Is "Paganism" too general?

[Caerwiden]

I've been wondering recently whether the term Paganism is too much of a general term, because it covers a huge number of different religions and cultures with vastly different beliefs and ideologies. The only thing that is the same about the majority of Pagan faiths is that they are non-Abrahamic, non-Dharmic, often minority religions. This isn't really much of a problem, as it does serve to unite Pagans together (such as in this guild where we have a variety of different Pagan faiths represented), but I think that a lot of people out there seem to have the idea that Pagan = Wicca, which isn't true (although obviously Wicca does = Pagan).

Here is a list of the different categories of Paganism I have managed to identify:

Neo-Paganism - This is probably the most well known category as it encompasses Wicca and Ásatrú. Neo-Pagan religions are generally new religious movements with a neat mixture of pre-Christian influences from a variety of old religions, and of course there are some modern ideas in there too. Neo-Pagan faiths generally popped up from the 18th Century to the modern day.

Reconstructionist-Paganism - This category covers all pagans who are attempting to revive (or reconstruct as the name suggests) a pre-Christian religion. Examples include Celtic Reconstructionism (most common in Britain, Ireland and North America) and Germanic Reconstructionism (common in England, North America, Germany and Scandinavia). Reconstructionists are seperated from Neo-Pagans due to the fact that Reconstructionists are attempting revive a religion using historical information and anthropology, whilst Neo-Pagans are followers of new or recent pagan religions. Also Reconstructionists are generally against hybridisation of religions to maintain authenticity, whilst Neo-Pagans often hyridise a variety of religions

Indigenous-Paganism - This covers native pagan religions which have been practiced uninterrupted by the arrival of mainstream world religions. They are different to Neo-Paganism and Reconstructionist-Paganism because of the fact that they are are not revivals or reconstructions and are not "Neo" because they have been practiced for centuries or millennia. Examples include the Maori religion (practiced in New Zealand), native African religions (practiced in Africa), and Native American religions (practiced across the New World).

Mainstream-Paganism - This refers to pagan religions are in by no means a minority religion but rather are a major world religion or a major religion in a particular nation. The prime example of this is Hinduism which is the third largest religion in the world. Another example of this is Shinto which was the state religion of Japan until the end of the Second World War, and it now has nearly 100 million followers. They are neither reconstructions nor revivals, and are separated from Indigenous-Paganism on the basis that they are so widely spread they are not simply practiced by a group of tribes (e.g. Hinduism originated on the Indian subcontinent and now the United Kingdom has one of the largest Hindu populations in the world)

Please feel free to criticise and question these categories. Feel free to make your own set of categories to classify Pagans. Also, feel free to question whether categories of Pagans are even necessary.  

[Seira Relur]

Well think of Christianity and how that term holds religions like Lutheran, Catholiticism, Methodist, and so on and so forth under that. I'd guess it'd make sense to have Paganism used as a general term for these and others. smile  

[The Bookwyrm]

Caerwiden

Neo-Paganism - This is probably the most well known category as it encompasses Wicca and Ásatrú. Neo-Pagan religions are generally new religious movements with a neat mixture of pre-Christian influences from a variety of old religions, and of course there are some modern ideas in there too. Neo-Pagan faiths generally popped up from the 18th Century to the modern day.

This isn't a bad definition, but you've missed one of the biggest parts of the NeoPagan movement: The Ecclectics. They take the influence of other religions farther and create their own spirituality through a combination of others. Some times, it ends up being a faith by numbers sort of thing to varying degrees with different people. I started out as Wiccan. I'm now not entirely sure what to call myself, since I still hold to alot of Wiccan, but I've branched out to embrace both a Celtic faith more centerd around folk practice, and a largely Draconic influence. As I go, I'll likely find more.

Caerwiden

Reconstructionist-Paganism - This category covers all pagans who are attempting to revive (or reconstruct as the name suggests) a pre-Christian religion. Examples include Celtic Reconstructionism (most common in Britain, Ireland and North America) and Germanic Reconstructionism (common in England, North America, Germany and Scandinavia). Reconstructionists are seperated from Neo-Pagans due to the fact that Reconstructionists are attempting revive a religion using historical information and anthropology, whilst Neo-Pagans are followers of new or recent pagan religions. Also Reconstructionists are generally against hybridisation of religions to maintain authenticity, whilst Neo-Pagans often hyridise a variety of religions.

