h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

OK, I hope this is constructive - it's certainly meant to be.

<<>>

Paganism is not, in and of itself, a belief system. 'Paganism' is an umbrella term covering a variety of philosophies and spiritual systems, and has a meaning that has evolved over the last 100 years or so, our current general usage owing most of its connotations to the Edwardian romantic poets (as you should know, having read 'Triumph'). This sentence could leave out the 'Paganism' and say instead 'a pagan spiritual path'.
-----------------
<<>>>

--OK. Typically, those who self-identify as pagan will claim to have some sort of Earth-worship going on. Most of them really believe that they hold the Earth as sacred, and some of them even have behaviour to match. But when you see a convoy of single-occupancy vehicles turning up from 6 miles away for a Druidic Earth healing ritual (I will not name names unless plied with sufficient booze, and then only in person ), you just know that it's nearly all talk and no walk. That's a personal gripe with pagans though, not a comment on your article.
---------------------
<<>>

--I'm really not sure about Eurocentric, given the vast numbers of Weekend Warrior shamans out there (most of whom don't even know what the word really means, and who would turn white with shock if they found out what 'totem' actually means as well). OK, so the current fashion for the sort of 'Celtic shamanism' proposed by the Matthews does mean that some weird, historically inaccurate (ring mail? Ring mail??!) version of European history circa the Iron Age is going on in a lot of people's paths, but I'd have said fantastical romantic rather than Eurocentric. The place where the majority of neopagans (globally) are getting their ideas from bears little or no resemblance to any actual place. I would be inclined to leave out references to geography.
-------------------
> Many Pagans do not belong to any particular Pagan Tradition or any organisation, and are often referred to as "solitaries". Solitaries are not considered to be any more or less Pagan than Pagans who are members of specific Traditions.

--I would also say that solitary, especially in the UK anyway, refers specifically to witchcraft rather than anything else. It tends to be used to denote an individual practising something individually that can also be practised as a group. You don't get 'solitary' shaman because it is a solitary path, and you don't tend to get solitary hedge witches either. The solitary term is one I have seen growing in usage over recent years, particularly in the US, to distinguish those self-identifying as Wiccan (even though Wicca is an initiatory mystery tradition, so you can't have a solitary Wiccan unless he/she has left the coven).
-------------------
<<>>

--They're not really traditions, though, are they? They just get called that because it makes people feel better. I wouldn't refer to any of these as traditions at all, because it is a misnomer. I don't really care how many Celtic Faery Wiccans there are out there, it can't be any more than 20 years old and that isn't 'traditional'. 'Spiritual paths' is a much better term, in my opinion, and is less likely to get the article laughed at by proper folklorists as well.
----------------------
<<>>

--This is simply inaccurate. Wicca is an initiatory, mystery religion that is just about old enough to be a tradition now. Believing in the Law of Threefold Return and the Rede does not make a person a Wiccan, nor does claiming to be one. This is different in the US, I do understand that, but Wicca still has an original meaning and an original use, and while you might point out that the term has been co-opted, primarily by Americans who found the term 'witch' too controversial (witches in the UK never stopped being witches), most of those calling themselves Wiccan would not be called so by Gardner, who invented it.
----------------------
<<>>

--You may wish to discuss the precise meaning of sacrifice in a footnote, as most people associate it with suffering when it only means 'to make sacred'.
---------------------
<<>>

I also think you should be really careful with capitalisation, which tends to lead the reader to interpret it as an inclusive set, when 'pagan' isn't really, particularly when talking about things like this which are quite sticky. People make offerings for different reasons, and sometimes the offerings they make aren't important to them but are to the Deity, which makes it important to them. These are subtleties that aren't necessarily important to deal with in this article, but you have to think about the connotations and implications of what you are writing, and make sure that your summary isn't so vague that it leads people to the wrong end of the stick entirely. It's really important that a basic introduction gives a brief but accurate overview, leaving the reader with questions rather than false impressions.
-----------------------
<<>>

--But if it wasn't, and they still did it, that wouldn't mean that they weren't pagan, would it?

Be really careful not to paint pagans with a rosy brush. I know that there has been persecution and all that, but I really don't think that making things seem nicer and friendlier than they necessarily are. I would leave that bit out altogether rather than making a categorical statement about what 'Pagans' do. I would avoid any categorical statement at all in the article.

At the end of the day, I would not want one of my work colleagues, who know that I am pagan, to come up to me having read this article and expect me to do or to believe in something because it says so in your article. Rather than writing 'Pagans do/don't/believe' you could say something like 'most pagans' or 'the common pagan systems include' or something like that.
-----------------------
<<>>

--Typo -- 'entity'.

A lot of people use altars just as places to keep the cool stuff that the universe has gifted them as well, and don't think anything so specific of them.
---------------------------
<<>>

--Heh. Mine, if you can call it an altar, hasn't been dusted since August. Be really careful with the categorical statements.
------------------------
<<< Sadly, some visitors do not understand that burning candles and incense at such sites and taking souvenirs can cause irreperable damage. The Ancient Sacred Landscape Network exists to educate visitors to ancient sites. This article deals with the same issue.>>>

--That article was written by a good friend of mine, after we went on a trip together. I take it you have looked at the series of articles I have up as well? I have given lectures on this at things like BroomCon, and I was a speaker at the first ASLaN conference and I still work for them. I also have an article up on how to perform ritual without causing damage, which people might find useful.
--------------------
<<>>

--There's a great book called the Urban Shaman. I'll look up the reference for you when I get home.
------------------------
<<< In actual fact, Paganism is so decentralised, so diverse, so experiential, so fundamentally opposed to proselytising10 >>>

--Categorical again. Never met someone who's just had a reiki attunement? That's scary, no matter if they are pagan.
---------------------
<<>>

--It's weird you should say this and reference Hutton. Hutton is quite clear that Graves did intend this book to be taken literally. A bit like Julian Cope, who is equally caught up in his own matriarchal fantasies.
-----------------------
<<>>

--Don't let her hear you say that. Jenny is a seiðr, which isn't really the same thing at all. I could go at some length about the meaning of shaman, but you'd get bored. Shaman is about as close a term as you'll get to what I do, but I'd never use because it would be cultural misappropriation.
----------------------
Proselytising is the conversion of another, usually into one's own religious group. Pagans find this intrusive and offensive. It is believed that anyone who becomes a Pagan should do so under their own steam.

--You're doing that categorical thing again. Have you met any pagan parents who are practically brainwashing their kids into being pagan too? It does happen.

It's a good article, but you have to be careful not to let the backlash against persecution and misunderstanding lead you into brightening up the truth a little. My own opinion is that pagans should be pagans, warts and all, we're only human after all. We don't have any moral high ground, we are not spiritually and ethically superior, we're just different.

Be careful with the categorical statement and the capitalisation - it does lead to implications that you may not intend or even see yourself.

Hope that isn't too horrid to read, it isn't meant to be

Who's your friend? Tell her I'm happy to get emails from people, although it can take me a few days to respond because I'm terribly busy all the time.

"Proselytising is the conversion of another, usually into one's own religious group. Pagans find this intrusive and offensive. It is believed that anyone who becomes a Pagan should do so under their own steam."

"--You're doing that categorical thing again. Have you met any pagan parents who are practically brainwashing their kids into being pagan too? It does happen."

That happens in other Religeons too. I mean, I'm a Catholic, but my parents would go nuts if I told them that I wanted to convert to one of the eight other official 'mainstream' religeons, let alone paganism.

