sheer numbers.
Patrick told me of one really exciting occurrence at the PWR. A key representative for Hinduism stated that he would like to see his religion included under the pagan umbrella. Hinduism has grown to become the world’s third largest religion, after Christianity and Islam. It claims about 837 million followers – 13% of the world’s population.
Patrick estimates that in the US we have roughly 1.2 million pagans, with another 200,000 worldwide. Incorporating Hindus into our ranks would greatly swell our numbers giving us much more political clout.
Hinduism is the world’s oldest organized religion and consists of thousands of smaller religious groups. There are numerous similarities between Hindu and pagan practices. In addition, there are numerous aspects of Hinduism which have been incorporated into eclectic spiritual systems, including yoga and the concepts of chakras, karma and reincarnation.
These are indeed interesting times. Modern pagans have more rights now, than they have ever had, but there is no excuse for complaisance since there are those who would take our rights away from us in a heartbeat. It is important to stay visible, keep demanding equal treatment, be inclusive rather than exclusive, and minimize infighting (as this weakens us collectively), so as to achieve our common goals.
While I would love to take credit for the idea, Patrick came up with an absolutely brilliant suggestion. If all of us were to present our own definition of Paganism in our own terms, we could then attempt to combine those components. Upon achieving majority agreement, we could come up with at least a preliminary statement that more accurately reflects the whole community’s view of how paganism should be defined.
Tony
Yes, this is a very difficult matter…I had quite a lot to say on my own LJ about this “PWR definition” matter when it was occurring last month. I’ve encountered difficulty with this in my own previous interfaith activities as well, specifically when a European-descended Australian eclectic pagan spoke with me and said that the preliminary definition I had assembled for a certain event in Ireland excluded her, since she had some legitimate, non-appropriative connection to Australian Aboriginal spirituality mixed in with her practices. I very happily adapted accordingly (but the event itself was a disaster, for a variety of other reasons…). Definitions are a very difficult matter indeed…
Honestly, I think that nothing short of a dedicated conference just about this one single issue will produce anything useful…It will take that many people, sitting face-to-face, for hours on end, hearing different viewpoints and engaging in long conversations over tea and food and such, to really make any progress. And the logistics of that, not to mention the difficulty that many deserving and qualified people may not be able to come to such an event, are difficult to imagine…
But, as a thought in the meantime, I like to consider what I’ve asked some of my Religion 101 classes before, as well as a matter I’ve proposed to the Ekklesía Antínoou on a number of occasions, which is an idea derived from the religion scholar Jonathan Z. Smith’s article “Here, There, and Anywhere” from the collection Prayer, Magic, and the Stars in the Ancient and Late Antique World (which, if you haven’t seen it, Tony, I think you’d love for all sorts of reasons!).
Smith fundamentally proposes that there are three types of religion: 1) “Here” religions, which tend to be domestic in focus, and have as their aims things like ensuring prosperity, fertility, healing of the sick in one’s family, ancestor worship, and the like; 2) “There” religions, which tend to be civic in focus, and may have to do with things like land-spirits or such, but tend to deal with patron deities of particular areas, have temples as their major locus of activity, and are communal in their aims, often with certain rules and guidelines about practice, times appropriate to worship, ideas of purity, etc.; 3) “Anywhere” religions, which came about in the various imperial periods and cultures, in which people found themselves having to travel great distances because of administrative work, being in the army, long-distance mercantile activity, and so forth, and thus being out-of-touch with their local civic religious traditions as well as their domestic religious sphere. The latter context gave rise to things like the Mithraic cult amongst tradesmen and soldiers; but it also gave rise to things like Christianity, which did not rely upon a particular place of worship, but instead on the community of believers (e.g. “Where two or three are gathered together in my name,” etc.). It is possible to have some overlap between them (e.g. the “Anywhere” of Christianity eventually had the “There” of certain pilgrimage sites, etc.).