While I think Reconstructionism is a beautiful thing, there are days when it certainly rubs me the wrong way and I think it has more to do with certain people. More the attitude that Reconstructionist faiths are the only way in which a person can claim to have a Celtic or Germanic faith, which I've encountered a lot.

Another thing I find is that the Reconstruction movement focuses on the high end of the religion they're constructing, and we'll use the Druids for an example. They were a priestly class, certainly, but they were a small class. To look at only their practices, we miss out on the rich folk tradition which would have been more commonly practised, and which should characterise Celtic faith just as much. It was the practice of the people at large.

I also question the idea of "authenticity", just to be a devil's advocate. I've taken Celtic history and I really wonder if there is enough out there to accurately reconstruct the religion. Researchers agree that we still know very little about the druids, that theirs is a dead religion, and that they wrote little to nothing down in part due to the fear of it falling into the wrong hands. What, then, are the sources being used to reconstruct the faith, and does it really fit into a modern society? I think that's why I like NeoPaganism so much: It maintains old traditions, but it makes them relivant modernly. Religions change over time, and the problem that can arise with Reconstruction is that the religion never had the oppertunity to make those changes.

But I agree that paganism is a rediculously general term. But, I suspect it's going to stay that way. The Pagan community is too varied to be able to unite under any other banner, and I don't think you'd ever see them agree on another. We still can't agree on what is and isn't considered Wicca, if you look at the debate between the tradtionalist and the ecclectics.

Your analogy to the belief that Pagan=Wiccan has a lot to do with exposure. The vast majority in North America do get their first definable exposure to Paganism through Wicca. As they grow, however, and learn, I think they come to move beyond it into Wiccan=Pagan.  

[Jezehbelle]

Is it silly I don't think of "Indigenous-Paganism" and "Mainstream-Paganism" pagan religions, other than in a non-Abrahamic sense?

Hinduism is such a big religion for me to think it's pagan. There's a temple not far from where I live (I doubt it's anywhere over 10 miles away), and there's a lot of Hindus around here, so, for some reason, it's hard for me to think of it as being Pagan.

It's probably for similiar reasons that I don't think Agnostics and Atheists are really Pagan either. Sure, they're not Abrahamic, but are they really Pagan too?

Hinduism and Shintoism and the Indigenous faiths have been around for so long and have been actively followed for so long, it may be part of why I don't think of them as Pagan. sweatdrop

I know their technically pagan, but... really?  

[Pelta]

I like your set of definitions, though I do have a quibble with one or two.

First of all, I think Asatru count as reconstruction as it attempts to revive ways of honoring the Norse gods. In fact, I believe it belongs in your 'Germanic' category under reconstruction.

There may also have to be a section for self-taught or 'I-made-it-up' sort of pagans. There are far too many to fit under any other category, and ecclectic doesn't quite cover it either. Ecclectic implies a pick and mix, self-taught is something quite different.

Otherwise I think this is rather a good idea. Many of these terms have been in use in my pagan circles for quite a while. Defining and weaving them into colloquial language would solve a lot of communication problems amongst pagans.  

[Jezehbelle]

missmagpie

There may also have to be a section for self-taught or 'I-made-it-up' sort of pagans. There are far too many to fit under any other category, and ecclectic doesn't quite cover it either. Ecclectic implies a pick and mix, self-taught is something quite different.

Is there something wrong with self teaching? neutral

With a lack of a big community and an "open" society, I doubt many (neo-pagans and reconstructionists) start out with getting teaching straight from a lineaged coven or even have the sort of groups with the facilities to teach them in their areas.  

[PoeticVengeance]

I would say Etherism is definately Neopaganism.  