I'm a bit rushed at the moment, but quickly skimmed the replies - I'll be back to hopefully do them justice (and no, Ravenbait, it wasn't horrible at all!).

BTW, maybe it depends on the people who've had reiki attunements - when I had mine, I just felt tremendously calm; all the people who I know who got them seemed either very calm or full of beans, but there was no proselytising involved. Maybe I'm lucky to be hanging around with sane people

Hello!

Cool account of paganism, not quite sure I understand this peer review lark - sounds scarily like work - but it said one could pay compliments and so I shall. I thought it was good, balanced and introductory as intended.

As a nit picking aside though, while I wholeheartedly concur that Murray and Fraser's method is totally outmoded to describe people who made outstanding contributions to the field of social anth. as 'appalling methodologically' seems out of keeping with the care you take elsewhere to give a balanced picture. Perhaps suggest that, for example, Murray reached outrageous conclusions (her theories) because of her ethnocentric approach. Makes the same point, as I said I am nit picking.

Emily

ps. Have you read Gaskill's 'Hellish Nell', deserves a reference perhaps too, as it connects the rise of spiritualism in the 1940's to witch belief.

Emily: No, I haven't, but it sounds interesting. I shall have a look-see - thanks

Ravenbait: I'm running the article, and the article you wrote, past a friend who's an anthropology of religion prof to get her input on it too. So far, I'm learning some interesting things about attempting to define religion and tradition, self-labelling, and co-identification, and so on. It'll take a little while to absorb her critique and yours, but I shall be on it rapid

Can't wait to see it. Y'know, I'd say that this entry could become an Editor's selection.

Ravenbait: Here's my response to your critique of the article. I want to thank you for giving me many things to think about - certainly, you inspired me to check in with a professional anthropologist of religion, go over the material with her, and start a really fascinating conversation with her about the whole thing. You've done me a personal favour

For clarification, I've enclosed the points you made with asterisks.

***OK, I hope this is constructive - it's certainly meant to be.

I'm certainly taking it in that spirit.

<<>>

Paganism is not, in and of itself, a belief system. 'Paganism' is an umbrella term covering a variety of philosophies and spiritual systems, and has a meaning that has evolved over the last 100 years or so, our current general usage owing most of its connotations to the Edwardian romantic poets (as you should know, having read 'Triumph'). This sentence could leave out the 'Paganism' and say instead 'a pagan spiritual path'. ***
-----------------
According to my anthropology of religion friend, Paganism is "an aggregate of several religions who differ in content and form, but nevertheless choose to identify as somehow related." She tells me that it is entirely reasonable and valid to refer to "Paganism" as referring to these religions, and, further, that it is reasonable and valid that a person who does not belong to a specific Pagan religion but who sees enough of an overlap in practices, cosmology, and stated beliefs, etc., to feel comfortable co-identifying with these religious groups should refer to themselves and their own religious practices and beliefs as Pagan, and for such a person as well as adherents of specific Pagan religions to refer to the whole as Paganism. Paganism, then, refers to a multitude of overlapping practices, beliefs, cosmologies, and so on - it is not necessary for every Pagan's beliefs, practices, etc., to overlap with every other Pagan's for it this to be so.

***<>>>

--OK. Typically, those who self-identify as pagan will claim to have some sort of Earth-worship going on. Most of them really believe that they hold the Earth as sacred, and some of them even have behaviour to match. But when you see a convoy of single-occupancy vehicles turning up from 6 miles away for a Druidic Earth healing ritual (I will not name names unless plied with sufficient booze, and then only in person), you just know that it's nearly all talk and no walk. That's a personal gripe with pagans though, not a comment on your article. ***
---------------------

Perfectly fair. I often find myself failing to walk my talk, even though I try.

***<<>>

--I'm really not sure about Eurocentric, given the vast numbers of Weekend Warrior shamans out there (most of whom don't even know what the word really means, and who would turn white with shock if they found out what 'totem' actually means as well). OK, so the current fashion for the sort of 'Celtic shamanism' proposed by the Matthews does mean that some weird, historically inaccurate (ring mail? Ring mail??!) version of European history circa the Iron Age is going on in a lot of people's paths, but I'd have said fantastical romantic rather than Eurocentric. The place where the majority of neopagans (globally) are getting their ideas from bears little or no resemblance to any actual place. I would be inclined to leave out references to geography. ***
-------------------
Again, relying on my anthropologist of religion, shamanism is not a religion. I understand that to be a shaman is to have community acceptance of your role as a religious specialist, but that otherwise it is simply the use of certain techniques which don't form a coherent whole. Anyway, if shamanism doesn't "count" as a religion, but the techniques can be used in multiple religious and cultural contexts, then it's not a problem for this article.

Further, most non-Christian/Jewish/Moslem religions have their own identities and have never accepted the label of Pagan (or pagan), and self-labelling is really important - if I call you a devil worshipper, it doesn't make you one. So Vodouisants and Buddhists and Jains and Hindus don't identify as pagans even if a fundamentalist Christian might call them pagan; therefore, the term pagan in that context is all about the Christian and not about the non-Christian.

What we're talking about is self-labelling - why is it that we co-identify as Pagans to the extent that there is a commonly accepted idea of what Paganism is?

What we call Pagan religions may have borrowings and inspirations and tendrils in places other than Europe, but are grounded in European culture and concepts and filtered through Eurocentric cultural filters; ergo, they are Eurocentric.

***>>>> Many Pagans do not belong to any particular Pagan Tradition or any organisation, and are often referred to as "solitaries". Solitaries are not considered to be any more or less Pagan than Pagans who are members of specific Traditions.

--I would also say that solitary, especially in the UK anyway, refers specifically to witchcraft rather than anything else. It tends to be used to denote an individual practising something individually that can also be practised as a group. You don't get 'solitary' shaman because it is a solitary path, and you don't tend to get solitary hedge witches either. The solitary term is one I have seen growing in usage over recent years, particularly in the US, to distinguish those self-identifying as Wiccan (even though Wicca is an initiatory mystery tradition, so you can't have a solitary Wiccan unless he/she has left the coven). ***
-------------------
OK, solitary practitioners, then. Sounds more technical, anyway


***<<>>

--They're not really traditions, though, are they? They just get called that because it makes people feel better. I wouldn't refer to any of these as traditions at all, because it is a misnomer. I don't really care how many Celtic Faery Wiccans there are out there, it can't be any more than 20 years old and that isn't 'traditional'. 'Spiritual paths' is a much better term, in my opinion, and is less likely to get the article laughed at by proper folklorists as well. ***
----------------------
I don't know any professional folklorists, but apparently this use of the term is perfectly acceptable to an anthropologist, because:

"The meaning of the word 'tradition' is constantly being produced by
discourses between people (or groups) who have different assumptions
about it and different agendas. To Wiccans, 'Tradition' refers to a
collection of religious knowledge and practices which can be traced to a
particular originating (or adapting and modifying) individual or group.
This term may or may not (depending on the tradition in question) also
include a magical heredity, or spiritual succession."

She also points out that there's no identifiable point at which something becomes a tradition, i.e. Trick or treat is only a few decades old, but is considered a cultural tradition; 9 lessons and carols started out as a radio broadcast, but is considered a Christian religious tradition; the Padstow May Day Parade was made up in the 1800s, but it's considered traditional; and so on. There's no way of knowing whether a tradition is "authentic" because there isn't a point where you can suddenly point and say "This is traditional now" - I mean, you could arbitrarily asign 50 years old or more, but it's well dodgy.

