Putting the "Earth-Centered" into Neopaganism

[Starlock]

This thread is in part inspired by Nuri's signature which I'm sure some of you have already seen. I might post a paralell thread in her guild, but I feel the environment here will be better for this kind of discussion. For those of you who have not seen the sig, it's a banner which states that Paganism =/= Earth based. There are sources that disagree with this assertion, but in all respects this boils down to how you define Paganism.

If you use the largest possible definition of Paganism (that is, any religion that is not Christian, Jewish, or Islamic) than this banner is wholely correct. However, I'm not sure if it was intended to be in reference to this broader definition. It was likely in reference to NEOpaganism specifically, in which case there can be some debate about this question. Is Neopaganism by definition, Earth-centered?

Perhaps first, let's start with some operational definitions of terms. Critical words of the definitions are in capitals. In other words, if you're going to argue them, you'd best have a strong case to present. whee

Neopaganism: MODERN RECONSTRUCTIONS of Pagan traditions that fell out of practice or by an individual who lacks a direct ancestral line to such a practice. Such practices use a wide variety of deity conceptualizations, but in prime are POLYTHEISTIC, PANTHEISTIC, and ANIMISTIC.

Earth-Centered: deities, where present, are in some way representative or METAPHORS FOR NATURE. The divine is therefore also primarily IMMANENT rather than primarily trascendent (as in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God). In religious practices this can manifest as seasonal celebrations or celebrating divinities who hold domain over natural cycles and forces.

Note, that it can be said that all belief systems have some 'nature' elements in them, even those stereotyped as opposed to nature. However, Earth-Centered suggests that the Earth is the stronger focus of the religion rather than something like salvation from a divnity or doing good works and such. Hopefully these definitions are good enough for now... perhaps the biggest debate here will be what precisely "Earth-centered" means.

I do encourage you to challenge these definitions, though, because how I have them set up now is in favor of supporting that Neopaganism = Earth based, for both Pantheism and Animism are intrinsically Earth-centered and Polytheism... I know of no cases where the divinities are not metaphors for Nature.

So challenge the definitions and let's ask ourselves...

arrow Is this a good definition for Neopaganism?
arrow Is this a good definition for Earth-Centered practice?
arrow If so, does Neopaganism = Earth-Centered?
arrow If not, why does Neopaganism =/= Earth-Centered?

Enjoy!  

[least_known_ninja]

Hm. Well the earth-centered definition sounds an aweful lot like what I practice. I was wondering a bit what form of Paganism I was best catagoristed in, and NeoPaganism seemed to fit. Now I am confused. sweatdrop  

[The Bookwyrm]

Ooo! Ooo! I'll challenge!

Ancient Paganism anthropomorphised aspects of nature, both the earth itself (ie. Gaia), the elements (ie. Zeus= Lightning), the ocean, lakes, rivers, etc., and obscure concepts like inspiration (the Muses) or craftsmanship (Bide, the Daghda).

Certain entities were worshipped and offered sacrifice in conjunction with times of the year, occurances within a month or a season (first harvest, or each full moon).

While NeoPaganism deals with conceptionalizations, so too did the ancients. They were simply more in tune with the environment they lived in, the seasons and the weather they brought being factors that truely did determine the likelihood of survival for and entire group of people. The forces of nature themselves are a staggering thing to try and understand; we use science in the accepted modern circles, and once upon a time our ancestors embodied these elements within forms they could relate to, and hope to appeal to.  

[Azana Brown]

This is quite the interesting question...one I don't have a solid answer for. Sorry. However, your viewpoints in this thread are well-thought out and make a ton of sense.  

[Starlock]

risen_from_the_ashes

Hm. Well the earth-centered definition sounds an aweful lot like what I practice. I was wondering a bit what form of Paganism I was best catagoristed in, and NeoPaganism seemed to fit. Now I am confused. sweatdrop

Let's see if I can clear up how I tend to use all those "Pagan" terminology words from the broadest category which "Paganism" can describe to more specific forms of Paganism.

