The Usefulness of the Term 'Pagan'

[Animus27]

There's been some mini-debates on some threads over the term 'pagan', and who is and who isn't one (or at least have implications of such a thing, in my twisted mind at least :} ).

The word pagan comes from the Latin word paganus which was basically the Greco-Roman equivalent of "those-weird-country-bumpkins". And during the various currents dedicated to the revival of various 'pagan' religions that started during the Romantic period and kinda died out and then came back swinging in the 1960's in the wake of the birth of Wicca and it's various Wiccan-esque offspring. For a long time Wicca was the big kid on the block and had it's own tradition and actual religion, and as time went on, various groups went about trying to revive and reconstruct cultural specific religions, like that of ancient Greece, Egypt, Iceland, etc. And pagan was an automatic catchword for most of them (well, except most Germanic/Norse recons and revivalists: "we're heathens, NOT pagans, thankyouverymuch"). But, of course because of the popularity of Wicca, neo-pagan religions were conflated with Wicca and witchcraft movements, so pagan gradually became "something a lot like Wicca".

Well, as time goes on, more and more reconstructionist [recon for short] groups have emerged { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheistic_reconstructionism } and aimed to duplicate ancient pre-Christian religions. And as such movements within movements grow, the whole label of pagan is becoming like saying "I live in North America!". It's not very specific, and because of the youth of neo-paganism it makes dialogue hard because once you start talking about beliefs with people unfamiliar with it, you have to dispel all kinds of ideas that are attached to popular conceptions of what paganism is: like all pagans being nature worshiping, or believing in a Great Mother Goddess, and so on.

Sooooooooooooooo... it has me thinking about a growing number of people eschewing calling themselves simply 'pagan' and becoming more specific about what they believe - for instance, Celtic polytheist, Hellenic polytheist, etc.
Is 'pagan' going to be useful in the future? Is it even an issue?

I don't think it means it should be a dirty word or anything, but as neo-pagan religions in general grow, it has to be acknowledged that there's no overarching agreement on anything save perhaps that those ancient peoples had something right, lol.

And now I'll end this ramble with: what does pagan mean to you? If you call yourself one, why? Why not?

I know there aren't that many self-identified pagans on here, but I felt like this might help stir up some good discussion. :smile:

[norseman]

"For a long time Wicca" , " popularity of Wicca "
There needs to be an acceptance of the differences between US and UK. The two quotations above are definitely US but not UK. Most of the [lets call them non-wiccan] are recons but they can be from some firm foundations, Druidry is a fine example there. Traditional British Witchcraft is another - many fine academic reference books to show that. It's the way the recons develop that need examining and I argue that they develop according to culture and heritage. The best way I can think to explain that statement is - UK has a long pagan heritage [which is why christianity is set to vanish in less than 20 years - Anglican Synod] but the US has never had a pagan heritage, it was founded as a christian country and so pagan recons in the US are something that they never had so cannot be considered as recons.
I agree that "pagan" is a less than useful catagorisation.

[Animus27]

"For a long time Wicca" , " popularity of Wicca "
There needs to be an acceptance of the differences between US and UK. The two quotations above are definitely US but not UK. Most of the [lets call them non-wiccan] are recons but they can be from some firm foundations, Druidry is a fine example there. Traditional British Witchcraft is another - many fine academic reference books to show that. It's the way the recons develop that need examining and I argue that they develop according to culture and heritage. The best way I can think to explain that statement is - UK has a long pagan heritage [which is why christianity is set to vanish in less than 20 years - Anglican Synod] but the US has never had a pagan heritage, it was founded as a christian country and so pagan recons in the US are something that they never had so cannot be considered as recons.
I agree that "pagan" is a less than useful catagorisation.
I agree with everything, more or less - save the recon part. You're inferring that reconstruction methodology can only be taken up by people who are a part of the modern country they're trying to reconstruct, religiously. Such a notion is eschewed by many recon-based individuals and groups, save except nationalist ones who want to destroy Christianity and drive out all "foreign" influences. The recon method can be taken up by any polytheist, for example, you'll find only a minuscule number of Kemetic (Egyptian) recons who actually live in the country of Egypt, or even have a bloodtie to it, who are devout Kemetic pagans dedicated to bringing the religion of ancient Egypt back into modern times (of course with necessary modifications - it's kind of hard to have a god-king to head the religion :tongue: ).