***<<>>

--This is simply inaccurate. Wicca is an initiatory, mystery religion that is just about old enough to be a tradition now. Believing in the Law of Threefold Return and the Rede does not make a person a Wiccan, nor does claiming to be one. This is different in the US, I do understand that, but Wicca still has an original meaning and an original use, and while you might point out that the term has been co-opted, primarily by Americans who found the term 'witch' too controversial (witches in the UK never stopped being witches), most of those calling themselves Wiccan would not be called so by Gardner, who invented it. ***
----------------------
See the earlier points about tradition.

Gardner himself stressed lineage, and most of the Wiccan Traditions out there can and do trace their lineage to Gardner - and those that can't might be claimed to be simply continuing his fine practice of making up Wiccan Traditions where none existed before. That said, to say that a religion isn't a religion because it isn't in precisely the form it took when it was created is a little dodgy - I don't imagine the apostles would recognise the Church of England by that logic. What binds Christians, for example, is not that they believe absolutely the same things as the early Church Fathers (who all seemed to believe quite different things anyway), or that their religious practices are precisely the same as the religious practices of the early Christians (which likewise came in many flavours); it's not even their belief in Jesus as Christ, or his death, or his resurrection, or his miracles, or his immaculate conception, or a belief in the Trinity, or baptism, or apostolic succession, or salvation only through Christ - those are all bones of fierce contention between Christian denominations. What binds them is that they all acknowledge that they emerged from a dynamic tradition of Christianity. Some, it's true, see themselves as the practitioners of the only "true" Christianity, whilst others see themselves as branches on the tree, but they all look to a common history. And this is true of Wicca. Just as St Paul might not recognise the form of Christianity known as, for example, The Church of the Latter Day Saints, they are part of the Christian tradition and identify as such. Gardner might not recognise a form of Wicca that is self-initiatory, but he would doubtless recognise the basic ritual format: cleansing of sacred space through incense, water and sweeping; casting of the circle; calling of the 4 quarters; calling on deities; magical work; the Great Rite; the closing of the circle; the basic stated beliefs, practices, mythology and cosmology are all very close, if not identical. In fact, Gardner would probably have an easier time literally recognising the average solitary, self-initiated Wiccan's religious practices as Wiccan than most of the early Church Fathers would have had recognising many Christian religious practices 60 years later. And, if he felt proprietorial, he shouldn't have claimed to have been merely publicising an already-established Tradition!

***<<>>

--You may wish to discuss the precise meaning of sacrifice in a footnote, as most people associate it with suffering when it only means 'to make sacred'. ***
---------------------

Fair enough.

***<<>>

I also think you should be really careful with capitalisation, which tends to lead the reader to interpret it as an inclusive set, when 'pagan' isn't really, particularly when talking about things like this which are quite sticky. People make offerings for different reasons, and sometimes the offerings they make aren't important to them but are to the Deity, which makes it important to them. These are subtleties that aren't necessarily important to deal with in this article, but you have to think about the connotations and implications of what you are writing, and make sure that your summary isn't so vague that it leads people to the wrong end of the stick entirely. It's really important that a basic introduction gives a brief but accurate overview, leaving the reader with questions rather than false impressions. ***
-----------------------

Regarding sacrifice: I'm unsure as to how I could be much more clear on the fact that there are many reasons for sacrifice - can you give me concrete suggestions?

Regarding capitalisation: see the above point about Pagan identity.

***<<>>

--But if it wasn't, and they still did it, that wouldn't mean that they weren't pagan, would it?

Be really careful not to paint pagans with a rosy brush. I know that there has been persecution and all that, but I really don't think that making things seem nicer and friendlier than they necessarily are. I would leave that bit out altogether rather than making a categorical statement about what 'Pagans' do. I would avoid any categorical statement at all in the article.***

For every Pagan I have ever spoken to who practices animal sacrifice (usually pigs, in my experience), the conditions in which the animals live and are killed are of fundamental importance. If the animal is not treated as valuable and killed as swiftly and humanely as possible, the sacrifice is not deemed to be a "success" - in fact, it's considered to be something of an insult to the deity being sacrificed to. Therefore, it is important to them, but it doesn't mean that they're not Pagan if it doesn't come off right, it means they're Pagans who've failed to make a "good" or "worthy" sacrifice, or Pagans for whom something sacred went rather wrong.

I'd be interested in your experiences of this.

***At the end of the day, I would not want one of my work colleagues, who know that I am pagan, to come up to me having read this article and expect me to do or to believe in something because it says so in your article. Rather than writing 'Pagans do/don't/believe' you could say something like 'most pagans' or 'the common pagan systems include' or something like that.***
-----------------------
Flattered though I am by your implication of my power over your work colleagues, I shall look through and see if I can find bits where I haven't been as vague as possible

***<<>>

--Typo -- 'entity'.***

Typos bad - corrections good. Ta.

***A lot of people use altars just as places to keep the cool stuff that the universe has gifted them as well, and don't think anything so specific of them. ***
---------------------------

In that case, it isn't really an altar, is it? An altar is a focus for religious activity and devotion. If it's just a place where you put cool stuff, no matter how much you love it, it's not an altar; I have a shelf that holds a collection of gifts my sister has given me over the years - it gives me pleasure to look at it, it reminds me of the love between us, but it's not an altar, it's a place where I keep cool stuff my sister gave me I'm assured by the anthropologist that my description of what an altar is/does is correct.

***<<>>

--Heh. Mine, if you can call it an altar, hasn't been dusted since August. Be really careful with the categorical statements.***
------------------------
But does that mean that the maintainance of altars is not considered important amongst Pagans?
In Russian Orthodox Christianity, it's considered important to keep to a specific diet during Lent. If a Russian Orthodox Christian breaks that diet, it doesn't stop them from being Russian Orthodox, and it doesn't mean that keeping the Lenten fast isn't considered important by the Church and its adherents.

My altar really needs cleaning; I got out of the habit while I was going through the worst of the Glandular Fever, and have just been lazy since. This doesn't mean that I don't consider it important, or that my fellow Asatruar don't consider it important (though they don't all have altars), or that my Wiccan Tradition doesn't consider it important (yes, Asatruar and Wiccan - it's a no-brainer for me, but it upsets some people), or that Pagans in general don't consider it important. It just means that it's considered important in general, but I haven't done it.

I'm not sure whether you're telling me that a significant number of Pagans do not consider looking after altars important, or whether you're telling me that one person who doesn't do what is generally considered important invalidates the commonly-held belief, or whether we're labouring under different ideas of what altars are for.

What's your take?

***<<< Sadly, some visitors do not understand that burning candles and incense at such sites and taking souvenirs can cause irreperable damage. The Ancient Sacred Landscape Network exists to educate visitors to ancient sites. This article deals with the same issue.>>>

--That article was written by a good friend of mine, after we went on a trip together. I take it you have looked at the series of articles I have up as well? I have given lectures on this at things like BroomCon, and I was a speaker at the first ASLaN conference and I still work for them. I also have an article up on how to perform ritual without causing damage, which people might find useful.
--------------------

<<>>

--There's a great book called the Urban Shaman. I'll look up the reference for you when I get home.***
------------------------
Article and book reference deeply appreciated

***<<< In actual fact, Paganism is so decentralised, so diverse, so experiential, so fundamentally opposed to proselytising10 >>>

--Categorical again. Never met someone who's just had a reiki attunement? That's scary, no matter if they are pagan.***
---------------------
Met lots of people who've just had Reiki attunements. Mainly they felt much better and were in very good moods.
Going off what people say and do, I have to say that I've never met a Pagan who was pro-proselytising or did it. We have no tradition of proselytising as many Christian groups do. Nonetheless, I may change it to "so diverse, and most Pagans so fundamentally opposed".