So, asking into which category modern paganism falls would be a good start for the discussion. And, in almost every case, I find that every form of modern paganism–reconstructionist, Wiccan, miscellaneous eclectic, and so forth–is a kind of hybrid “Anywhere”/”Here” religion, in which the main focus tends to be on domestic matters and private religious activities, often with one’s own family and close friends, as well as being something in which holiness and the sacred are not viewed as confined to one particular area, but can be encountered and cultivated anywhere one might happen to be. It is this “Anywhere” sense that allows modern reconstructionism to exist in places that are not the original cultures involved–and that has involved (whether explicit or not) a shift in theology, to imagine that Ephesian Artemis can be worshipped in San Jose, or that Anu (who is a rather local goddess to Southwestern Ireland) can just as easily be worshipped in Minnesota, etc. The “There” element is missing, to a great extent, because not too many people within the overall pagan movement have a dedicated space outside of their own homes, used exclusively for spiritual activities, to which they go on a regular basis and to which they are tied. The “There” of places of ancient significance like Ephesus, Stonehenge, and other such locations is difficult for us to access in a way apart from being tourists, which while it can be enriching, does not allow for “proper” usage of the sites, and even “reconstructed” or “adapted” usage of them has to be done covertly and quietly, so as not to get thrown out, etc. Those who do have access to their own independently maintained “There” sites are very lucky, and I’m all for such things existing (and proliferating!), but it’s simply not the reality for most people. A case could be made for things like PantheaCon and other festivals–being the “temporary autonomous zones” that they are–being a “There” element to an extent, but it’s not entirely the same…
And, having made that evaluation (rightly or wrongly), it would be my sense that where a lot of forms of modern paganism are getting off track somewhat is in thinking that certain “There” functions are applicable or relevant when the organizational and spatio-temporal/geographical realities are not currently in operation. Having very defined rules and regulations, codes of conduct, prescribed modes of worship and practice, etc., are all functions of the “There” mode of religion, in Smith’s reading (and in mine), and trying to suggest, much less enforce, such things when there is no “There” to which it applies, seems a bit premature, at least to me.
[This goes back to another discussion I've had in the past: It's often been said that pagan religions are religion of orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. I certainly agree that orthodoxy isn't/shouldn't be a part of paganism, no matter what some people try to say, and really has no place in it; but I also think that orthopraxy isn't quite right either. Polypraxy is the reality on the ground, and should remain so...But anyway...!?!]
So, all of this builds up to a larger methodological issue: namely, the definition of “paganism,” of what counts and what does not–no matter how broadly and inclusively it might be defined–is much more a function of the “There” side of things, which is exactly what we’re lacking at present, for the most part. There has to be a real shared sense of community and mutual respect, mutual effort and mutual support, for an inclusive definition of paganism to be effective…And–alas!–I’m just not seeing that occurring for the most part, at least where I’ve been looking thus far. One finds pockets of it, of course, but it can’t be said to be the norm.
This is why I think the Communalia ritual is so important (though it’s rather limited in its scope), and why I’m hoping to do it every year at PantheaCon. It isn’t to say that the groups that don’t participate in the ritual are not respected or recognized, but it puts a bit more truth, and “money where one’s mouth is,” to this idea to have representatives of groups taking a public oath as part of a ritual of community-building.
But anyway…There’s a lot to think about here, of course, and thank you for posting this!
Hi Phillip,
Thank you very much for your considered erudite response. I really hadn’t expected any essay length comments to my blog, but the issue does demand careful consideration.
I am fortunate to have Prayer, Magic, and the Stars in the Ancient and Late Antique World in my library, and am quite pleased with a number of the essays contained therein.
Your adaptation of Smith’s tripartite division is thought provoking and begs the question of whether a definition could possibly be found which would appeal to both academics and non-academics. I think that you’ve nailed the crux of the issue, which is that “there has to be a real shared sense of community and mutual respect, mutual effort and mutual support, for an inclusive definition of paganism to be effective.”
I really believe that we as pagans have to be able to define ourselves, even if only approximately, so as to more effectively struggle for rights and recognition.
Tony
Describing–Not Defining
Being a Canaanite Pagan, and practicing the religion of Natib Qadish, this issue strikes near to me. I felt as if my religion were forgotten, overlooked, and ignored by the contemplation of a “European indigenous”* definition of Paganism, which leaves out the rest of the world.
I have been finding out that defining Paganism is a messy problem. I think perhaps this is because the word “definition” contains part of the word “finite”: limited, restricted, fixed, or set. The reason many minds have struggled on a definition is perhaps because by “defining” they unknowingly apply limits to that which constantly changes. By applying hard and fast limits or boundaries, some groups and individuals who wish to be included are almost certain to be accidentally left out.
I’ve been toying with the notion that instead of defining Paganism, we might do better with a list of descriptive criteria. To be *described* as a Pagan, an individual would agree with one or more criterion in a list. I have written a tentative list, and I think that the first criterion is especially important:
Criteria for Being Pagan
A Pagan:
1. Identifies as a Pagan, refers to oneself and/or one’s group Pagan
2. And/or is a pantheist, dualtheist, henotheist, polytheist, or animist
3. And/or admires, respects, or venerates nature and cosmos
4. And/or values diversity and the freedom of or from religion
5. And/or highly regards gods and goddesses, and their cultures
6. And/or believes in prayer, magic, or meditation
7. And/or desires and seeks a direct connection to the divine
8. And/or cares about the wellbeing of oneself and others
I’ve constructed this list to be intentionally vague. The one criterion of being Christian is believing in Jesus in some way, thus many different religions unite under the larger religious category of Christianity: Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, et cetera.