Paganism #1 - any practice that is not Jewish, Christian, Islamic. This would include, however, those who self-identify as nonreligious (ie, Atheists). Using this definition, Paganism =/= Earth-Centered since Athiests, of course, are not by definition Earth-Centered.

Paganism #2 - (usually when I use the word "Paganism" this is what I'm refering to) Refers to religious systems whose deity conceptualizations are in prime polytheistic, pantheistic, and animistic. Would include several religions who do not label themselves as "Pagan" neccesarily, such as Shinto, Hinduism, and Chinese folk practice as well as dead practices such as Hellenic and Celtic.

Paganism #3 - "Neopaganism." Same as above, only it is "neo" ... that is "new" in some way. This typically means it is reconstructionalist; a revival of dead practices or a syncretic melding of several Pagan religions (sometimes with non-Pagan elements).

Issac Bonewits takes a different breakdown... (http://www.neopagan.net/PaganDefs.html) I like his, but I don't understand some of his distinctions well enough to want to use them. But if you're practicing something reconstructionalist and don't have an ancestral lineage to some Pagan practice, than you'd be Neo anyway. If, say, for example you were raised in Native American traditions, you wouldn't be Neo (but then, you probably won't call yourself Pagan, you'd call yourself by the specific name of your tribe). Make more sense? This stuff is far from cut and dry, though... heh.  

[Starlock]

Gypsy, not entirely sure what your challenge is here. Are you saying that Ancient Paganism is encompassed by the Earth-based label as well? If so, then would all Paganism be Earth-based?

I think the problem with that lies in that "Paganism" can also be used in the common lexicon to denote someone who doesn't follow one of the big three Western Monotheistic religions. If that includes Atheists... Atheists aren't neccesarily Earth-based. Granted I'm not a fan of that super-over-arching definition of Paganism (I prefer to keep it to systems, old or modern, that are pantheistic/polytheistic/animistic), but it's still a valid point.  

[The Bookwyrm]

Starlock

Gypsy, not entirely sure what your challenge is here. Are you saying that Ancient Paganism is encompassed by the Earth-based label as well? If so, then would all Paganism be Earth-based?

I think the problem with that lies in that "Paganism" can also be used in the common lexicon to denote someone who doesn't follow one of the big three Western Monotheistic religions. If that includes Atheists... Atheists aren't neccesarily Earth-based. Granted I'm not a fan of that super-over-arching definition of Paganism (I prefer to keep it to systems, old or modern, that are pantheistic/polytheistic/animistic), but it's still a valid point.

That's exactly what I'm challenging. There's a fundamental difference between "can be" and "is" in relation to the term Paganism. To pull out my Webster's Universal College Dictionary, Pagan is defined first and foremost as "one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks." The second, less common definition is the all encompassing one and the only reason it's there is because it was a once popular use for the word that is falling out of style. Take a Modern Religions class or a World Religions class, and you'll see the first defintion in use; religions other than Christian, Abrahamic or Islamic all have their own categories, even if it's something as simple as "Eastern Religions."

But to simplify, I would say that the vast majority of Neo-Paganism (anything dealing with a concept of divinity) is, in essence, Earth based simply because of the traditions from which they've sprung. Most people simply aren't aware of it because there's very little emphasis placed on it.  

[Starlock]

Gypsy Blue

But to simplify, I would say that the vast majority of Neo-Paganism (anything dealing with a concept of divinity) is, in essence, Earth based simply because of the traditions from which they've sprung. Most people simply aren't aware of it because there's very little emphasis placed on it.

If the modern practitioner puts lets emphasis on it, then, is their practice, from a personal standpoint, Earth-centered? Origins are one thing, the practice is another. Or perhaps it is a result of the spiritually immature (not trying to sound derogatory, but I can't think of another way to put it at the moment) not understanding where these various practices come from and the symbological signifigance of the deities?  

