People from other religions, and occasionally archaeologists, refer to contemporary Pagans as "neopagans". I personally find this condescending. I have outlined the reasons for this before, in a blogpost entitled "Stop calling us NeoPagans".
I think the reason "neopagan" bothers me so much is (1) the other terms that the prefix "neo"appears in; (2) the fact that no-one ever refers to Protestants and the like as "Neo-Christians"; (3) it implies a lack of authenticity - why can't people be Pagans (as long as we don't claim to be direct heirs of ancient pagans, because there are both similarities and differences); (4) it's usually said in a snidey way.
I am not saying that there is cultural continuity between contemporary Pagans and ancient "pagans" (who did not self-identify as pagan - the term was applied to them by the early Christians).
The only connection between contemporary Paganism and ancient polytheisms is that we honour the same deities. The philosophical basis of the Pagan revival is different - even in the case of reconstructionist Paganisms. Our philosophical basis is either reconnecting with Nature, or recovering the lost wisdom of the past. The philosophical basis of much of ancient polytheism was mainly propitiating the deities. Of course there must have been those who participated in the rituals out of love of the deities, and because they wanted to connect with the world-soul, but these were probably in the minority (as they sadly are today in most religions).
The rituals of ancient polytheisms, and the reasons behind them, are largely lost to us. What understanding of death did the Iron Age Celts have? We simply don't know, because they didn't write it down. Nor do we know with what rituals they disposed of their dead, even if we can see the results. Our knowledge of the Iron Age priesthood known as the druids comes mainly from the propagandist writings of Julius Caesar, as Ronald Hutton points out in his excellent book The Druids. (Presumably also in Blood and Mistletoe, but I haven't read that yet.)
Information about what the Saxon and Norse rituals were like is considerably better, and so Heathen reconstructionists have far more hope of producing something accurate.
Obviously there is also no unbroken line of initiatory descent from ancient polytheisms (unless you trace it through the Christian church, ironically enough). And the genetic link between contemporary Pagans and ancient pagans is shared by every other inhabitant of the British Isles.
So contemporary Pagans cannot claim exclusive jurisdiction over sacred sites or human remains, because everyone is the heir of the ancient past. But when someone wants to desecrate a sacred site (as when some Christians wanted to place a rock with Alpha and Omega carved on it in the middle of Maybury Henge), then we should have a voice alongside others who would want to prevent such a thing from happening.
5 comments:
Despite the title, that ammounted to an excellent argument for using the 'neo-' prefix, I have to say! The analogy I always use is revived Cornish, which some linguists call 'neo-Cornish' to distinguish it from Late Cornish, the form of the language in the two centuries or so before it died out. It's a nice shorthand for the commonality-in-revival, but not continuous identity, that you discuss here.
*amounted
Maybe, but it's the way some people say Neo Pagan as if they were sucking a lemon, in much the same way as a certain demographic refers to ho-mo-sexuality with pursed lip and furrowed brow.
There's little or no cultural continuity between evangelicals and Catholics, but nobody refers to the former as neo-Christians. Though perhaps they should.
The late, lamented Isaac Bonewits used the term Neopaganism to distinguish it from Paleopaganism and Mesopaganism. He explained it here.
One of the most common uses of the term Neo I have come across is Neo-Marxist. In that instance there is direct continuity to the original Marxists and the term, at least when used by followers, is not a derogatory term. Similar uses of neo in a decidedly non derogatory manner include Neoclassical, neodarwinism, neomalthusianism, neorealism etc. Other uses of the term include Neolithic and neophyte, which have some relevance in the general context of recreated paganism. I note the Oxford English dictionary defines neopaganism as "a modern religious movement which seeks to incorporate beliefs or ritual practices from outside the main world religions, especially those of pre-Christian Europe and North America" with no suggestions of a derogatory slur.
I think you may be overly sensitive in this, as the slur is not implied by the word rather it becomes attached to it by the context in which it is used. It doesn't matter which term you prefer, if someone wants to use that term as an insult, they will, and there has to be a distinction made somewhere between authentic ancient paganism and modern versions no matter how authentic they may or may not be. As the first poster said, you yourself have made a compelling argument for retaining the term neopagan.
Post a Comment