I just wanted to clear that up, although reading back over it, it seems like I am not making my point clear; d'oh.

Basically, you don't have to speak fluent Icelandic, and lived in Iceland since the day you were born to reconstruct the pre-Christian religion of Viking age Iceland. lol

[Sungirl]

ok.. the whole "reconstruction" thing has lost me a bit... I tend to work with small words.... so I'll answer the question what does pagan mean to you? If you call yourself one, why? Why not?

I consider myself Pagan rather than call myself a more descriptive lable for a reason. I look around me and my pagan friends and I see some who have chosen a very distinct path, i.e. druidry, heathenry or something similar to coven style wicca (although they are not of the gardnerian lineage) and I can see very specific things that link them to that lable. For instance, the druids talk about Awen and they are connected to groves. The heathens talk about the sagas, the wyrd and use runes. The coven "wiccan" is just that, in a coven, is very ritualistic and talks about different gods and goddesses.

These things allow me to very loosly group these people together in my mind as "types of pagan"... but I (and some of my other pagan friends) are very different... there is no common theme. Some of us use runes but aren't interested in the sagas. Some are ritualistic but do not believe in pantheonic gods and goddesses. Others don't even relate to the necessity of having a god and goddess.

Some of us draw in eastern influences, one of my friends is drawing in concepts of buddhism, I am very interested in ascended masters and the angelic realms, I had one friend who was also taoist.

But, what we all have in common is a love for the land and a relationship with the cycle of the seasons and the festivals. To me, this is the thing that makes someone pagan. What they bolt onto their faith is what leads to a more defined nomenclature (ok, I do like some big words, but they may be the wrong ones).

I run a group for pagans in my area and in the last 8 years we have had hundreds of people pass through the group. All of them called themselves pagan, very few went on to call themselves anything else... unless they were new to the path and had been indoctrinated into the american use of the term wicca. In the time we have been running we have discussed what it is to be pagan as we only allow people into the group that are loosly pagan or very interested in paganism... We decided to only use the concept of a connection to the land and the importance of the cycle of the seasons as the gauge, nothing more.

This says to me that the term Pagan is VERY applicable, but most of the people that would use it are quietly following their paths. It's the ones that add the layer of definement of Druid/Wicca/Heathen/Kemetic/Etc that make the noise and overshadow those of us that are more than happy to simply be called Pagan.

Another thing to think about.... quite often on my forum there is talk about labels and every single time the conversation has boiled down to... you are what you are, there is no need for a lable. So I wonder, who are the people that want to put us all in boxes and why do they want to do it?

[Summerland]

Tilia, I absolutely agree with you. Isn't it the labels that has gotten us into such messes over the centuries? Christianity breaking into different sections, Lutherans dividing, Catholics dividing into different types. I just say pagan and if someone needs a further definition, I will break it down as far as Celtic Pagan.

[norseman]

If anyone asks, just say "Wise Folk" and leave them guessing :D

[norseman]

"Basically, you don't have to speak fluent Icelandic, and lived in Iceland since the day you were born to reconstruct the pre-Christian religion of Viking age Iceland."

Objectively, I agree BUT subjectively, emotionally I am not so sure. I live in a landscape rich in physical pagan memories and they affect me and my thoughts. :smile:

[Sungirl]

If anyone asks, just say "Wise Folk" and leave them guessing :D
Just a personal opinion here, relating to me only.... telling people I consider myself "wise" seems a little arrogant. I don't feel in the slightest bit "wise".

I guess (once again, just my opinion) wise implies a comparison with someone else who isn't wise, and my path is not comparative to others. It's my path and I don't really connect it to anyone else.

Also, don't really go in for the "mystique" that some people want, so have no real desire to "leave them guessing".

I really am happy with the title Pagan. Not really sure why so many people have an issue with it.

Probably over analysing it and as I say, really is not meant as a judgement on anyone else. :redface:

[norseman]

Wise Folk was a very old name for those who used the Craft.

[Sungirl]

Yes I know...

[Time]

Most people would say im pagan, only in the regard that i dont believe in monotheism.

