The Usefulness of the Term 'Pagan'

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/Polythe...onstructionism } 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.

[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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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 ).

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

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?

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

[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.

Originally Posted by norseman

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

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.

[norseman]

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

Yes I know...