***<<>>

--It's weird you should say this and reference Hutton. Hutton is quite clear that Graves did intend this book to be taken literally. A bit like Julian Cope, who is equally caught up in his own matriarchal fantasies. ***
-----------------------
I was going off an interview with his daughter a couple of years back, where she asserted that her father took it seriously as mythopoetics - as having an underlying spiritual truth - but not as historical fact, and that he told her that he wished he'd never written "the bloody thing". She said his intentions were quite clear to those who knew him, but misunderstood. I wonder if there's still a copy of it floating around on the web.

***<<>>

--Don't let her hear you say that. Jenny is a seiðr, which isn't really the same thing at all. I could go at some length about the meaning of shaman, but you'd get bored. Shaman is about as close a term as you'll get to what I do, but I'd never use because it would be cultural misappropriation.****
----------------------
You mean seidhkona? Seidhr is the practice, seidhknona is the female practitioner This was just sloppiness on my part - I'd changed it to "a practitioner of seidhr, a form of oractular divination based on ancient Norse practices, often referred to as a kind of Norse shamanism." I hit the button, closed out and went to bed. And then didn't check back. Thank you for finding that for me.

****Proselytising is the conversion of another, usually into one's own religious group. Pagans find this intrusive and offensive. It is believed that anyone who becomes a Pagan should do so under their own steam.

--You're doing that categorical thing again. Have you met any pagan parents who are practically brainwashing their kids into being pagan too? It does happen.****

OK, now you're extracting the urine Everything a parent does is brainwashing their child. From telling them to drink their milk, it'll give them strong bones, to telling them not to hit first, to making them wash their hands before eating. I actually know quite a few Pagan parents (I think it's my age), but whilst all of them let their kids participate in religious ritual, they are all keen on their children experiencing other religions too (one parent has a child whose best friend is Jewish, and was thrilled when her daughter was invited to attend temple; another has children whose babysitter is a 7th Day Adventist, and happily lets her children attend services).
It may happen that Pagan parents might make judgement calls about their kids and religion that I wouldn't make, but I'm not sure where the line is between abhorrent parenting and proselytising.
So ignoring the parenting issue, I'm not saying that absolutely no Pagan would ever, under any circumstances try to convert someone; what I'm saying is that it is the overwhelmingly held beliefs, which in 15 years as an "out" Pagan I've never seen contradicted. Can you tell me if there are any Pagan groups you know of that proselytise, or a significant number of Pagans of your aquaintance or knowledge who do? That would be very interesting - in my experience, most are actively trying to avoid it because their groups are beseiged by people wanting in. If you can give me examples of groups that do this, can you tell me how they go about it - doorstepping, cold calling, handing out flyers and trying to talk people on the street into attending their circles/groves/meetings? I see plenty of flyers at Pagan events for various Traditions, though I don't class that as attempted conversion; and I don't class putting an ad in the paper letting people know you're there as proselytising, either; nor do I class explaining your beliefs in person or in writing as necessarily being an attempt at conversion. What's your take on that?

***It's a good article, but you have to be careful not to let the backlash against persecution and misunderstanding lead you into brightening up the truth a little. My own opinion is that pagans should be pagans, warts and all, we're only human after all. We don't have any moral high ground, we are not spiritually and ethically superior, we're just different.****

I honestly couldn't find anywhere in the article where I did that I also shy away from the term persecution - misunderstanding is one thing, but I'm afraid that persecution makes me feel that people are playing the victim. That's not intended to be offensive, because I do know that there are people out there who can make your life difficult, but it's certainly how I feel.

***Be careful with the categorical statement and the capitalisation - it does lead to implications that you may not intend or even see yourself.****

I'm very happy with the capitalisation as it stands (see above discussion of Pagan and Paganism); I'm not sure about your stand on that besides your contention that Pagan doesn't denote religion. With all respect to you, I don't know you from a hole in the ground, but I do know the anthropologist of religion I've been talking to, and I know her personal and professional reputation to be excellent. So it's not that I don't value your ideas, but that if she says "In my professional opinion, it makes sense, is reasonable, and is completely appropriate", I'll believe her. It's a judgement call and not intended as a slight or devaluation of your stance.

***Hope that isn't too horrid to read, it isn't meant to be cheerup ok***

Wasn't horrid at all - there are a couple of areas of confusion, but I'm certain that with further posts we can sort them out

With the responses I've had so far from Ravenbait, Emily, and others, along with what I'm gleaning from an anthropologist who is probably now rueing the day she ever said "Of course I have time to talk to you about this", I'm certain that with a bit more clarification and polishing, all will be well.

Thanks again

I've updated all the bits I said I would

Hey there.

Quick question: is your anthropologist friend American? Also, are you aware that the professional anthropological view of things is often misinterpreted by the layman (more specific on that later)?
---------
<<>>

I think I must be falling behind the times.

There are a few of us still out there, some of whom have sadly had to stop using the pagan label, who stick to the meaning of pagan as it once was, rather than the meaning of pagan as it became during the time of the Edwardian romantics. It would seem that, just as the meaning of the term "Wiccan" is evolving to become anyone who knows how to call quarters and the odd bit of candle magic, pagan has now evolved to mean something far more specific than it originally did.

My problem is that I self-identify as pagan. I know some people who self-identify as pagan, and who also do not conform to the standard Pagan Federation view of what pagan actually means - i.e. Earth worshipping, life revering etc. I try to stand up for them and those like them, because I don't like what I see as happening - the categorisation of the 'pagan' label by modern anthropologists wishing to study a cultural movement and the pagan romantics who wish to think of themselves as belonging to some tribal group. The problem being that those who identify with the commonly held meaning out-number those of us who don't by a vast degree.

It seems that I am swimming against a tide of convenience, and we all know that this is doomed to failure.

Every so often I have a chance to point out that this view is fundamentally inaccurate, simply convenient, and then people such as yourself who have only ever seen the commonalities and not really the extreme differences, insist that they are justified in glossing over those such as us. Fair enough. I suppose I shall either have to give up my usage of the term, or face the fact that every time I say "I am pagan", someone will immediately assume that I'm an Earth-worshipping muppet who shares a common belief system with a Wiccan or a Druid or something. Even though I don't.

I wonder how people feel about the fact that they are marginalising those who don't conform to such an extent that they can no longer classify themselves as pagan? One of the great things about pagans was the immense and almost infinite diversity - this is something we are losing, and it's greatly saddening, to me at least, and in its stead we are gaining a massive whack of dogma, which I see in the responses that you are giving and the responses you are getting from your anthropologist friend (is she pagan herself or does she simply study them?)
------------------------
<<<." She tells me that it is entirely reasonable and valid to refer to "Paganism" as referring to these religions, and, further, that it is reasonable and valid that a person who does not belong to a specific Pagan religion but who sees enough of an overlap in practices, cosmology, and stated beliefs, etc., to feel comfortable co-identifying with these religious groups should refer to themselves and their own religious practices and beliefs as Pagan, and for such a person as well as adherents of specific Pagan religions to refer to the whole as Paganism.>>>

Would your friend then say that I am not pagan? I have no beliefs. If I did have a belief, it would be only that belief is fundamentally flawed and limiting, and to be avoided at all costs. My practices and cosmology do not overlap with any of the paths commonly identified as pagan, and yet there is no other suitable term. So what am I and the others like me? Are we aberrations? Are we not entitled to use the term because the NeoPagan masses have adopted it and given it a definition that it did not used to have?

I don't actually feel comfortable co-identifying with any of the so-called pagan religious groups (such as Druids or Wiccans etc) but then that didn't matter because the term pagan was an exclusive rather than an inclusive one.

I shall explain something about anthropologists also. I was an archaeologist. Archaeologists use the term 'ritual' in a very different way from that most people would assume. Anthropologists also discuss their subject matter in ways that can often sound like they mean something quite specific, when the specific thing they mean is defined within the terminology of their subject. So, shamanism was defined by an anthropologist, Harner, taking its name from the Tungus Saami, and was defined as the set of practices that were common to various indigenous spiritual go-betweens that had a well-defined role in the community. That does not mean that shamans are irreligious.

I am not pagan because of beliefs or religion or anything as imposed as that. I am pagan simply because that describes me, as does human and female. There are a great number of pagans in the UK, at least, who would agree - and as the UK is where people began to turn to the pagan paths in modern times, I like to think that the situation here still has relevance.
--------------------------------
<<>>

--Fashion, I'm afraid. I know what you are talking about because it's quite clear from your article. For you to have any idea of what I mean when I say I am pagan, you would have to spend a lot of time reading the entirety of the ravenfamily website, and even then you would probably need to sit down and chat with me for a while. The commonly accepted idea is the fashionable one, the easily accessible one. That doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that it's the only one.
-----------------------------
<<>>

--What *you* call pagan religions. Not I, and not everyone.
--------------------------
<<>>

--This is a difference between American and UK culture, I feel. We are rather more strict in our acceptance of something as a tradition over here.
-------------------------
<<>>

--No. Wicca is a pagan religion, yes? Methodism is a Christian religion, as is Baptism. Methodists don't claim to be Baptists and vice versa. What most modern 'wiccans' do is a pagan religion resembling Wicca and belonging to the same family of pagan religion, but it's not Wicca. Again, this is a cultural difference between the way Americans and the UK addresses things, and has been borne out in the difference in attitudes on places like BritWitch and WiccaVent.
------------------------
<<>>

--Explain in small words of less than two syllables that it doesn't mean killing babies
-----------------------
<<>>>

--But you haven't spoken to them all, have you? And if you are making a categorical statement, then you are denying the possibility that there are those who do not conform to this idea, and making the term mean something that it does not.

Actually, it seems clear that I am fighting a losing battle here, and it has been quite clear for quite some time. It is ironic that, just as our Pagan Federation is coming to accept that the requirement to sign up to its 3 principles of NeoPagan dogma is preventing a significant number of people joining, the American influence is making it harder than ever for us non-conformists to make our voices heard.

You're right; you don't know me at all. Strictly speaking, you shouldn't need to. The very fact that I exist and deny that your assertions of what pagan means apply to me means that you should, really, make allowances for the fact that there are people out there who do not conform and for whom these things do not apply, no matter what your anthropologist friend says. I suppose you have to decide whether to write an accurate article that reflects the way things are on a global basis, or write a general article that only describes the way things are within American culture as it is at present.

I think you've probably already made that choice.

Ravenbait: Gosh - it simply never occurred to me that answering the points you made with my perspective and then asking for your opinions, suggestions and experiences would be construed as an attempt to dismiss you or close down discussion.

I'm afraid I won't be able to take the time to read your post again and reply to it until next week, as I'm unavailable this weekend, but I will indeed take the time to do so; and as I've said, I'm hoping that the discussion will continue.

Sorry - last week was bad for me; it seems that the old Glandular Fever is still doing a number on my immune system.

I'll post my reply to the points Ravenbait brought up within the next 3 or 4 days, having had a good look through them.

Righty-ho! Now that health and computer problems seem to be sorted out, here's my greatly belated reply. Sorry to have taken so long.

Ravenbait, I've put asterisks around your quotes just for clarity's sake. Also, several of your questions and responses seemed to be to be repetitions or different ways of arguing the same point, so I consolidated them and answered them together – this puts some of the questions and responses out of order, which I'm not a big fan of, but does avoid repetition and makes the whole rather cleaner, which I prefer; each question/response is dealt with, and none are omitted. It is annoying to ask specific questions or raise specific points just to have them dodged or forgotten, isn't it?

** <<>>

I think I must be falling behind the times.

There are a few of us still out there, some of whom have sadly had to stop using the pagan label, who stick to the meaning of pagan as it once was, rather than the meaning of pagan as it became during the time of the Edwardian romantics. **

In which case, it seems less like "falling behind the times" than a deliberate placing of oneself outside the commonly and academically accepted definitions, which is fascinating in itself. To apply to one's religious or spiritual practices a definition of a term that one knows has been obsolete for almost a century is a very deliberate and interesting act (of course, as someone who identifies as a Witch, it is not beyond my experience to adopt a term commonly misunderstood, though it is beyond it to adopt a term no longer considered applicable). It creates a situation where one will constantly be placed in a position of having one's beliefs/practices misunderstood, and where one will constantly have to explain why one has done so. The very deliberateness of this would imply that someone who does this has a specific motivation, a specific reason for taking on this self-identity.

In that Pagans have done this themselves, I understand the subversive potential of such an act. What I cannot make out from anything you've told me is what your motivation is. I'd be extremely interested. You seem to be talking about a small group of people who have taken upon themselves a label they know to be used in a particular manner both popularly and academically, and to then rail against that label by declaring that because they stick to a particular obsolete definition of the term they are the only ones who are using it correctly.

Now, I'm all for subversion and making people think about their self-identification, which is why I find this very interesting. Some would infer that it's all about the creation of victim-status or about attempting to create an aura of intellectual superiority based on a rejection of "trendy" thinking, or even about trying to make oneself seem unique and special by claiming to be outside the mainstream. I'm inclined to be open and listen to what that small band of people were looking for when they took this stance. So I'm all ears.

** Quick question: is your anthropologist friend American? **

Er, is there a reason for asking that? Is anthropology taught differently in different countries? I ask because I don't know for sure whether it is. I do know that an anthropologist of my aquaintance in the US has been practically begged for their attendance at a British anthropological panel, and that the anthropologist of religion I checked in with has participated in national and international fora on religion in Europe and America.

** and then people such as yourself who have only ever seen the commonalities and not really the extreme differences, insist that they are justified in glossing over those such as us. Fair enough. **

A basic introduction to Paganism aims to cover the basic patterns of Paganism so that those unfamiliar with the term, beliefs, practices, and even community will have a basis for further research. It is, indeed, a simplified vision of what is a diverse, vibrant, and ever-changing community, and is not intended to be an indepth coverage of every Pagan Tradition, attitude, or personal take, which is why it's written in basic, general terms. The books and sites I reference, though, are packed with information on the general history of modern Paganism, its various Traditions, and those who don't fit neatly into pigeon-holes. I'd be glad of suggestions from you or anyone else of websites, books, and magazines that would provide a more well-rounded resource list for those interested in looking more deeply into the subject.

** I wonder how people feel about the fact that they are marginalising those who don't conform to such an extent that they can no longer classify themselves as pagan?**

They may well be as confused as I am by the assertion that this is what they're doing. My attitude is that whilst it's perfectly legitimate to present a basic definition (based on the commonly-accepted popular and academic working definition) of Paganism that does not specifically address Pagan Traditions or individual beliefs/practices, this is not the same as marginalising any group or individual.

Further, they might look askance at any person claiming to feel marginalised by Paganism when they themselves claim that only their usage of the term is correct. They may feel that someone who freely refuses to accept the legitimacy of other Pagan beliefs and practices is not in a good position to claim discrimination.

Most of all, they may wonder how it is possible to marginalise someone who claims not to co-identify them.

My own sense is that the term is big enough to include a wide variety of attitudes - my own experience is that I regularly come into contact with people whose beliefs or practices vary wildly from my own, sometimes to the point where I find very little to agree with them on whatsoever. But they identify as Pagan, and so do I, and so we have to put up with each other (even if this means simply avoiding each other so as to avoid social awkwardness).

** and in its stead we are gaining a massive whack of dogma, which I see in the responses that you are giving **

Isn't it interesting that we're both detecting "a massive whack of dogma" from each other?

Again, to clarify, I have never claimed that you or others like you are not Pagan, and I think it highly unlikely that the average Pagan-on-the-street would either. What I have said is that the definition of Pagan for the past century, whilst always in some degree of flux, pertains to religious/spritual groups and individuals who co-identify on the basis of certain generally expressed beliefs, cosmology, and practises, and that certain Pagans will never fit the definition. And I have tried to no avail (so far) to get your input on your self-identification.

** and the responses you are getting from your anthropologist friend (is she pagan herself or does she simply study them?) **

Interesting. What she's doing is providing me with standard "anth of religion" information. She has studied Pagans, though her area of work right now is in conservative Christian traditions (I use the word "tradition" here to denote specific religious dogma, doctrine, canon, etc., and the interpretation of them), primarily in non-English speaking societies. As a professional who has presented at a variety of national and international conferences and fora on the athropology of religion and taught the subject at university level, she has been careful to provide me with standard information on how religion is studied rather than air her personal views.

** Also, are you aware that the professional anthropological view of things is often misinterpreted by the layman (more specific on that later)? **

** I shall explain something about anthropologists also. I was an archaeologist. Archaeologists use the term 'ritual' in a very different way from that most people would assume. Anthropologists also discuss their subject matter in ways that can often sound like they mean something quite specific, when the specific thing they mean is defined within the terminology of their subject. **

Of course. Every profession, craft, and religion has its own jargon. For example, when police officers talk about "ritual child abuse", they are not necessarily talking about "satanic child abuse (TM)", but about the systematic abuse of a child/children under specific circumstances.

This is why, in the article, I took care to explain terms as clearly as I could. If you have noted terms in the article that you feel are being used in a way that would be confusing to the average reader of average intellect who is aware that the article is only a basic introduction to the subject, I warmly welcome your input.

** So, shamanism was defined by an anthropologist, Harner, taking its name from the Tungus Saami, and was defined as the set of practices that were common to various indigenous spiritual go-betweens that had a well-defined role in the community. That does not mean that shamans are irreligious.**

I'm sorry, but Harner's contribution to the anthropology of shamanism came much later than the academically accepted definition of shamanism. Ethnologists had been studying shamanism from 19th century, whereas Michael Harner's first fieldwork, as he notes in his 1980 work 'Way of the Shaman, was in 1956/7. Shamanism, according to Mircea Eliade's 'Shamanism' ( written in the early 1960s, and the book that kicked off the interdisciplinary study of shamanism), derives from the Tungus "saman" – the Saami are the indigenous peoples of Finland and Sweden, best known as "Lapplanders" (though they consider this term to be derogatory); they do have a recognisably shamanic culture, and the Vikings claimed that all Odin's magic was learned from "the Finns", which I think is very interesting, but they are not the Tungus people of Siberia.

What Harner actually did was study South American shamanism, specifically with the Jivaro peoples of the Ecuadorean Andes. After return trips throughout the 1960s, he then developed a form of shamanism (known as "core shamanism" or now more often as "Harner shamanism") that he claims to be stripped of cultural associations and therefore usable by people in non-shamanic cultures. Of course, what this really was about was taking the already defined shamanic techniques and making them culturally palatable to westerners, rather than stripping them of all cultural associations. And, I hasten to add, I see nothing wrong with that whatsoever - the techniques are highly adaptable and useful.

At any rate, as to shamans being religious or otherwise, I didn't say they weren't - I said that shamanism ITSELF is not a religion, though shamans generally work within a particular cultural and religious structure. Checking back on Eliade's 'Shamanism', I find: "Yet one observation must be made at the outset: the presence of a shamanistic complex in one region or another does not necessarily mean that the magico-religious life of the corresponding poeple is crystallized around shamanism. This can ocur (as, for example, in certain parts of Indonesia), but it is not the most usual state of affairs. Generally shamanism coexixsts with other forms of magic and religion."

** I am not pagan because of beliefs or religion or anything as imposed as that. I am pagan simply because that describes me, as does human and female. There are a great number of pagans in the UK, at least, who would agree - **

OK, I have to admit that this is a fundamental problem for me in understanding you. On the one hand, my Paganism is as much a part of me as breathing, so I get what you mean about it simply describing you. On the other hand, the fact that you self-identify - consciously, deliberately, as an adult, not because you were raised in a household of people who identified as "pagan" - says that your self-identification as "pagan" does tell me something about your spirituality. It tells me more than that you're neither Christian nor Jew: it tells me that you're not a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Jain or any other non-Judeo-Christian religion outside of Paganism, because if you were, you'd identify as such; it tells me that it is about your spirituality because you complain of being disenfranchised by Pagans, who would not have the power to disenfranchise you if you had no investment in the term as a spiritual descriptor. Unless you are using the term in yet another creative way - say to describe your hair colour or how you vote or what your sexuality is, or something equally unlikely - I think it's safe to infer that you use the term to describe your beliefs and practises.

** and as the UK is where people began to turn to the pagan paths in modern times, I like to think that the situation here still has relevance.**

Please define "the pagan paths" as far as you intend the phrase - you see, there is a great deal of documentation on the rise of interest in pre-Christian and folk beliefs across Europe and America over the past couple of hundred years, so I'd hate to be at cross-purposes.

** <<>>

--What *you* call pagan religions. Not I, and not everyone.**

What I, and academia, and the vast overwhelming majority of Pagans call Pagan religions, then What is your understanding of the term, given that you obviously mean something far more specific than "neither Christian nor Jewish" when you use the word "pagan"?

** <<>>

--This is a difference between American and UK culture, I feel. We are rather more strict in our acceptance of something as a tradition over here. **

Who is "we"? Britons as a whole? Folklorists? Anthropologists? As a Briton, I know full well that the vast majority of us consider Christmas trees, roast turkey, and the Queen's Speech to be Christmas "traditions". Christmas trees became fashionable via Prince Albert; roast turkey's a post- WWII thing; and the Queen's Speech is only decades old. So I'd be grateful for clarity on who "we" are

What do you mean by "tradition"? Do you mean cultural traditions? Religious traditions? Folk customs? The acceptance of the word Tradition as a descriptor of a particular religious system? Again, I'd be grateful for clarity

And what are the terms upon which "we" accept a "tradition"? Does that depend on who "we" are and what the term "tradition" pertains to? Does it mean that a specific length of time has to pass before something is accepted as a "tradition", and if so, what is the set period? Does it differ for religious, cultural, or familial "traditions"? If you're referring to religious "tradition" in terms of Paganism, can you be more specific?

