Defending Eclectic Neopaganism

[Syrinx]

I came across this a while ago and just found it again in my bookmarks. I found it interesting, thought some of you might too :)

http://grotto.hollow-hill.com/eclecticism.html
Defending Eclectic Neopaganism
By Ben Gruagach

There is a trend among some_ Reconstructionist_Neopagans to dismiss Neopagans who are admitted_Eclectics in their religious practice and philosophy._ Recently, Sannion wrote an editorial titled “Defending Reconstructionism” to address the conflict and to present some of the arguments from a Reconstructionist's viewpoint._ Sannion’s editorial can be found on the web at http://sannion.bravepages.com/Defending_Recon.html and has been reprinted in the September 2002 issue (#27) of the Cauldron and Candle email newsletter, available at http://www.ecauldron.com.

Sannion begins by saying that those who challenge Reconstructionism are "fluffy." _It must be pointed out that Neopagans who are not following specifically Reconstructionist paths are not necessarily “fluffy” by default._ The term “fluffy” has come to mean Neopagan practitioners who are largely ignorant of their own religion’s history, sources, and often core issues._ “Fluffy” Neopagans are thought to be involved in alternative religions for shock value or as a fashion statement rather than out of a desire for spiritual understanding and discipline._ “Fluffy” Neopagans are those who accept any claim at face value – apparently lacking critical skills to distinguish objective reality from fantasy._ “Fluffy” Neopagans generally lack credibility except amongst other “Fluffy” Neopagans, because they often can’t provide any evidence to support their claims. _By clarifying what "fluffy" Neopagans are, it's easier to recognize that there are indeed Neopagans who aren't Reconstructionists who are also not "fluffy." _Doreen Valiente, Janet Fararr, Vivianne Crowley, Margot Adler, Starhawk - are these Neopagans "fluffy" because they aren't specifically Reconstructionists? _They are all Wiccans, and Wicca is outside the Reconstructionist category by most determinations.

There are undoubtedly some individuals who are new to Reconstructionist traditions who pick up a single book and then declare themselves “experts,” which easily puts them firmly within the “fluffy” category._ And likewise, there are Neopagans who do not belong to Reconstructionist traditions who are thorough scholars, who are realists, who can provide extensive evidence to support claims they make._ Being a Reconstructionist does not make you immune from being “fluffy,” and not being a Reconstructionist does not make you “fluffy” automatically either.

Let's clarify the issue more by making clear distinctions between the two groups that Sannion describes as being at odds, and give them general labels: Reconstructionists and Eclectics._ Reconstructionists are those who are basing their religions as closely as possible on a specific historical model._ Eclectics are those who do not limit themselves to one specific historical model, but are apt to select influences from a wide range of cultures and historical periods._ Eclectics are also just as likely to invent new concepts or practices for inclusion as they are to draw from established systems.

Sannion presented five main objections that Reconstructionist Neopagans hear from Eclectic Neopagans, and attempted to refute each of these._ Let’s start by looking at those five objections and Sannion's arguments and see where they take us.

1. “All Reconstructionists do is study; they don’t actually live the religion.”
Sannion argues that Reconstructionists do tend to be predominantly book-based, but this doesn’t mean they don’t pray to their deities or perform rituals or devotions. _

The argument comes across as based on a rather shallow taunt – “my religion is better than yours because we do more ritual than you do.”_ It also misses the perhaps more subtle point – that a religion is a way of life, a living and breathing part of existence that isn’t experienced primarily through the study of the written word._ Study of mythology and history can help us get a better understanding of our ancestors, and hopefully will shed light on ourselves._ Eclectics acknowledge that things change, that the things written down in the history books are just the start of the story._ The present and the future are just as important as the past._ Perhaps the Eclectic complaint is that Reconstructionists are not focusing enough on the present, on their individual and current relationships with the Divine, in favor of focusing almost exclusively on what people did long ago.