But me myself, i dont like labels. Im just me.

[Arlan Lares]

I'm strongly drawn to polytheism, the idea of many possible beings which could be called gods or goddesses - beings beyond the scope of human scientific understanding. I also enjoy symbology and ritual, and so I think there is something to be said for the reconstructionist approach (despite the fact we may never truly know if the reconstruction is accurate). On the other hand, I do not dogmatically follow or believe in any specific systematic religion or pantheon. I may sometimes describe myself as "pagan", if only to disassociate myself from monotheism. Perhaps the term is only useful for hinting at a broad range of related ideas and traditions. Most people have some idea what this refers to.

[Szalvias]

And as such movements within movements grow, the whole label of pagan is becoming like saying "I live in North America!".

Woohoo! I've been singing that song for about a decade. I've really enjoyed reading the replies in this thread and I hope to read many more. I am studying linguistic anthropology and this gives me a really good modern day study.
In my opinion the word "pagan" is a word in evolution.. we have not established a firm definition of the word yet, it is still changing rapidly.

The problem with the word "pagan" to begin with, is that there is not much in the way of a definition, unless you speak latin, then of course you mean "country bumpkin" or "redneck" or some such.
There is no consensus as to *** it means, at least not among all english dialects and in all contexts.
In America, a Hindu person would be called pagan since most people figure if you are polytheist you are pagan. Funny thing is, once you investigate things, Hindu's appear to believe that all gods are emanations of Brahma.. making them what? Monotheist? Some witches have a similar belief, as well as in Candomble: The gods or Orisha are emanations of a central all-encompasing God. Once we see this, we would then have to say that some witches, Hindu's and Candomble are in fact not pagan, while in America those exact religions are seen as the very definition of paganism! Here we encounter the age-old problem of not understanding another persons religion well enough while we still try to label it... backwards thinking imo.

Another issue we encounter is that different traditions (and dialects of english... learned/learnt) use different words in different ways. One example:

If I wanted to summon a spirit of some sort to talk with it I would say I am going to evoke, evocate or "call out" that spirit, while I would say invoke or "call in" in case I wanted to call it inside myself.
People of other traditions would say that evoke would mean to get rid of the spirit (I would call this banish or exorcise) while invoke would mean to simply call it to you (evoke in my case).
Now if you are not thoroughly confused yet, the problem is simply that taking just 2 very similar traditions, the nomenclature is so different as to create an absolute inability to communicate effectively unless one defines one's terms before using them.
Fun, happy times.
It is with respect to this linguistic faux pas that I always sit down and have drinks with anyone before I engage in any specifically religious or spiritual activity with them.

Essentially it would seem that pagan, far from being a religion, is a very broad class of religions, like the term monotheist.
The only real way to define pagan is to simply ask someone what they mean when they say "pagan". When I refer to myself as simply "pagan" I indicate at once that I do not have a specific, popularly established religious tradition but that I am in some way a polytheist or animist who emphasises the feminine divine nature. I come upon this specific way of looking at the word from the definition discussed in "A History of Pagan Europe" by Prudence Jones & Nigel Pennick. Because of the title of the book, they tackle the meaning of "pagan" straight-off.
A someone who spends a lot of time and effort studying linguistics and etymology, I always prefer to take a point of view that cuts through any hangups on labels. One such way of looking at the term pagan involves not defining the word, but learning the feel of it. General you could say a pagan is someone who practices a religion or spirituality that is fundamentaly compatible with other pagans. Let me explain:
From what I have seen so far, witchcraft, asatru, and all those people who hail the pre-christian european gods can be considered pagan. Now, take a witch and an asatruar... their religions are very different, and they may be disinclined to have a blot, sabbat or esbat (their primary religious events) together, however if the witch encounters the asatruar doing a seiðr, she will immidiately understand what is going on, even if she does not get all the specifics. Likewise, if a ceremonial magician or a roman reconstructionist witnessed a witch working some kind of spell craft or preparing at an esbat, they would understand what is happening at a fundamental level, even if they worship different gods and use different methods.
Basically, if you call yourself "pagan" then you practice something that is fundamentaly cognate with other people who call themselves pagan.

wow. i made a long post :icon_eek: anyway, this is a fun topic and i look forward to hearing other opinions.

