So, there are a number of bloggers in the Pagan blogosphere who have decided that "Pagan" is the wrong label. A large number of them are of the hard polytheist and/or Reconstructionist strain, although not all of them. And there have been a number of reaction posts about them from folks who do still claim the label.
One of the better posts has been P. Sufenas Virius Lupus's post on the Queer I Stand blog, Bringing Back The Gods, which pointed up some of the various branches of the large clump of practices we call Pagan that have been leaning away from theistic language, much less polytheistic. Christine Kraemer replied with Three Legs on the Pagan Cauldron: Must Pagans Be Polytheists?, which points out that polytheism is only one of three major threads of the Pagan conglomeration; she identifies the other two as "earth-based spirituality" and "Goddess worship," although that last is qualified somewhat.
While I would argue that there are some other threads in Pagan identity that are almost as important as those three, if not more so (I personally would argue that "magick/divination/energy work" has been at least as important in the development of the Witchcraft traditions, and that the presence or absence of that thread is one of the huge stumbling blocks between Witches of any stripe and the hardcore Reconstructionists), I basically like Kraemer's argument. It to a certain extent illuminates why I function well in the Pagan community but rarely feel quite at home. As far as I can tell, I've always been at heart both a cosmos-worshipper (I'll not limit it to Earth; much as I love Terra Mater, a lot of my personal worship has been sky- and water-focused) and a polytheist, and for me those are largely welded together. I didn't have to be told about dryads and naiads; I just needed to find out their names. And I took a wide turn through Goddess Spirituality over the course of my 20s, which I desperately needed to do to shed the dead skin of the Yahvism I was brought up in, but that largely didn't stick. All of my patrons are goddesses except for the Green Man, who I think is really more a daimon than a theos - but I don't think of Them as aspects of The Goddess, except in the sense that I think of myself and the Spouse and my lovers as aspects of Humanity. I mean, from a certain point of view, it's true that we are, and They are, but that's not generally how any of us think of ourselves, and it's not terribly useful when dealing with us.
That's fine for me, but it doesn't really help much when dealing with members of my community who are nature-focused Goddess worshippers who couldn't care less about the names by which they call divinity. And more and more, I'm realizing that the Fun Maven contingent largely falls into that category, or more properly pair of categories. It's not that they have any animosity towards those of us who care about historical accuracy; they just don't care, and can't imagine why we would. This also seems to be the default orientation of CUUPs groups, which saddens me greatly - who the Queen of Heaven is that we're offering these cakes to is of great concern to me (hint: it's one of Astarte, Asherah, or Shapshu), but for them, that there is a Queen at all is sufficient revelation.
I mentioned the magickal thread a couple of paragraphs ago. I'd be lying through my teeth if I didn't admit that it was almost as strong a thread drawing me to my current path as polytheism and cosmos-worship were, and that's one of the reasons that I still call myself a Witch despite not really identifying with Wicca per se. And, despite caring about historicity, it's one of the reasons I don't really fit in with most of the Reconstructionist groups - most of them limit magick to either liminal roles or very specific circumstances, if they accept it at all. Like most practitioners, I simultaneously know that it's a load of tosh and experience that it works, often quite powerfully, which seems to be the standard paradox of magick. And while the festival Fun Mavens are often as into magick as I am, the CUUPsers tend not to be.
However, one of the reasons I still quite like Pagan as an identity is that it is more explicit about (or at least inclusive of) the polytheistic aspect than Wiccan or Witch is, while not so specific as to start cutting off some of the magickal or earth-focused aspects, like many of the specific Reconstructionist labels do. While "Polytheist" is certainly accurate in my case, it does leave out both the cosmos-worship aspects (some polytheists did that, some didn't) and the magickal aspects (many historical polytheists were quite suspicious of magickal practices, nearly as much so as the monotheists turned out to be). I also associate Pagan with more sex-positivity than most of the other available labels, too, although I know that's not always an accurate association. Still, of what we have, it does best in my case. Until someone comes up with something better, I'll stick with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment