Sannion's Sanctuary - Defending Reconstructionism

Defending Reconstructionism

Over the last couple months a curious trend has begun manifesting itself within Pagandom: the Fluffy backlash against Reconstructionism. At first it was just a few stray comments in the chat rooms and on the various lists and boards. Nothing special, really. Just the usual venting of "Recons are elitist bookworms," which is actually a pretty accurate description of us. I mean, back in the 1970s Asatru (one of the first Recon religions) proudly proclaimed itself the religion with homework, and someone who prefers their books to come from Harvard or Cornell University Press instead of the likes of Lewellyn or HarperCollins is bound to engender a reputation for literary elitism. However, this anti-Recon trend is growing. There are now several websites (for instance Why I Don't like The CRP Path! and De Dannan Magick and Lore) and even an anti-Recon banner which people can place on their sites. What was once a low murmur on the lists and boards has now grown into a slightly asthmatic wheeze, that could, possibly become a thunderous and indignant roar, but probably won't. Even so, I have undertaken to answer their charges, since I'm waiting on my copy of Gilbert Murray's Five Stages of Greek Religion to arrive by mail, and have nothing better to do in the meantime.

There are five common objections leveled by the Neopagans against Reconstructionism. While much of my response will also apply to other Reconstructionist religions, my focus is Hellenism, so my examples and explanations will be drawn from my experiences as a Hellene.

1. All Recons do is study: they don't actually live the religions they claim to follow. While this couldn't be further from the truth, I think that in some small way we have actually contributed to this impression. I have a friend that I met on a Hellenic Pagan list. He's actually a Wiccan, but is interested in the Greek Gods, and was looking for others to worship with. He had some very eye opening things to say: "I really like Recon Hellenism. You guys are far more knowledgeable than most Pagans I've met, but I've got to wonder: do you guys actually worship the Gods? I've been on the list two months, and all I've seen are arguments about the myths and which books to read. No one has talked about their relationship with the Gods, or what you do to worship them."

Now, part of that has to do with our nature. We are generally modest, private people. I've been on general Pagan lists where people shared everything. One person talked about how they devoted their first menses to the Goddess, and another told this long rambling story about how Thor had helped him find his lost car keys. Most Recons would consider this trivial, and not the sort of thing they're likely to share. Also, a lot of what we do is fairly commonplace. My relationship with the Gods is very natural, almost like a reflex, needing very little thought. When I go for a walk, and a breeze comes up, I thank the Anemoi. When I find a $5 bill on the street, I recite a quick prayer to thank Hermes for his unexpected gift. When I rise in the morning, I light incense and candles for whatever God is marked on the calendar. Before I take a bite of food, I give that first portion to Hestia. There are hundreds of little practices like these which are part of my day-to-day routine. The Gods are so woven into my life that I don't really think about it much. Like brushing my teeth, it's not something I'd think to tell anyone about unless they specifically asked for details.

The larger festivals are another matter, though. These should be big, noisy, public affairs. Too often, they're not. Many of us are isolated and alone, and have no contact with others in the community - Recon or general Pagan. When there happen to be more than a couple Hellenes in a 50 mile radius, and they get together to worship, chances are the other Pagans in the area have no idea that they exist. This is something we need to remedy. I would like to see us have more contact with the broader Pagan community: become active on lists, at pan-Pagan festivals, in local papers, etc. Let others know that we're out here, and get our voices heard. We've been trapped in our online ghettoes long enough. It's time to break out and make a difference.

2. Reconstructionism is too restrictive and doesn't allow for personal expression. While there was some merit to the previous charge, there is absolutely none here. Neopagans tend to believe that anything goes, and you should do whatever you want. It's perfectly fine to combine elements from different religions, without worrying about how well they fit together. And no one bats an eye when Brigid and Quetzalcoatl are invoked side by side. Reconstructionists, on the other hand, limit themselves to the religious practices of a single culture, and sometimes to a specific period of time within that culture. We also only worship the Gods of that culture. Neopagans find this too restrictive, and often complain that it squashes their freedom and creativity. To understand why we Reconstructionists accept the limits of tradition, consider the example of the two musicians. The first musician is a restless spirit. He picks up an instrument, and begins taking lessons. But no sooner has he started than he gets bored, and looks for something new to learn. When he writes compositions, they include bits and pieces from everything, and while it's certainly original, it is also discordant, noisy, ugly, and says nothing profound. Now, the other musician finds an instrument, and he sticks with it. Instead of jumping onto the next new thing, he continues his lessons and learns how to play that instrument like no one else. Because of his long familiarity with the instrument, he can make it do things that nobody ever imagined before. He breathes new life into old pieces, and when he creates new works, he has the support of tradition behind him. He may not have the range of the other musician, but he far surpasses him in depth and skill.