[The Bookwyrm]

Starlock

If the modern practitioner puts lets emphasis on it, then, is their practice, from a personal standpoint, Earth-centered? Origins are one thing, the practice is another. Or perhaps it is a result of the spiritually immature (not trying to sound derogatory, but I can't think of another way to put it at the moment) not understanding where these various practices come from and the symbological signifigance of the deities?

I'd say it's definately simply not understanding the symbolic signifigance of the deities they're working with. Just because an individual decides they don't wish to acknowledge a certain side of a God or Goddess (which happens more often than not) does not mean that that side doesn't exist.  

[blindfaith^_^]

Quote:

arrow Is this a good definition for Neopaganism?

There's quite a bit I don't like about this definition. One item is the idea that one is required to follow a deity to be Neo-pagan, which I'm not sure I would agree with. What about Monism...I'm pretty sure that has a place in the neo-pagan bracket. Also, I would include Wicca, Satanism, and probably some other religions that your definition doesn't seem to cover into the bracket of Neo-pagan. I don't know though, I've never really distinguished well between neo-pagan and regular pagan any way.

Quote:

arrow Is this a good definition for Earth-Centered practice?

The term Earth Centered doesn't have a whole lot of context to me without talking about "Sky Centered" religions. Earth Centered religions are concerned about the here and now and have little or possibly no focus on the afterlife. Sometimes Earth religion have strong respect/connection/reverence for nature and other times not. Sometimes its all about the self and other times its about the experience of the here and now. I don't think the current definition really does a proper job emphasising as such.

There are also sky religions that focus on the afterlife or how to attain such. I would be willing to hazard a guess that many Eastern flavored Neo-pagans have a strong focus on the afterlife and how to attain this or how to attain some state of enlightement and less focus on life of of the hear and now.

Quote:

arrow If not, why does Neopaganism =/= Earth-Centered?

Because there are plenty of Neo-pagans who have sky religions instead of earth ones.  

[Starlock]

blindfaith^_^

Quote:

arrow Is this a good definition for Neopaganism?

There's quite a bit I don't like about this definition. One item is the idea that one is required to follow a deity to be Neo-pagan, which I'm not sure I would agree with. What about Monism...I'm pretty sure that has a place in the neo-pagan bracket. Also, I would include Wicca, Satanism, and probably some other religions that your definition doesn't seem to cover into the bracket of Neo-pagan. I don't know though, I've never really distinguished well between neo-pagan and regular pagan any way.

Pantheism and Animism both don't by nature require the 'following' a deity. True, I only listed the basic 'isms' in the list: I could have also inclued henotheism, duotheism, monotheism, among others but I wanted to keep it simple. Really, the numbers game fails miserably at describing religious systems since every system has elements of mono-poly at least. It's a matter of which is worshiped and honored. Wicca should be covered by the definition (as it is polytheistic, pantheistic, animistic, though primarily duotheistic).

Satanism I firmly believe does not belong on the list becase:

1) First and foremost, it is not a reconstruction of a pre-existing Pagan religion. The ideas of Satanism have their roots in Christianity, not Paganism. It is a new religious movement, but it is not a Neopagan one any more than Scientology or Baha'i is.
2) Satanism is not Earth-centered, but self-centered. You could have a self-centered Satanist who reveres the Earth also, but that isn't intrinsically part of Satanism to my knowledge.

blindfaith^_^

Quote:

arrow Is this a good definition for Earth-Centered practice?

The term Earth Centered doesn't have a whole lot of context to me without talking about "Sky Centered" religions. Earth Centered religions are concerned about the here and now and have little or possibly no focus on the afterlife. Sometimes Earth religion have strong respect/connection/reverence for nature and other times not. Sometimes its all about the self and other times its about the experience of the here and now. I don't think the current definition really does a proper job emphasising as such.

There are also sky religions that focus on the afterlife or how to attain such. I would be willing to hazard a guess that many Eastern flavored Neo-pagans have a strong focus on the afterlife and how to attain this or how to attain some state of enlightement and less focus on life of of the hear and now.

That's interesting. I've seen that comparisson before, but I'm not sure if that's how academics treat the term 'Earth-centered' or not. I have this feeling it might be misleading to speak of a religion as being focused in the here and now versus on the afterlife, because I think that all religious systems do both of these things to some extent. I suppose I use the strong nature reverence critera because it is easier to quantify with different religions.

Perhaps some of this might bring in the distinction between New Age and Neopagan. These movements are very related to one another... but they ahve their distinctions. Read a source that compared the two recently, but I'd rather go check my notes before saying more on the topic. If I remember right, though, the whole Earth-Sky-Centered dichotomy could also describe the distinction between Neopaganism and the New Age movement, in a way. But I'll get back to that later when I have something in front of me.  

[blindfaith^_^]

Starlock

Pantheism and Animism both don't by nature require the 'following' a deity. True, I only listed the basic 'isms' in the list: I could have also inclued henotheism, duotheism, monotheism, among others but I wanted to keep it simple.

Fair enough. ^_^

Starlock

Wicca should be covered by the definition (as it is polytheistic, pantheistic, animistic, though primarily duotheistic).

But Wicca is not a reconstruction of an older religion. It was created by Gardner, so if Neo-paganism is all about religions that are being reconstructed then Wicca isn't Neo-pagan.

Also, under this definition Celtic paths (I'm being picky now sorry) aren't included. They are not being reconstructed, but passed on from existing members of the path. This would also be similar for a lot of Native American paths that seem to be enjoyting a "revival" when the existing beliefs are still alive and well, others just seem to suddenly have taken an interest in them more so than in previous years.

Starlock

Satanism I firmly believe does not belong on the list becase:

1) First and foremost, it is not a reconstruction of a pre-existing Pagan religion. The ideas of Satanism have their roots in Christianity, not Paganism. It is a new religious movement, but it is not a Neopagan one any more than Scientology or Baha'i is.
2) Satanism is not Earth-centered, but self-centered. You could have a self-centered Satanist who reveres the Earth also, but that isn't intrinsically part of Satanism to my knowledge.

Ok, I'll accept this reasoning. Satanism probably doesn't belong in Neo-paganism after all. I think I was pushing for a definition that the "New Age" "magic revivialeque" sort of belief systems should be included into paganism, though honestly a lot of people in this bracket don't practice magic, nor should that really be a requirement as magic is not a belief tenant.

Starlock

blindfaith^_^

Quote:

arrow Is this a good definition for Earth-Centered practice?

The term Earth Centered doesn't have a whole lot of context to me without talking about "Sky Centered" religions. Earth Centered religions are concerned about the here and now and have little or possibly no focus on the afterlife. Sometimes Earth religion have strong respect/connection/reverence for nature and other times not. Sometimes its all about the self and other times its about the experience of the here and now. I don't think the current definition really does a proper job emphasising as such.

There are also sky religions that focus on the afterlife or how to attain such. I would be willing to hazard a guess that many Eastern flavored Neo-pagans have a strong focus on the afterlife and how to attain this or how to attain some state of enlightement and less focus on life of of the hear and now.

That's interesting. I've seen that comparisson before, but I'm not sure if that's how academics treat the term 'Earth-centered' or not. I have this feeling it might be misleading to speak of a religion as being focused in the here and now versus on the afterlife, because I think that all religious systems do both of these things to some extent. I suppose I use the strong nature reverence critera because it is easier to quantify with different religions.

Perhaps some of this might bring in the distinction between New Age and Neopagan. These movements are very related to one another... but they ahve their distinctions. Read a source that compared the two recently, but I'd rather go check my notes before saying more on the topic. If I remember right, though, the whole Earth-Sky-Centered dichotomy could also describe the distinction between Neopaganism and the New Age movement, in a way. But I'll get back to that later when I have something in front of me.