This list of criteria for the religious category of Paganism can easily accommodate expansion, reduction, and rewriting because it is a fluid list, and can change even as Paganism changes. With a descriptive list, we could describe ourselves without pinning ourselves down to static and simplistic, and erroneous definitions such as “earth-centered” or “European,” and others. A good list hopefully would include all who wish to be included, and exclude those who do not wish to be included.
*(As an aside, I would like to note that when people say “European” in reference to the Pagan movement, often they really mean “Northern European,” i.e. Celtic, Germanic, Norse, Baltic, Slavic, et cetera. Southern Europe, which has more in common with other Mediterranean cultures and the Near East slip many folks’ minds–cultures like the Greeks and Romans. Weird, since many of us are first introduced to Pagan gods and goddesses through Greek and Roman mythology in grammar school.)
On an issue attached to “defining” Paganism:
Sensitivity and Cultural (Mis?)Appropriation
When people contemplate the definition of Pagan, there is often the fear of including groups or individuals “guilty” of cultural appropriation or misappropriation. This is another point where the examiniation of a possible definition of Paganism as “European indigenous tradition” gets hairy.
Cultural appropriation has gone on since time immemorial, and indeed I see how Christianity and Judaism have culturally mis/appropriated themes from earlier Canaanite pagan religion. By this notion, all the Christian converts are then guilty of some form of cultural mis/appropriation. Fear of cultural mis/appropriation, eventually limits people into worshipping only the religions of their ancestors, regardless of any other factor such as personal belief.
If I were to look at the ancestors I know, most of them were Christian since 400 years ago at least: does this mean that I must be Christian? Or can I go further back in time and try to find out the religion of my ancestors before Christianity even though the records are nearly nonexistent?
And what if I don’t personally believe in either religion?
The idea that one must worship the religion of one’s ancestors to avoid cultural mis/appropriation is a flawed argument and often seems to edge into the territory of racism. One’s personal beliefs are not always reliant on DNA. Automatically, it would then follow that anyone adhering to the religion of his/her ancestors would become elite within that religion regardless of his/her understanding of that religion or his/her connection to the divine.
This idea of limiting ourselves to the religions of our ancestors places artificial, non-spiritual limits on the expression of spirituality. I think that people who misappropriate cultural material in a crass, insensitive, and unthinking way are a fraction of a minority; we may do better to release the issue and avoid acting as the thought-police.
I think that perhaps in defining or describing Paganism we will likely end up reexamining and contemplating ideas and fears surrounding cultural appropriation and cultural sensitivity, since this may have played a major role in earlier definitions which have tried to define who is Pagan from who is Not Pagan.
Shalamu-wa-Chukmu,
Peace and wisdom,
tess
Hi Tess,
It’s not very pleasant to feel left out by your peers, especially since were are already being marginalized by many in mainstream society.
You raise an interesting point that the term “pagan” has been evolving. The original definition is clearly inadequate, and to further complicate matters, the so-called pagan community has been diversifying over the last few decades.
Your criteria are interesting, but let me play devil’s advocate for a moment. In #1, what of those who do not identify as pagan, possibly because they don’t like the term, yet appear to fit the mould? In #2, what of monotheists such as those who venerate Akhenaten? In #3, while many pagans cherish nature, I don’t think that all do.
Cultural appropriation opens a can of worms. Yes, there are some individuals who exploit cultures for gain, but there are others who are extremely respectful. If a genetic link with the original practitioners of a religious system was required, then many of us would be on shaky ground. For instance, I do not have any Greek or Egyptian blood coursing through my veins.
I really like your statement “This idea of limiting ourselves to the religions of our ancestors places artificial, non-spiritual limits on the expression of spirituality.” I strongly believe in religious freedom, meaning that that everyone should have the right to their own spiritual practice.
Tony
Within a few hours of announcing this blog being posted on Facebook, I received the following on my Wall:
“Patrick states that Andras was quoted out of context regarding his definition of paganism.”
That won’t do, since the audio was posted to the internet, and Andras made a clear and simple declaration that that’s what Paganism “is.”
“Is” is not our friend here :-)
I asked the poster to write this as a comment to the blog in question, but for some reason, this didn’t happen. The issue raised is an important one which certainly deserves an answer. This is the answer that I had prepared:
Thank you for taking the time to post your comment.
Your point is well made that “the audio was posted to the internet, and Andras made a clear and simple declaration that that’s what Paganism ‘is.’” This is clearly the case.