It doesn’t really matter who is doing more ritual or more devotions as part of their religion._ It doesn’t really matter if the religious practices are strictly individual and private, or public and communal._ It does matter if you are living in the present or sacrificing the present for a mythical idealized past.

[Syrinx]

2. “Reconstructionism is too restrictive and doesn’t allow for personal expression.”
Sannion argues that Eclectic Neopagans are uncritical, that they accept everything without distinguishing good from bad._ It is also pointed out that within specific Reconstructionist traditions (for example Greek paganism) there is a lot of room for creativity: Greek Reconstructionism includes Minoan, Myceneaean, Homeric, Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman periods spanning roughly from 1500 BCE through 400 CE._ “And yet [Eclectic] Neopagans still want more freedom,” Sannion says.

Eclectic Neopagans mostly work under the idea that they use what works for them._ It’s something that varies from group to group, and often from individual to individual._ If something doesn’t work for an individual or group, they’ll drop it or ignore it._ That does not mean that individuals or groups are not selective, that they do not hold some standards against which philosophies or practices are measured._ Eclectic Neopagans, individually and as working groups, can be just as critical as any Reconstructionist._ The standards might be different, but different does not mean one standard is necessarily better or worse than another.

Eclectic Neopagans as an entire group can be said to accept everything, because if you look you’ll surely find an Eclectic Neopagan who does believe whatever specific idea is brought forth._ The same can be said of Reconstructionists as a whole – pick an idea, and you’re sure to find a Reconstructionist somewhere who believes that particular idea.

The selection of a specific culture and period in history as the basis for a religion is itself artifical and forced._ For example, the Celtic peoples were varied and far from homogenous, yet Reconstructionists will just as happily blend different clan or regional deities, myths, and practices._ Ancient Greece, as another example, was a land made up of very independent city-states, each with its own set of deities and religious practices._ Rome, on the other hand, did its best to institute a “state religion” or collection of religions, and to do this it consciously absorbed and adopted various tribal religions from Italy, Greece, Egypt, and elsewhere._ The ideaof a “pure culture,” “pure religion,” or “pure ethnic group” is very artificial and arbitrary._ Cultures adopt ideas and mythology from each other all the time._ To pretend that a religion or culture is “pure” is rather naïve.

Many Eclectic Neopagans (although not all, of course) also work under the philosophy that “all gods are one God, all goddesses are one Goddess,” and often also believe that God and Goddess are merely two gender aspects of a single, all-pervasive Divine that is beyond human understanding as a whole._ They believe that we approach and interact with the Divine through distinct “aspects” that appear to human perception as independent individuals._ To expect an Eclectic Neopagan who believes “all gods are one God” to limit themselves to an arbitrary group of deities (whether selected by geographic region, historical period, or whatever criteria) is an artificial and unnecessary limitation._ Eclectics allow themselves the right to decide how to approach the Divine, which names they feel most comfortable using when speaking with Them, and usually assume the same right to others whether they are Eclectic or not.

Sannion presented an analogy of two musicians to reinforce the idea that limiting study to one cultural and historical period is best._ Of course, there are other analogies that can be presented to argue to opposite. _

Imagine that there are two chefs._ One chef limits herself to just twelve ingredients, selected because they were native to one geographic area and period in history._ She also combines and prepares those ingredients only in ways that are historically supported for the time period and location selected._ She becomes highly proficient and is satisfied with her achievements in the kitchen._ Perhaps she becomes famous for a particular “speciality” dish.

The second chef, however, does not limit herself to a specific set of ingredients, methods of combining, or methods of preparing those ingredients._ She feels free to explore other cultures, try new dishes, and incorporate what she likes best into her own familiar menu._ Because she is able to explore and test, she invents some new dishes and methods of preparing ingredients that become new delicacies._ Those experiments that didn’t work out are discarded in favor of those that succeeded._ She learns from her mistakes and sees exposure to new ingredients and methods as a starting place, not the final destination in her culinary life.