I think every religion leans one way or another, but I don't have proof of that beyond my limited knowledge of different beliefs. And perhaps this is a good difference between New Age and Neopagan, however, then you must incorporate Earth Centered (the definition in realation to sky centered as opposed to a focus on revernce of nature) into the definitions of Neopagan. That's just my ideas though.  

[blindfaith^_^]

Can I ask for the sake of clarification we create a New Age definition too? Not because it will help to prove or disprove anything but because it would help us to discern what was New Age and what is Neo-pagan, which in a round about matter helps us talk about the potential for earth based=neo-pagan.

A few characteristics I can think of, which may not be accurate, is that most people I know who classify themselves as New Age are into some form of alternative healing (crystals, reiki, meditation, chakra work, herbal medication). I don't know how that defines a belief system, maybe there is a focus on healing or helping self and others. However, that raises an interesting question, in that caring about one's physical body and others seems to imply a focus on the present and not the after life. Meh, I don't know maybe I'm confusing myself or adding elements that aren't needed.  

[Starlock]

blindfaith^_^

Starlock

Wicca should be covered by the definition (as it is polytheistic, pantheistic, animistic, though primarily duotheistic).

But Wicca is not a reconstruction of an older religion. It was created by Gardner, so if Neo-paganism is all about religions that are being reconstructed then Wicca isn't Neo-pagan.

Also, under this definition Celtic paths (I'm being picky now sorry) aren't included. They are not being reconstructed, but passed on from existing members of the path. This would also be similar for a lot of Native American paths that seem to be enjoyting a "revival" when the existing beliefs are still alive and well, others just seem to suddenly have taken an interest in them more so than in previous years.

Heheh... wow. I guess technically given what I wrote, you're right that Wicca doesn't quite fall under it. Though maybe we should ask precisely what 'reconstructionalist' means? Although Wicca isn't based directly off any specific Pagan religions, its intention was to do so. Gardner certainly thought he was recording a dying Pagan remnant that hat survived through the era! Today we know a bit better. So does only a historically accurate reconstructionalism count, or is it the intentions? Perhaps instead of saying 'reconstructionalist' we could say something like this:

Neopaganism draws upon antiquity and the past; instead of using post-industrial or pre-monotheistic thought for inspiration, it draws upon ancient Pagan practices, Eastern mysticism, and Earth-centered ideologies. This *could* be faithfully reconstructionalist, but like Wicca, it could also be a false reconstruction of a perceived link to the past. I'm not sure I'm quite satisfied with the above, though. I'll have to think on it now. whee

Rest of your response was interesting by the way... this is just the part that's given me the most to think about.  

[Starlock]

blindfaith^_^

Can I ask for the sake of clarification we create a New Age definition too? Not because it will help to prove or disprove anything but because it would help us to discern what was New Age and what is Neo-pagan, which in a round about matter helps us talk about the potential for earth based=neo-pagan.

A few characteristics I can think of, which may not be accurate, is that most people I know who classify themselves as New Age are into some form of alternative healing (crystals, reiki, meditation, chakra work, herbal medication). I don't know how that defines a belief system, maybe there is a focus on healing or helping self and others. However, that raises an interesting question, in that caring about one's physical body and others seems to imply a focus on the present and not the after life. Meh, I don't know maybe I'm confusing myself or adding elements that aren't needed.

I had intended to read my notes yesterday so I could better respond to the New Age question. The New Age movement in general is not something I have researched well, though, so I'd be going out on a limb using only one source (although it's a good, academic soruce) as reference.

The one chunk that I do remember clearly from that book I read (which I think was entitled "Neopagan and New Age Religions in America" or something like that) was that while Neopaganism draws upon antiquity for inspiration, the New Age is much more forward-looking. I don't usually use Gaia over the weekend, but I might end up being online anyway this weekend. I'll try to remember to pop in here and type up some of the notes I took on this book; the author had some other criteria to distinguish these movements other than the one I just mentioned.