Warning: Rant Ahead! I wasn’t going to touch this with a ten foot pole other than my comment on Facebook, but I couldn’t resist. Maybe its the caffeine, as I’m on my second pot of tea and normally I only bring this topic up when I’m sick of floating through my blogroll and feel my eye start to twitch. Either way, I am totally sick of this circular debate about who should or shouldn’t call themselves Pagan, and why (or why not) certain BNP (Big Name Pagans) are (or are not) calling themselves Pagan anymore.
And what do I do when I’m bored with a debate?
I poke it with a stick!!
If you don’t want to be Pagan, stop being Pagan. Stop calling yourself Pagan, and go have fun doing your own thing! No one is holding your feet to the fire. Call yourself whatever you want to…but for the ever loving gods, please don’t be the guy/gal that continuously needs to be bitching about it. Because then, it sort of sounds like you’re protesting too much. It sounds less like you have moved on spiritually, and more like the problem isn’t that you don’t want to be Pagan, but really that you don’t like sharing your toys with those Other People that also want to be Pagan.
And Pagans, if someone doesn’t want to call themselves Pagan, then that should be cool too. Even if you seem a ton of similarity between what you do and believe and what they do…maybe they think the differences are deeply significant and don’t feel that the label fits them. Leave the cage door open so they can fly away.
But really internet, this isn’t a new debate. Heck, this is probably the 4th or 5th (or 20th) incarnation of the debate* rolling around in the blogopshere in just the past three or four years…usually as an offshoot of the “defining Paganism” debate, and occasionally when someone reasonably known declares themselves to no longer be Pagan. People have been arguing about who is or is not Pagan ever since Paganism has been on the internet, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the argument has been going on for even longer…ideas might change, but egos don’t. Although, there is part of me that suspects this is really an internet debate more than anything else. After all, I can verify that in 1992 I was there (a bright and shiny new penny Pagan) in an AOL chat room watching two (according to their profiles) grown-ups (I was 12) play “more Pagan than thou” like a train wreck next to a highway…meanwhile, I all I had wanted was to find out how the heck to pronounce Lughnasadh because Webcrawler wasn’t exactly forthcoming on the matter (back in the day, there were only a handful of Pagan sites).
I think that perhaps part of the problem here is that people are looking for too much of a cut-and-dried, black-and-white, here’s the definition (whatever the heck that definition might be), sort of an answer. And I don’t think that has ever existed any more than this mythical age of “Pagans” knowing exactly what “Paganism” *is* and what (real, true) “Pagans” really *believe/do*.
It could be my background in biology, but I don’t feel all that threatened when things don’t follow precise definitions…
Biology can be a pretty fuzzy field from time to time (I like biology, so I like fuzzy). There are ideas that most people are taught in school as a cut-and-dried, black-and-white, here’s the definition, sort of thing…that really don’t end up that way, once you know more about biology and take a look at them under a microscope. For example, most people are taught some variety of the idea that a species is just a group of organisms that can potentially interbreed in nature. But the reality is that that definition only one of many definitions–at least 32, the last time I remember having to memorize a darn list (this blogger lists 26)! Or, the idea of a ring species–is it one species, or ten, or sub-species, or diverging species, or none of the above, and its some BS hypothetical construct that doesn’t hold up in nature?
Because Nature is tricky sometimes, there’s an concept called a polythetic classification, which can be used to define ideas and things that can’t be defined with univocal criteria. When you make a polythetic classification, it means that you use shared commonalities that are not universal–meaning the things in question have a number of shared characteristics, but not all of the characteristics are shared, but enough of them are overlapped within the group to classify them together. To explain it most simply, think about what solitaire, Marco Polo, chess, charades, Monopoly, Mancala, Farmville, and dodgeball all have in common.
They are all games, right? So…define a game in a way that describes what all those games have in common. Its not as easy as one might think. They all have rules, and they are entertainment, and sometimes competition, and some of them have a board, some of them have pieces to play with, some of them are physically active, while others are more mentally challenging, some depend on luck, others logic, still others skill or creativity. They don’t really have all that much in common, do they?
There’s an idea that sounds familiar…
Polythetic classification is based in the idea of a checklist. Using the game analogy, a checklist might look something like this:
- competition between individuals or teams
- competition with self or for mastery
- object of play is entertainment rather than competition
- physically active
- success dependent on mental acuity (creativity, logic, etc)
- success dependent on skill (pantomime, good aim, drawing, etc)
- success dependent on chance (dice, card shuffle, etc)
- success dependent of physical ability (running speed, swimming skill, etc)
- score is kept to determine the “winner”
- played in a particular game space–a board, field, etc
- played with special game pieces as a sort of avatar
- requires specialized clothing or gear
To further the example… Solitaire checks out on number 3, 5, 7, and 12. Monopoly checks out with 1, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11. Charades has sometimes 1, but usually 3, 4, 6, and sometimes 9. Dodgeball with 1, 4, 8, 10, and 12. Monopoly and solitaire have some things in common, charades and solitaire have somethings in common, solitaire and Dodgeball have one thing in common, and Monopoly and Dodgeball have some things in common. But charades and Monopoly and charades and Dodgeball only have something in common if its being played as a competition. And, since I’ve heard it before (by someone being deliberately obtuse), I’ll address the “Well, my religion isn’t some game” criticism–using the idea of “what is a game” to describe the idea of polythetic classification is pretty much the classic example that originates from a guy named Ludwig Wittgenstein to illustrate the idea (Yay, Wikipedia even has an article about it!).