Reconstructionists probably do see themselves in the analogy of the two musicians – they are the ones who apply themselves to learning one instrument, immerse themselves in the established understanding of that instrument, and strive to master it._ Eclectics, however, probably see themselves in the analogy of the two chefs – they are the ones who allow themselves the freedom to explore, borrow, and invent, and strive to contribute something vibrant and new.

Is one right and the other wrong?_ Or are they just different approaches for different kinds of people?

[Syrinx]

3. “Reconstructionists are mean.”
Sannion argues that Neopagans who are not part of Reconstructionist traditions are not critical._ “And they [non-Reconstructionist Neopagans] tend to believe that everything is subjective and just a matter of opinion.”

Religion is a subjective thing – it’s far from objective in any sense._ Reconstructionist traditions are working from historical opinions that are based on interpretations of archaeological and textual evidence._ Religion, like history, is always open to interpretation._ New evidence is always being discovered, new circumstances arise which force us to re-evaluate and reconsider. _

We humans can rarely agree about absolute determinations of "what really happened" in current events, so what makes us think we can do so for past history where we are often working from fragmented evidence?

There does appear to be a larger emphasis on scholarly standards within the Reconstructionist traditions than in the Eclectic community at large._ This does not mean, however, that there are no Eclectic scholars, and that statements made by Eclectics are never critically examined._ Religions that are more popular will invariably have more “fluffy” followers._ There is a growing push within the Eclectic community as well towards critical scholarship such as the growing attention given to Ronald Hutton’s work, among others._ To label a whole group “uncritical” while ignoring the increasingly more prominent critical elements within that group seems premature.

4._ “Reconstructionists are too focused on the past.”
Sannion argues that Reconstructionists are not Luddites._ They base their traditions on the best from their chosen cultural group and time period, ignoring elements such as slavery and animal or human sacrifice which are incompatible with modern values.

This is one of the strongest arguments for Eclecticism, as it acknowledges that it is impractical and likely impossible to recreate exactly what the ancients did._ The difference is that Reconstructionists have chosen to limit their inspiration upon an arbitrary cultural group and time period (which may or may not be accurate in its modern assumptions of homogeneity of that cultural group and time period)._ This is the gist of this particular argument against Reconstructionism – that the limitation to one group at one time period for the basis of a modern tradition is arbitrary._ One group's or individual’s choice in no way invalidates the choices of others to limit themselves or not in similar fashion.

If Reconstructionists admit, as Sannion does, “…we aren’t pretending to be ancient people…_ [w]e are moderns, and gladly accept the positive things about modern culture” then why do they condemn Eclectic Neopagans because they aren’t pretending to be ancient people either?_ If an Eclectic Neopagan isn’t claiming to be carrying on an unchanged tradition from a specific cultural group at a specific time period, then why should a Reconstructionist be concerned?_ Many Neopagans do not feel drawn to Christianity, Judaism, or Islam specifically because they feel there is no such thing as a “One True Way” for all people._ Why should Reconstructionists object when other Neopagans choose to follow their religions with different cultural or historical sources of inspiration?

5._ “Reconstructionists are just making it up.”
This argument is the weakest._ Sannion attributes this complaint against Reconstructionists to the “fluffiest” of non-Reconstructionist Neopagans – those who claim to carry on a tradition when the historical evidence does not back them up._ It becomes an attack on the poor scholarship of the “fluffy” non-Reconstructionist instead of an argument addressing the charge that Reconstructionists aren’t really following an undisturbed ancient tradition, either.

Sannion admitted that Reconstructionists are in fact eclectic in their careful selection of what to include and what to exclude as part of their traditions._ They include modern ideas and values, where often the original culture and time period used as the basis for the tradition would have differed._ Even the original cultures and historical periods selected are not “pure,” as ancient cultures borrowed, adopted, and changed myth and philosophy from their neighbors the same way modern people do._ Some cultures, like the Roman empire, were quite openly eclectic._ It is puzzling that today’s Neopagans, especially ones who pride themselves on their thorough scholarship such as Reconstructionists, should try and insist eclecticism should be sneered at._ If the ancients did it, and the ways of the ancients are clearly good enough for the Reconstructionists to emulate, then eclecticism should certainly be acceptable for all Neopagans.

The entire argument appears to really be about scholarship within the Neopagan community – what constitutes credibility, and how credible are we to outsiders._ There is certainly a problem with what has been termed “fluffy” behavior, where practitioners exhibit little or no attempt to critically examine claims._ This is not solely found within the Eclectic Neopagan community despite what some Reconstructionists would claim._ We should be encouraging critical thought regardless of the tradition (or lack of one) among all Neopagans._ This means that Reconstructionists as well must critically examine their own assumptions and challenge their own beliefs that Eclecticism is suspect.

[jaimethepooh]

Ty :)

[mom2cvam]

ty :)

[Willow]

I'm an eclectic. :) I have a lot of different traditions I'm interested in. Mainly Shamanism and Celticism but there are others too.

[Syrinx]

I'm an eclectic too... I find many traditions interesting, but I'm especially drawn to Greek and Egyptian.

[jaimethepooh]

Magickal Improvisation:
A Necessary Skill For The Eclectic



In most good magickal texts, you'll often run across a detailed list of spell ingredients and instructions for any particular spell. The problem is, (and I admit this is true with my own books as well as with others), sometimes it can be difficult to find specific components and in some cases, the instructions have a way of getting lost at the wrong time during your ritual/spell work.

Perhaps your town has a total population of two thousand people, half of whom are fundamentalists, and five out of the six book/gift shops are Christian-oriented. Or maybe you already know that you can buy what you need on-line but you don't own a credit card so that option isn't viable. Or you started a spell and you need an ingredient now, you don't have time to wait for your mail-order package to arrive. Or perhaps you have access to good magickal shops but you just don't have the cash or the time to run out to pick up some Lilac Oil and Wormwood. Or you get to the Circle and realize you left your entire portable Witch-Kit some twenty miles back at home and you have nothing but a hastily cut willow branch with which to lead the ritual.

So what do you do? Well, if the texts really are good, somewhere in the book, they will advise you to substitute and/or improvise when you need to. Very few spells can only be worked with a select few ingredients and while certain rituals are meant to be done only in a certain manner, there is no real reason why you shouldn't improvise when necessary.

It's up to you, however, to familiarize yourself enough with the deities, herbs, oils and other elements we call upon and use so that you can substitute when necessary. After all, if you are willing to take the responsibility for casting the spell, you should be prepared for the unexpected chaos that always seems to filter into our magickal Circles.

We are human-and all humans make mistakes and forget and lose things. I've been to Circles before where we forgot the matches, where the "Spirits of the West" inexplicably decided that they wanted to become the "Spirits of the East" during the invocation, where we suddenly realized that the wonderful sachets we were going to make weren't going to happen without the material to make the pouches, where incense refused to light and so on. Friends have reported such wonderful happenings as scripts catching on fire, the sacred mead tasted like vinegar, and the Priestess ending up hobbling in with a cast and needing to lead the ritual from a chair.

One of the problems most ritualists seem to face is that of self confidence-for some reason it seems hard for many budding Witches to accept the idea that they can change a spell or ritual to suit their needs without destroying the energy. This shaky self-esteem can be seen in similar beliefs such as: someone else's spell will work better than your own; that you can't learn on your own but must be "taught" by a guru; that if you don't perform the spell or ritual exactly as it is written, it either won't work or will backfire.

In a sense, this is similar to the concept of changing a recipe. I cook without instructions 99% of the time-I create my own recipes. Seldom will I try something out without altering at least one or two points. Partly this comes about because I almost never have exactly what the recipe calls for. Another reason comes into play when I look at it and think, hmmm, I could use a whisk on that instead of a mixer, and if I bake it in two smaller pans, I can put one in the freezer for later...that sort of thing. I don't remember the last time I made something exactly as called for in a recipe I was trying out.