** <<>>

--No. Wicca is a pagan religion, yes? Methodism is a Christian religion, as is Baptism. Methodists don't claim to be Baptists and vice versa. What most modern 'wiccans' do is a pagan religion resembling Wicca and belonging to the same family of pagan religion, but it's not Wicca. Again, this is a cultural difference between the way Americans and the UK addresses things, and has been borne out in the difference in attitudes on places like BritWitch and WiccaVent. **

Given my experiences in both the UK and US, I shall respectfully agree to disagree with you here, both in terms of acceptance of what is Wicca, and in terms of the "cultural difference". That there is a constant debate in Paganism as to what is and is not "acceptable" is true on both sides of the pond.

** <<>>

--Explain in small words of less than two syllables that it doesn't mean killing babies **

Can I say we kill older kids and adolescents?

But seriously, folks, you'll note that in the section 'Misconceptions and Stereotypes', I write: "Neither group practices human sacrifice or ritual abuse but both are forced to defend themselves from such accusations". I feel fairly confident that an averagely intelligent person would infer that we don't go round murdering people

** <<>>>

-But you haven't spoken to them all, have you? And if you are making a categorical statement, then you are denying the possibility that there are those who do not conform to this idea, and making the term mean something that it does not. **

No, I haven't spoken to them all - and obviously I wouldn't be expected to express absolutely every variation in a basic introduction. However, let me clarify: No Pagan I have spoken with who conducts animal sacrifice, no Pagan I know who has spoken with any Pagan who conducts animal sacrifice, and no written material I have ever seen or seen referred to by Pagans who conduct animal sacrifice has ever given any other impression. By your logic, I should not say that Pagans do not practice the killing of infants because I haven't spoken to any who do However, what I am up for is changing this on the basis of any information you can give me - whether first, second, or third hand; I ask only that if it's not first hand experience that you either point me to your source or put me in contact with the person or persons involved - to the contrary. If there's a statistically significant number of self-identified Pagans who conduct animal sacrifice for whom the humane treatment and killing of the animal is not fundamentally important, then I will happily put that fact into my basic introduction, where it belongs. Otherwise, I do believe it's only reasonable to say that they're covered by the caveat in the very first paragraph of the article, as this is not an indepth examination of Paganism but an introduction to the subject.

** Actually, it seems clear that I am fighting a losing battle here, and it has been quite clear for quite some time. It is ironic that, just as our Pagan Federation is coming to accept that the requirement to sign up to its 3 principles of NeoPagan dogma is preventing a significant number of people joining, the American influence is making it harder than ever for us non-conformists to make our voices heard. **

What exactly IS the battle you're fighting? I'm still no clearer on what the self-identification "pagan" means to you.

My own belief is that if you are finding it hard to make your voice heard, shout louder and find other people who agree with you to shout along. Of course, some would say they don't care whether they're heard or not as long as they get to do their thing, which is another option.

** It would seem that, just as the meaning of the term "Wiccan" is evolving to become anyone who knows how to call quarters and the odd bit of candle magic, pagan has now evolved to mean something far more specific than it originally did.**

You mean “rural dweller”?

** My problem is that I self-identify as pagan. I know some people who self-identify as pagan, and who also do not conform to the standard Pagan Federation view of what pagan actually means - i.e. Earth worshipping, life revering etc. I try to stand up for them and those like them, because I don't like what I see as happening - the categorisation of the 'pagan' label by modern anthropologists wishing to study a cultural movement and the pagan romantics who wish to think of themselves as belonging to some tribal group. The problem being that those who identify with the commonly held meaning out-number those of us who don't by a vast degree.

It seems that I am swimming against a tide of convenience, and we all know that this is doomed to failure. **

** Every so often I have a chance to point out that this view is fundamentally inaccurate, simply convenient,**

** I suppose I shall either have to give up my usage of the term, or face the fact that every time I say "I am pagan", someone will immediately assume that I'm an Earth-worshipping muppet who shares a common belief system with a Wiccan or a Druid or something. Even though I don't. **

** One of the great things about pagans was the immense and almost infinite diversity - this is something we are losing, and it's greatly saddening, to me at least, **

** <<<." She tells me that it is entirely reasonable and valid to refer to "Paganism" as referring to these religions, and, further, that it is reasonable and valid that a person who does not belong to a specific Pagan religion but who sees enough of an overlap in practices, cosmology, and stated beliefs, etc., to feel comfortable co-identifying with these religious groups should refer to themselves and their own religious practices and beliefs as Pagan, and for such a person as well as adherents of specific Pagan religions to refer to the whole as Paganism.>>>

Would your friend then say that I am not pagan? I have no beliefs. If I did have a belief, it would be only that belief is fundamentally flawed and limiting, and to be avoided at all costs. My practices and cosmology do not overlap with any of the paths commonly identified as pagan, and yet there is no other suitable term. So what am I and the others like me? Are we aberrations? Are we not entitled to use the term because the NeoPagan masses have adopted it and given it a definition that it did not used to have?**

** I don't actually feel comfortable co-identifying with any of the so-called pagan religious groups (such as Druids or Wiccans etc) but then that didn't matter because the term pagan was an exclusive rather than an inclusive one. **

** <<>>

--Fashion, I'm afraid. I know what you are talking about because it's quite clear from your article. For you to have any idea of what I mean when I say I am pagan, you would have to spend a lot of time reading the entirety of the ravenfamily website, and even then you would probably need to sit down and chat with me for a while. The commonly accepted idea is the fashionable one, the easily accessible one. That doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that it's the only one. **

** You're right; you don't know me at all. Strictly speaking, you shouldn't need to. The very fact that I exist and deny that your assertions of what pagan means apply to me means that you should, really, make allowances for the fact that there are people out there who do not conform and for whom these things do not apply, no matter what your anthropologist friend says. **

If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is:

# The usage of “pagan” that I have chosen is older than the modern usage and therefore more correct.
# Those who accept the modern usage are wrong; if they were educated and reasonable people, they would realise this fact.
# The reason the usage of “pagan” has changed is simple “fashion” and “convenience”, and Americanisation, and the change has not been thought out.
# I do not percieve myself to fall within the modern usage of “pagan” and I am, therefore, being marginalised by the general usage.
# I object to people making assumptions about my beliefs based on my self-identifying as "pagan", even though I consciously choose to use it in a radically different way to the overwhelming majority to describe my spirituality.
# I have no beliefs.

So, if I understand you correctly, you concieve of the definition of "pagan" you lit upon as "right" as a timelessly truthful definition; all else is mere vogue. However, the definition you have expressed as being "true" was itself the result of change. The term was used in many ways over many periods of time and, AT ONE TIME, meant neither Christian nor Jew. Before that, it meant variously: country dweller, non-military personnel, and non-Christian.

On the one hand, you assert that "pagans" are simply anyone who is not Judeo-Christian; on the other hand, you strongly imply a specific group. I would very much appreciate your input on what it is you believe "pagans" to be, other than not members of the Christian or Jewish faiths - and I say that because it is clear that you do have a definite concept of "pagans" other than simply not Judeo-Christians. So it's clear that there's something very specific going on in your decision to take on that particular usage, that definition of "pagan" that became obsolete a century ago. I would be interested in knowing what that is, but while you have been happy to criticise most Pagans for identifying themselves as part of a community with some core patterns of belief and practice, you have not explained what it is that you feel makes "pagan" such an important self-label to you.