If we applied this check list idea to Paganism , listing the traits of a variety of Pagan belief systems, someone that is Pagan will be able to check a number of the boxes off in the list…but not all of them. And, when compared globally, these beliefs share similarly, overlapping traits…even if two randomly selected beliefs do not share any traits at all. Being Pagan may not matter to some people, but for those that it does matter to, the term is not (as I have seen it described) “meaningless” (as its detractors complain) because it includes so much diversity, but rather it is full of more meaning than a single, limited monothetic definition would be.
I won’t hold my breath, but maybe we could all use this idea to start a dialog that actually contributes what we think the most important and defining features of our individual traditions and beliefs are…rather than detracting from one another’s beliefs and complaining about what Paganism is or is not. Maybe we could use these ideas to make a list of the ideas and beliefs and practices central to a variety of Pagan religions. And then, maybe…just maybe, we can start checking boxes and comparing notes instead of pointing fingers.
And even then, if you don’t want to call yourself a Pagan, don’t! And if you do, go for it! As TJ once said regarding religion, “It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Perhaps one of the criteria should be “self-identifies as Pagan”.
You rock… thank you.been reading an learning for a few years now.my of 4 nonnie to o e
The sad thing is I see this discussion in the punk and metal scenes too, also without much to define what makes someone “metal” or “punk”. It’s all the same, and like you said boils down to egos. Basing it off of those experiences I feel it’s not so much of “needing things to be black and white” as much as “they’re not my brand of [insert ego flavor here]”.
If I recall, though, a group of Pagans brought up a checklist of elements one could use to define Pagansim at one of the Parliament of World Religions only to see it rejected wholesale and spark ire.
I think it comes down to the Justice Stewart definition of porn in the end…
I’m not surprised that if someone tried it, it failed. I really think it comes down to ego, like you said. That and, unless you get those BNP types onboard, or enough smaller fry to drown out the BNP detractors, its never going to happen.
Honestly though, I only see this as a problem online. IRL, I’ve never met more than a few people that (when it gets down to brass tacks) actually care. Sure, they might debate about it for fun, but they don’t throw tantrums or anything…of course, a good chunk of my IRL Pagan peers are military or veterans, we tend to put up with one another more gracefully and gratefully, being a minority within a minority!
I remember being called a fluffy bunny pagan because I am a kitchen witch just because I didn’t do it their way. I figure what ever you want to call yourself is okay by me, as long as it doesn’t hurt or affect someone else.
Good grief. This stuff was going on when I “discovered” paganism back in the 70’s. And it’s one of the reasons I have always been a solitary. I believe one’s spirituality should be based on an intensely personal communion with one’s god(s), and not on a label. Just sayin’…
I’m not sure if I should say “Ah-HA! I thought so!” Or if I should double down on your “Good grief”! I just read a blog post that I quite liked on the subject http://www.patheos.com/blogs/panmankey/2013/01/running-from-the-word-pagan/ …and in the comments, someone pointed out that Christians have been having variations of this same debate regarding the meaning of “Christian” pretty much forever also. So I’m leaning towards it being a human trait, and not a Pagan one.
That was a REALLY interesting post – thanks for sharing it. I guess I just don’t get what the big deal is. Perhaps because paganism has become somewhat mainstream, these people don’t feel “special” any more?
I’m not sure this is it either. I honestly think these people really do feel like they have been left behind, or have moved beyond what they think Paganism is now. Except Paganism now isn’t much different than it was 10 or 20 years ago–except more accepted in some public arenas…so there is also part of me that wonders if their expectations weren’t being met and that Paganism just isn’t what they had made it to be in their mind. Ultimately though, I don’t know that it would matter, if it wasn’t turned into such a Big Deal every time.
Welcome to the Pagan Reformation!
I think there is something there of I can’t be merely a __________ because I am and individual and so much more special then that. For that matter I care very little about what people call themselves, just as I care very little what they call me.
Yeah, on one hand…I don’t care what people call themselves. On the other hand…having been in the military, where I was considered “Wiccan” for official purposes, I understand the urge to protest, but I also know that overall, it undermines everyone in terms of getting things done (things like legal and public recognition and respect). Labels do have a purpose, even when they aren’t perfect, and I guess it just seems like a lot of time (for everyone) is wasted when we go round and round and round and round on this issue.
Tangent here, but I think that Nature has a twisted sense of humour and gets her kicks by screwing with scientists 😉
lol, I wholly agree!
I like this one, I never understood the huge desire for labels, Can’t I be me and you be you and we all stop trying to nitpick what that means? oh well, I guess the argument will remain funny to watch! 😛
It gives me something to do while I listen to Kelliana, munch on kale chips, sip chamomile and mint tea, and blog, since my babysitter for date night is sick 😦
Pingback: Sunday Musings « musings of a kitchen witch
Pingback: So what the heck are Paganisms anyhow? « musings of a kitchen witch
This is such a great idea! I’ve never heard of that family resemblance philosophy before. Reading your explanation of it made me feel for the first time that there could actually be a definition of Paganism that makes any kind of sense!
Thanks! I really don’t think its that hard to do…but…time will tell. I’m not such a fabulous and famous figure in the Pagan community that my opinion counts for much more than the “penny for your thoughts” rate!!
Pingback: Read Along: To Walk a Pagan Path (Ch 1, part 1) | (formerly) Musings of a Kitchen Witch
Pingback: randomly connecting things I’m reading | bay witch musings