[Starlock]

It works as a classification, but as Missmagpie pointed out, Asatru is reconstructionalist and should be in that said category. I don't think the last two classifications work well. Hinduism and especially Shinto ARE in essence indigenous practices as they originated in their currently dominant nations and are embedded in the cultural psyches of the people on a very deep level. Not sure that quantity of adherents is a good separation because it ends up being a relatively superficial one that doesn't tell us much about the categorized systems or pits them apart falsely.

Generally, there IS no cut and dry categorization of religion, whether you're talking about the Pagan gradient or anything else. One set of categorization makes religions whose basal themes are truly quite similar seem worlds apart; another categorization might put two systems which seem radically different under the same umbrella. You just have to develop your own classification. Mine uses several levels and several variations depending on the context of the conversation.

To Jezehbelle's question on Hinduism as Paganism... again it depends on categorization. But if you take a look at Hindiusm and read a bit of the literature, it nearly without a doubt falls under the Pagan umbrella and is probably the best example of a Pagan religion out there. The Neopagan (and I'm including recons in this classification) community could learn an awful lot from the Hindu path.

I think we can probably all clearly say Atheists do NOT fall under the Pagan categorization as it completely lacks the hallamarks of a Pagan religion. Agnosticism does not fall under any classification, really, as Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, not directly about religion. One can be an Agnostic Christian, an Agnostic Pagan, or whatever.  

[Jezehbelle]

Starlock

To Jezehbelle's question on Hinduism as Paganism... again it depends on categorization. But if you take a look at Hindiusm and read a bit of the literature, it nearly without a doubt falls under the Pagan umbrella and is probably the best example of a Pagan religion out there. The Neopagan (and I'm including recons in this classification) community could learn an awful lot from the Hindu path.

I've read the Gita. sweatdrop

I generally go with the "non-Abrahamic and non-Dharmic religion" definition followed by the "Not a major world religion" definition.

Hinduism itself is sort of an umbrella term, with it's different denominations and traditions, and whether or not it's polytheistic or monotheistic or monistic (sp?) to you. A lack of a "Satan" character, temporary heavens and hells, reincarnation, karma, chakras, multiple paths to the same destination ("Truth is one, the wise call it by many names"), and so on, make it seem pagan, even if all (if not most) of them came from Hinduism, originally..

I would only go as far as to say that Neopaganism is like Hinduism, but I don't think that qualifies Hinduism as Pagan.

o_O

I don't know if that really made sense or if I was just rambling. sweatdrop  

[Neko_Bast]

You also need a catagory for just plain Witches. ^-^ I'm influenced by Wicca but consider myself a Witch.  

[Pelta]

Jezehbelle

missmagpie

There may also have to be a section for self-taught or 'I-made-it-up' sort of pagans. There are far too many to fit under any other category, and ecclectic doesn't quite cover it either. Ecclectic implies a pick and mix, self-taught is something quite different.

Is there something wrong with self teaching? neutral

Oh goodness no! I'm mostly self-taught! I never said it was a bad thing! I was just saying there may have to be a distinction made. That's all.  

[Jezehbelle]

missmagpie

Jezehbelle

missmagpie

There may also have to be a section for self-taught or 'I-made-it-up' sort of pagans. There are far too many to fit under any other category, and ecclectic doesn't quite cover it either. Ecclectic implies a pick and mix, self-taught is something quite different.

Is there something wrong with self teaching? neutral

Oh goodness no! I'm mostly self-taught! I never said it was a bad thing! I was just saying there may have to be a distinction made. That's all.

Putting it next to "I made it ups" made me think you were implying it was. sweatdrop

I don't think a distinction really needs to be made, for the most part. Since being solitary is something you can do in most of these neopagan religions, self teaching seems like an okay thing to do.
And "I made it up"s are just unverified personal gnosis'(eseses), and would generally fit under the Neopagan umbrella. o -o;  

[Redwing~Shadow]

I don't know if you can say that the religion is "general" but it dose consist of a large variety of belifes and ideas. But the point of the religion dose have a main concept. Its a religion for and worship belifes and understanding ones self. well...thats how i view it anyway....of course other thing come into play as well such as healing and magick....so it is kinda hard to say....