Now, I know some people who cringe when I tell them this. They have so little confidence in their culinary abilities that they're afraid if they alter so much as one teaspoon of broth, the whole casserole will fall apart. In some cases, they might be right. But if they learn how to deconstruct a recipe down to its essential core, they can reconstruct it using the ingredients and resources they have on hand without having to go to the store. The same applies to magickal work and rituals.

Improvisation During Ritual

Rituals are easier to re-create because they are seldom, (unless they are ceremonial magick or some other form of traditional rite), fixed into a one-size fits all format. For example: say you want to perform a ritual in honor of the Blue Moon. You've got a written script by one of your favorite authors and she calls for, among other things, heather oil, periwinkle-colored candles, moon water, Artemis incense and you are supposed to wear a white robe with pearls beaded onto it. I'm not kidding-I've read rituals which are this specific and I've written some which are this specific. The Blue Moon is this evening, and you didn't have time to run to the store.

You look through your candle stash-no periwinkle colored candles at all, but you have blue, green, red and white. Since it's a Blue Moon ritual, which is a full moon, either white or blue seem like appropriate choices, so pick your favorite. Ask your instinct what color would most fit your needs tonight.

When you search out your moon water bottle, you find a bare few drops-you forgot to charge some last month. So you might take your moonstone out of the jar and put it in the dish you are using to hold the water, and then cover it with spring water. Not, perhaps, as effective as actual moon water, but it will still bring with it the energy of the moon.

Next you look through your incenses-nope-no Artemis incense. Pull out that copy of The Witches' Goddess by the Farrars and check under magickal correspondences in her listing. You may not have an incense directly related to her, but you have-yes! You do have jasmine incense and jasmine is a scent over which she rules. So you now have your incense.

Lastly, you have nothing remotely resembling a white robe with pearls beaded on it. However, you have a pale blue nightgown and you have a pearl necklace. There's no reason why this outfit won't work as a ritual gown and jewelry. The pale blue will mirror the color of the moon, and the pearl necklace takes care of the beaded aspects of the robe. You are now prepared for your Blue Moon Ritual and you can be proud that you didn't let any of these obstacles prevent you from enjoying the energy of the evening.

This same premise applies to invocations and incantations. Perhaps the words just don't quite apply to you-you might be asked to invoke Artemis to bring you game when you have no interest in hunting; you can always alter this to make it apply to something you are seeking. Perhaps you aren't hunting elk, but you are hunting a job-you might ask for Her help in ferreting out the right place for you to be working. And true-your own words and poetry might not be as eloquent as the original writer's work-but the best invocations come from the heart and if your intent and meaning are sincere, your invocation will have strength and energy behind it.

Substitution In Spell Work

When you are substituting ingredients in a spell, you have to keep several things in mind. One is the energy of the ingredient you are seeking a substitute for. Another, is the nature of the ingredient. If you are blending an oil, you will need to find a substitute oil. If you are blending herbs, then you will need to find another herb that will do the trick.

If you have passed beyond the Wicca 101 stage of the Craft, you should have a working knowledge of a number of basic herbs and their properties by now. If you don't, then you might want to set aside a few weeks for study time (remember, learning the Craft is as much of an education as any other avenue of study). Not everyone needs to be proficient as an herbalist, but you should be able to name a few herbs to match most of the basic energies we work with. Love, prosperity, spiritual energy, protection, purification-these are all basic aspects of life with which we work as Witches and to know corresponding herbs, oils and gemstones is to increase your autonomy as both Witch and ritualist.

It helps to have some basic reference texts and some of the best that I can recommend are thus: Magickal Herbalism and The Encyclopedia of Magical Herbs-both by Scott Cunningham. His book The Complete Book of Incenses, Oils and Brews is also an invaluable reference tool. There are also good correspondences for gemstones in Marina Medicini's book Good Magic. The Herb Book by John Lust is one of the best herbals (though not specifically magickal) that I've ever owned. Most magickal texts include tables of correspondences in the Appendices.

