Post by KittyLane on Apr 3, 2007 13:38:33 GMT -5
Time to Let Go of "Witchcraft?"
Well, some pagans, anyway. The East Bay Express has posted a brief "primer" on [Neo]Paganism which muddies the issues up more than explicates them. The brief article obviously means to describe Neopagans, but inappropriately uses the broader term Pagan, an broad category which includes many pre-Wiccan faiths with little or no relationship to modern Neopaganism. I also have to take issue with the notion that witchcraft is a 'subcategory' or Neopaganism, when there are again many witchcraft traditions that have little relationship with the modern notion of an 'earth-based' Wiccan/Neopagan witch. The truth is, the majority of the world's 'witches' are not Wiccans and are not likely to have any Wiccan influence at all- and the same can also be said for the majority of the world's pagans.
I don't mean to pick on this writer in particular, who is but one in a growing body who tend to follow a very modern, Western notion of witchcraft and Paganism, one which is not only at odds with traditional pagan religions, but with the founders of many modern Neopagan traditions. I doubt very much that Gerald Gardner would have classified spellwork as 'prayer,' especially given that one of the most significant tenets of the magical movement from which Wicca emerged was that the practitioner of magic was taking on divine power of their own to accomplish their will, rather than asking "the divine" to grant favors- taking rather than asking.
Nowadays, it seems, it is more important to render magic more acceptable by referring to it as 'prayer by another name,' and it appears to be just one of a myriad ways in which the magical culture is becoming theologically confused. It seems many want to be both 'pagan' and 'witch,' when embracing the former as a religious path tends to preclude the latter- while 'pagan' describes a religious practice, witchcraft itself is always on the fringes of religion.
A quarter-century ago,* the Wiccans and other 'witches' I knew were all iconoclastic, highly individual types who didn't mind if the neighbors thought they were a bit off, and they were more concerned with their own magical practice than whether the townspeople (as it were) accepted what they did- and while most had some concept of divinity, few were bothered with religiosity. Nowadays, though, the Pagan-folk seem to spend more and more of their time explaining to newspapers how ordinary they really are (resulting in endless expressions of feigned surprise on reporters' part that their subjects aren't riding in on broomsticks), and emphasizing religion over magic- which would be fine if not for this maddening trend to want to eat their cake (and ale?) and have it, too- one wants to be a witch, but not so much the neighbors might think they actually practice witchcraft. So ritual becomes shamanism, spells become prayers to the nebulous "Divine," and magic is always positive, helpful, and never harmful, and we are archly informed that those who practice any other sort of magic aren't true witches or pagans at all.
My question is, if Neopagans are becoming as uncomfortable with magic as it appears, is it time to reliquish the Witch label to the less squeamish?** Will the "Pagans" and the "Witches" eventually part ways?
*Before the benighted phrase "earth-based" began passing over pagan lips
**I have nothing against Pagans who prefer not to be called witches, nor with witches who practice Pagan religions; rather, it's the Pagans who want to be called witches but only when they get to define the meaning of both "Pagan" and "Witch" in their own terms, disregarding history, prececedent, and those with a better claim.
altreligion.about.com/b/a/257461.htm
Well, some pagans, anyway. The East Bay Express has posted a brief "primer" on [Neo]Paganism which muddies the issues up more than explicates them. The brief article obviously means to describe Neopagans, but inappropriately uses the broader term Pagan, an broad category which includes many pre-Wiccan faiths with little or no relationship to modern Neopaganism. I also have to take issue with the notion that witchcraft is a 'subcategory' or Neopaganism, when there are again many witchcraft traditions that have little relationship with the modern notion of an 'earth-based' Wiccan/Neopagan witch. The truth is, the majority of the world's 'witches' are not Wiccans and are not likely to have any Wiccan influence at all- and the same can also be said for the majority of the world's pagans.
I don't mean to pick on this writer in particular, who is but one in a growing body who tend to follow a very modern, Western notion of witchcraft and Paganism, one which is not only at odds with traditional pagan religions, but with the founders of many modern Neopagan traditions. I doubt very much that Gerald Gardner would have classified spellwork as 'prayer,' especially given that one of the most significant tenets of the magical movement from which Wicca emerged was that the practitioner of magic was taking on divine power of their own to accomplish their will, rather than asking "the divine" to grant favors- taking rather than asking.
Nowadays, it seems, it is more important to render magic more acceptable by referring to it as 'prayer by another name,' and it appears to be just one of a myriad ways in which the magical culture is becoming theologically confused. It seems many want to be both 'pagan' and 'witch,' when embracing the former as a religious path tends to preclude the latter- while 'pagan' describes a religious practice, witchcraft itself is always on the fringes of religion.
A quarter-century ago,* the Wiccans and other 'witches' I knew were all iconoclastic, highly individual types who didn't mind if the neighbors thought they were a bit off, and they were more concerned with their own magical practice than whether the townspeople (as it were) accepted what they did- and while most had some concept of divinity, few were bothered with religiosity. Nowadays, though, the Pagan-folk seem to spend more and more of their time explaining to newspapers how ordinary they really are (resulting in endless expressions of feigned surprise on reporters' part that their subjects aren't riding in on broomsticks), and emphasizing religion over magic- which would be fine if not for this maddening trend to want to eat their cake (and ale?) and have it, too- one wants to be a witch, but not so much the neighbors might think they actually practice witchcraft. So ritual becomes shamanism, spells become prayers to the nebulous "Divine," and magic is always positive, helpful, and never harmful, and we are archly informed that those who practice any other sort of magic aren't true witches or pagans at all.
My question is, if Neopagans are becoming as uncomfortable with magic as it appears, is it time to reliquish the Witch label to the less squeamish?** Will the "Pagans" and the "Witches" eventually part ways?
*Before the benighted phrase "earth-based" began passing over pagan lips
**I have nothing against Pagans who prefer not to be called witches, nor with witches who practice Pagan religions; rather, it's the Pagans who want to be called witches but only when they get to define the meaning of both "Pagan" and "Witch" in their own terms, disregarding history, prececedent, and those with a better claim.
altreligion.about.com/b/a/257461.htm