I should probably add a disclaimer that I was unable to attend the PWR and so am dependent on second hand reports. We all know how easy it is for a remark to be taken out of context.
My understanding of the context was that the definition of paganism had been discussed for several days by a number of people prior to Andras’ presentation, and then again immediately after it for an additional couple of hours.
Andras gave his own personal definition, which may well be a true reflection of his experience. Andras made no claim to represent all pagans or have any sort of authority. My understanding is that Andras has been involved with what is now known as the pagan community for roughly 40 years, during which time it has grown and diversified.
I do not agree with Andras’ definition of paganism and clearly quite a few other people do not agree with it either.
How do you define paganism? Who do you feel should be included and/or excluded? What about people who dislike the term pagan – should they be classed as pagans or should their wishes for exclusion be honoured? Discussion is a good thing.
Regards,
Tony
I had a few email exchanges with Sannion about the issue of defining paganism, and while I don’t want to make the contents of those messages public, I did want to draw attention to a post which Sannion wrote on his Live Journal:
http://sannion.livejournal.com/791061.html
Sannion expressed his concerns about the efforts of some individuals to “homogenize” all pagans. While I personally haven’t come across such efforts, I think that it is clear that no one has the right to impose their belief system upon anyone else. We should all be able to stand proud under the pagan umbrella with our belief systems intact – respect those of others, while having our own respected at the same time.
Sumerian reconstructionist, Michele, posted her thoughts on defining paganism as comments numbers 7 and 8 to my blog titled, “Defining Paganism” :
http://hermeticmagick.com/blog/2009/12/16/defining-paganism/#comments
As I wanted to have her definition included with the other comments to this blog, I thought that I’d respond to her here.
Hi Michele,
Thanks for your definition: “Any spirituality not of the tribe of Abraham is pagan.” It’s certainly a very broad definition, encompassing everything outside the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), and including a number of world religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Taoism and Shinto. I’m not sure if the practitioners of these religions (with the exception of Hindus and possibly Shintoists) would see themselves as pagans.
I’m inclined to agree with you about the limitations of the term neopagan – it certainly does not apply to reconstructionists and others who are part of traditions that span a number of generations such as cunning folk and ceremonial magickians (especially those drawing upon medieval grimoires). Wicca actually only goes back to the mid-20th century, but you’re right that some of its components are much older.
Regarding your comment about serving the gods, religion in ancient times tended to be performed with an expectation of some sort of return. As an example, the idea of reciprocity underlies Greek religion. I am sure though, that those who were content with their lot would’ve just been thankful, and wouldn’t have asked for anything.
I am sure that many will agree with your statements regarding magick. Magick can, in fact, be practiced for personal gain. However, at its loftiest expression, the aims of magick are indistinguishable from those of mysticism – namely, an experience, or union with deity. Another really important point is that the ancients didn’t have the strict delineation between religion and magick that we do. This was a prejudice that plagued academic writings until the last few decades. A good starting point for looking into this is “Between Magic and Religion: Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and Society,” edited by Sulochana Asirvatham and others. I am frequently amused by the efforts of various academics in finding the dividing line between religion and magick – virtually all of them have different ideas – they’re all sure that there’s a difference, yet none of them can find it. The reality is that ancient religion had magickal elements and magick had religious elements. Trying to draw a dividing line is an exercise in futility.
As a Sumerian reconstructionist, you’d be far more familiar with Sumerian texts than I would, but the ones I have looked at are intensely magickal. Healing, exorcism and necromancy were a very visible part of the Sumerian religion.
I see the practice of magick as a choice. Even though it was practiced widely in the ancient world doesn’t mean that reconstructionists today have to practice it. Reconstructionists have to ensure that their practices are relevant to contemporary society and themselves.
As for where the whole Eurocentric definition of paganism came from, another often cited source is “A History of Pagan Europe” by Prudence Jones & Nigel Pennick.
You’re absolutely correct that we need a term to unite us, even if only to have the advantage of strength in numbers. While the term pagan has a lot of baggage, it has the advantage of having been in usage for a long time.
There’s certainly a lot of food for thought in your writings. Thank you for sharing.
Tony
Hello, Tony,
About the descriptive list, you are correct that not all Pagans adhere to these criteria–hence the “and/or” listed with each criterion. I had forgotten to mention that a Pagan would be likely to follow at least one of the criteria; certainly s/he would not have to adhere to all of them.
I think, however, that the first criterion is the most important: for an individual to be described as Pagan s/he would have to describe oneself as Pagan. Ideally, this would include those who wish to be included as Pagans, and exclude those who do not wish to be labeled as Pagan.