Your argument seems to be based not on accuracy, but on having drawn a random line: "I like this older usage. Therefore, any other usage that may have superceded it is incorrect." If the argument is that your definition of "pagan" is that it is older than the currently-used term, and that age is its own marker of accuracy, then one is justified in asking why you do not embrace the term "pagan" as applying only to rural dwellers. On the other hand, it seems more likely to me that this is about rejecting modern Paganism whilst being compelled to identify in some way with it. You say you don't co-identify with Pagans, and yet the word means a great deal to you - it seems to me that you have a great deal invested in the term, which implies that there is some relationship to Paganism that is imortant to you, as otherwise you would embrace such explainations as "I'm not a Christian or a Jew", or you might choose to say "I don't have a specific set of religious beliefs, but I engage in some shamanic-style practices", or some other specific or non-specific terms to describe your religious/spiritual practices. But pagan and Pagan are of enormous significance to you, as they would not be if you were, say, Hindu or some other non-Pagan non-Judeo-Christian or simply not bothered.

If I have misunderstood you, I'd very much appreciate you explaining why it is that you identify as "pagan" using a definition of the term that has not been generally accepted in a century, given all the misunderstandings, conflicts, and difficulties this obviously generates. You've written a great deal about how those who identify as Pagan are wrong in their self-labelling, and have criticised at length those beliefs, practices, and self-labellings you consider to be wrong, but you have provided no positive examples of your own beliefs and practices which would give me a handle on your own religious/spiritual self-identification.

The anthropologist of religion I checked in with tells me that she studies identity politics, and that it is not her place to create or enforce them. As a professional anthropologist, she has no investment or interest in naming anyone's self-labelling "illegitimate" – she could legitimately point out that an individual's case is "inconsistent with usual patterns" or that individuals who share self-labelling argue over what that label consists of. She pointed out that her job is to describe what is going on, what the arguments are, and "if the most common usages of the label changed over time." So, along with most Pagans I can think of, she would not deny you the right to your self-labelling.

The “most common usages of the label changed over time” not because anthropologists sought to impose one – they weren't studying Pagans until recently, and as we know, the usage had already changed a century ago. It did not change simply because Pagans wished to be seen as “a tribe”, but because they sought a description for their diverse beliefs and practices. The most suitable descriptor was “pagan”, the usage of which may well be said to have influenced the development of modern Paganism more than the other way round as both descriptor and described began to change in the early decades of the 20th century.

The fact that a definition is "accessible" and has been in common and academic usage for a century does not invalidate it - what it does is tell us that this definition is what is accepted both popularly and academically. The fact that the definition you deliberately chose for your self-identification fell out of usage a century ago tells us that it stopped being useful as a descriptor for what was going on. In other words, people began using the term “pagan” or Pagan to describe their own loosely-related set of beliefs and practices because it already had the connotations they sought, and those who much later sought to study these people used the word already being applied. This is a far cry from mere vogue; it is the organic development of a cultural and religious descriptor.

We no longer use the term "silly" to mean innocent. One might decide that the older definition is (for some reason) more palatable than the current definition, and take to using it in every day conversation; however, the fact that the earlier definition is older does not confer upon it a superiority over the current definition, and one should be prepared to be constantly misunderstood.

Maybe, having deliberately chosen to use a definition that fell out of general use a century ago, it might be reasonable to expect that others will make assumptions based on the commonly-accepted definition of that term. It would further be reasonable to expect that you would be put in the position of either accepting that those assumptions willbe made about you and not complaining about a self-inflicted situation, or explaining your choice to others in order to expand their concept of Paganism. ome would say that the conscious choice to adopt as a self-label an obsolete form of a label in common usage and then rail against the common usage as "incorrect" and complain about assumptions being made on the basis of your self-labelling is childish, and that if you cannot bear to have to explain yourself every time you describe yourself as "pagan", then perhaps seeking out a self-label more appropriate to your beliefs or practices might be a good option, or simple abandonment of self-labelling on this issue another. On the other hand, as a fan of the constantly raging debate on what it means to be Pagan, I would say that it's more interesting to keep discussing it. We all have to do it. I am constantly having to explain how and why it is that I am both Wiccan and Asatru. I simply have to accept that some people will never accept the legitimacy of my beliefs and "loyalties". That's fine - when, having explained my beliefs and practices and provided good evidence that the two Traditions are not innately incompatible, someone is still determined to discount the legitimacy of my situation, I simply shrug and agree to disagree. This is what it is to be part of a religious/spiritual community that does not have any central organisation or official doctrine.

I do find your assertion that you have no beliefs utterly fascinating, and obviously at odds with your argument. If you have no beliefs, then why are you invested in the self-identification as "pagan"? This is a genuine question and not an attack. I THINK what you're telling me is that you do not accept wholesale a specific system of religious belief, and that you try to avoid dogmatic thinking. However, the whole argument that a definition of "pagan" that fell out of use a century ago is the only acceptable usage in the face of all the evidence to the contrary is in itself fairly dogmatic

From everything you've written, it seems you do have beliefs - beliefs and experiences and practices that you feel the need to identify, and you choose to identify as "pagan". Having sat down and read all your websites, I have to say that I do, in fact, see beliefs, cosmologies, and practises that overlap to a great degree with Paganism as conventionally defined: a tendency to see the world as a complex structure of energies; the acceptance that specific "sacred sites" were built to create specific "energetic" changes; the interaction on a spiritual level with non-human entities; the use of shamanic-style techniques, and so on. You have created a complex system of belief and practice that has its own rules and structure, and permeates your life, and which is recognisably Pagan, falling well within the general popular and academic usage of that term. During my original reading of your essays on Raven and the protection of sacred sites, I saw nothing to make me assume that you were not Pagan as the term is generally used.


** I suppose you have to decide whether to write an accurate article that reflects the way things are on a global basis, or write a general article that only describes the way things are within American culture as it is at present.

I think you've probably already made that choice. **

Interesting. On the one hand, you complain that the majority of the Pagans in Britain fit into the general pattern and usage of the term Pagan described in my article; on the other, you complain that the general pattern and usage of the term Pagan described in my article is not an accurate reflection of the Pagan community.

The choice I have made is to present a basic introduction to Paganism in the UK and US based on my experience, the experience of many I know on either side of the pond, and that reflected in the general culture and academic literature in both nations, with the explicit caveat that there are Pagans who do not fit this pattern. The fact that you do not see your specific beliefs or practices reflected in the article does not detract from the fact that it is a basic introduction reflecting the basic overall pattern of Paganism, which is all it ever claimed to be – I have avoided describing specific Pagan belief systems because of that. But right there in the first paragraph is the sentence: " Because Pagans are an individualistic and independent bunch, a working definition of the term Paganism can be difficult to achieve, and there will always be those who identify as Pagans but don't fit the description."

I do have a suggestion for you: Why not write about Paganism from your perspective as an article for H2G2, and we can link the two together? As H2G2 also provides links to related articles, this would allow the building of a variety of articles on alternatives religions/beliefs/practices/philosophies which would be useful to both contemporary Pagan and non-Pagan communities.

Wow

Maelstrom of lengthy dialogue.

I was going to say I liked the Entry as it is now

Now I've forgotten what I read.

I also liked the Practical Definition of Paganism, which as you have said covers many of the same aspects, though from a slightly different perspective.

Pimms

Apologies for the lengthy, memory-crashing dialogue, Pimms! Basically, Ravenbait and I are trying to hash out where we're both coming from while addressing each other's concerns, and I wish I were eloquent enough to be able to do that with fewer words.

However,thank you for your kind comment

Wow! The entry looks great. Are you happy for it to go in the Edited Guide now, WebWitch?

Sam.

Thank you I'm pretty happy with it as it stands at the moment. If H2G2's willing to put it into the Edited Guide, I'm happy to have it there.

Very happy indeed! In it goes.

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Thank you!