Again, if we look at the cooking metaphor-once you know the flavors of the different wines, herbs and spices, you can pretty much guess how a dish will turn out. If you remember that a dash of port is a full-bodied addition to a roast but it is usually too heavy for chicken, that sherry works well with poultry and fish, that cinnamon and raisins are a wonderful combination, that tarragon goes well with poultry but is usually too light for red meat...that one cup of flour to one teaspoon of baking powder is the usual proportion for creating a cake base...then you will usually be able to substitute and create as you need to.

Magick works the same way. If you want to cast a prosperity spell but you are out of "Money Drawing Oil" and you used the last of your Prosperity Powder dusting your destitute sister's purse, then you can easily substitute for yourself without going to debt.

[jaimethepooh]

First, look at the spell. It calls for parsley, cinnamon sticks, dragon's blood, oats, and cloves, along with Money Drawing Oil. When you look in your cupboard, you find the parsley and dragon's blood, but you don't have any cinnamon sticks, no oatmeal, no cloves and you're fresh out of Money Drawing Oil. Do you have to go without Prosperity Powder? Not at all.

Dig a little deeper into those cupboards. You find a box of Cheerios sitting in the back-taking care of the oats dilemma. You have ground cinnamon and basil-both of which you know fall under the "prosperity" category. You don't have Money Drawing Oil, but you do have Dill Oil and Earth Oil. Because you know your correspondences, you know that dill is supposed to draw prosperity, and Earth Oil is good for manifestation. So you powder a few of the oat rings, toss in some parsley, basil, ground cinnamon and dragon's blood, add a few drops of both dill and earth oils, and there you go-charge with energy and your Prosperity Powder is ready.

Will it work? Of course it will-just because you altered the basic spell components doesn't mean your spells won't work. What it does mean is that you have invoked the primary rule the Gods seem to work by: they help those who help themselves. Instead of whining or worrying, you have forged ahead, done your research and strengthened your own abilities within the Craft.

Of course, sometimes you will actually realize that your cupboards are bare and that you really do need to stock up on supplies. But you can still find ways around having to buy ingredients that you can't find. If you live near a park or wooded area, or even if you have a back yard, you can usually find some plant that corresponds to what you need. If you have chamomile growing, you have an herb for prosperity. Gather a clipping of that...or perhaps you need cedar for smudging. Ask the tree if you can have a few of its needles, take only what you need, and never more than 25% of the plant, or a select bough/branch of the tree. If the plant is on someone else's property, ask them first.

No quartz crystals? Almost every place seems to have rocks with little flakes of quartz crystals in them-these will work in a pinch, even if it's not quite as strong as a clear crystal point. Need green ink but don't have any? How about food coloring and a quill?

My point here is not to tell you where to find these things, but to reassure you that yes-you can, with a little self confidence and creativity, find workable solutions to your magickal needs. Perhaps it may seem a little funny to some people, and if you suddenly haul out the Cheerios during a prosperity ritual with others you are bound to get a few strange looks, but who cares? You are doing what you know works for you. If you are working with people who are so uptight that they can only go by the book, then perhaps it's time someone showed them there are others avenues to explore. Or perhaps they are not the people you, as an eclectic, need to be working with. Never impose your views on someone else, but gently encourage them to branch out, to experiment, to stretch their magickal muscles.

This way, on a night when you find yourself on the beach with no tools or herbs or ritual gowns in sight...when the moon is rising full in the sky and the lonely call of the gulls begs you to open your arms, run laughing across the sand, to drape yourself in kelp and join the Undines for a romp in the bay...if you are open to magickal improvisation, you will most likely have one of the most memorable rituals of your life. I know-it's happened for me, and I'll never forget those moments, or turn away from them as they continue to present themselves.

[Willow]

Thanks jaime :) I run into that problem a lot. I always seem to be missing at least one of the herbs that I need. I never thought of using Cheerios in a spell before. lol

[jaimethepooh]

:)

[Syrinx]

Cool, thanks! At least I rarely run out of Cheerios :D

[jaimethepooh]

:D