[Sungirl]

A someone who spends a lot of time and effort studying linguistics and etymology, I always prefer to take a point of view that cuts through any hangups on labels. One such way of looking at the term pagan involves not defining the word, but learning the feel of it.

This is very true.

Personally I don't want to put myself in a small box, I don't want to label myself in a fine precise way. What I do want to do is give people an idea of what angle I have in life.

So, for me the term pagan is loose enough to not need much explanation but defined enough to tell people that I am not of any of the other religions.

I sometimes add the term Lightworker to it to define it a little more to some.

On top of that many "ordinary" people haven't heard of asatru, don't know the what people mean when they say heathen, are scared of witch and may have fluffy bunny style thoughts about wiccan. But, when you say pagan there is enough seriousness for them to not take the mick but enough softness to not be scared of it. Well known enough to not warrant too many questions.

If people want to label themselves in a precise way that's great, but what happens when your path takes a turn away from where you thought you were heading? Do you cling to the label you have given yourself or do you start looking for a new one? What if there isn't a specific label that fits? Will you have to resort to the term pagan?

My label of pagan lightworker allows me to stray all over the place, if I want to work with Jesus as an ascended master I can, because my label doesn't restrict me.

[nightowl]

I would like to throw a wrench in here if I may...As Norseman said in the US it was founded upon Christian premises but not all who came here were Christian. The Celtic, Scot-Irish, French, German, Italian, Polish, African and so on would disagree with this premise. Much of these cultures brought with them their beliefs and they were passed down through the families. Yes, some became blended with Christian beliefs and I believe some of that was a way to 'hide' the pagan aspects to prevent persecution. I understand that there can be Christian influence just as there was in Europe and in the rest of the world. But even in many strict pagan religions they were influenced by the cultures around them and the ones they came in contact with, purity in religions these day I think are probably rare. Just my opinion...

I would be one who considers myself to be a pagan, country dweller, folk influenced Christian believer. Christian in the sense it influences some of my beliefs but not Christian in that Jesus is God/Savior.

[norseman]

Ah but [second wrench :D], when you talk about culture, you can only consider the dominant culture, and America being founded by fundamental christians, sets the original dominant. What comes after is almost unimportant. Conversely, Britain is pagan for thousands of years before the introduction of christianity and, even after the introduction, the majority of the ordinary people were still pagan. Culture, by it's very nature, is intangible - almost emotional, it sets a subconscious way of thinking. You pick this up in the work of Hutton who records the pagan Cunning Folk, openly, right up to the 20th century. Many of the Cunning Folk masqueraded as christian priests, so a "fifth-column" within the church. They used the bible not as a holy book but as a source of spells.
Not sure if I am putting this over well. As an example, I go to a major cathedral to meditate and commune in the old ways because the cathedral was originally a pagan holy place - that is my mind-set. Everywhere I turn is my pagan ancestry.
It's a fascinating subject !

[nightowl]

Ah but [second wrench :D], when you talk about culture, you can only consider the dominant culture, and America being founded by fundamental christians, sets the original dominant. What comes after is almost unimportant. Conversely, Britain is pagan for thousands of years before the introduction of christianity and, even after the introduction, the majority of the ordinary people were still pagan. Culture, by it's very nature, is intangible - almost emotional, it sets a subconscious way of thinking. You pick this up in the work of Hutton who records the pagan Cunning Folk, openly, right up to the 20th century. Many of the Cunning Folk masqueraded as christian priests, so a "fifth-column" within the church. They used the bible not as a holy book but as a source of spells.
Not sure if I am putting this over well. As an example, I go to a major cathedral to meditate and commune in the old ways because the cathedral was originally a pagan holy place - that is my mind-set. Every where I turn is my pagan ancestry.
It's a fascinating subject !

heheee...let me add a couple of screws to the mix :D Though many of the founders were Christian they brought with them many servants and slaves that were not. There was also the indigenous people already here, so I believe the base influence was not strictly Christian. They may have been in a visible dominance as I am sure they influenced the government that followed, but in many areas of America where immigrants lived they were very influenced been their 'homeland' beliefs.

I hear what you are saying :smile: It is a fascinating subject.