And actually, this analogy is deceptive because although we limit ourselves to a single culture, we still have a world of opportunity open to us. With Greek Paganism, for instance, you have roughly from 1500 BCE to 400 CE to consider. That includes the Minoan, Mycenaean, Homeric, Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman periods to choose from - which were all very different. You have the rural cults of Pan and the Nymphs or the city religion of Hestia and Athene Polias. You have the ecstatic orgies of Dionysos or the asceticism of the world denying Orphics. You have the magic of the curse tablets, the prophecy of the Pythias, and the Mysteries of Eleusis promising a blessed future existence - or the Ionian philosophers who taught humanism, rationalism, and pantheism. You name it, you can probably find it among the Greeks. And yet, the Neopagans still want more freedom. What will they do with all this freedom, I can't help but wonder.

3. Recons are mean. I don't think that Recons are actually mean, so much as there is a difference in the way that we communicate. Neopagans tend to be very accepting. When someone makes a statement, they usually take it at face value. When someone expresses an opinion that strikes them as different or weird, they often fall back on, "Well, we all have our own ways. Who am I to criticize another?" They are more concerned with whether something sounds true, not why it is or isn't. And they tend to believe that everything is subjective and just a mater of opinion.

Recons, on the other hand, often come from an academic environment, or admire the standards of academicians. This can lead to a manner that appears very confrontational. When somebody makes a statement, we often ask them how they reached this conclusion, what sources they consulted, etc. We tend to believe in objective reality and certain standards which should be upheld. We correct obviously false historical or mythological assertions when they are made. We require tangible proof for extraordinary claims. We believe that the archaeological record and established tradition are superior to someone's personal opinion. And we do not pretend that it is normal for someone to claim to be a 30,000 year old dragon or elf. This often makes us unpopular. But none of it is done with hostility, or to demean the person. Most of the time when a Recon asks for one's sources it is because they are curious, and want to learn more about a subject, not because they are trying to show what an ignorant newbie the person is. (Though it can be an excellent way for accomplishing the latter.)

4. Recons are too focused on the past. Many object to Reconstructionism on the grounds that too great a distance separates us moderns from the ancients. They point to technological and societal advances, and suggest that we cannot possibly know what it was like to practice the religion back then. Others think that we're some kind of Pagan Luddites, and want to go back to a life without computers and cars and that we believe women are inferior, and slavery is okay, just because these were part of ancient society.

Less time separates us from the Athens of Plato than separates him from the entry of the first Greek speakers into Hellas. While we have experienced rapid technological advancement in the last couple centuries, so did the ancients, and theirs was far more radical and disruptive. It may be impossible for me to grasp the mindset of a Boeotian farmer during Greece's Dark Age, but I don't think I'd have such a hard time understanding what motivated the cosmopolitan artists of Alexandria. And let's not forget that modern Western society is firmly rooted in Greece and Rome. Our politics, law, art, science, and philosophy we owe to them. It would be far more difficult to assimilate an alien culture such as India or China's.

And anyway, we aren't pretending to be ancient people. We are moderns, and gladly accept the positive things about modern culture. The reason that we look back to the ancients is because their religion and culture worked. It was based firmly on certain eternal concepts, and many of the practices are still beautiful and relevant in our lives today. Instead of reinventing the wheel, we pay homage to our ancestors, and continue their traditions into the future. Some things we no longer possess information about, or like slavery, consider them firmly rooted in the cultural experiences of their time. We have no problem leaving the undesirable things by the wayside, and filling in the holes with informed and poetic inspiration. Isocrates said that piety consisted of changing what the ancestors have passed down to us as little as possible. That shows that sometimes there is a need for change - but that need is often far less than many people realize.

5. Recons are just making it up. This accusation is made by Neopagans who practice what they like to call Traditionalist religions. Recons freely admit that in most cases there is no continuity with the ancients. Christianity was very successful in its attempt to eliminate other religions, and by the 1600s, the last Pagan nation had been converted. It wasn't until the early part of the 20^th century that people began to openly practice Pagan religions again, and not until the 1970s that people began to break away from Neopagan Witchcraft and revive the ancient culturally-specific Pagan religions. Traditionalists claim to practice religions that survived in isolation, intact from antiquity. They often cannot provide any solid evidence for their survival, and frequently show great dependence on Wicca, Theosophy, and popular authors such as Robert Graves, Margaret Murray, and J. G. Frazer. Despite such apparent origins, they will claim to possess an authentic tradition, and make snide comments about Recons, who are making things up, have no right to practice their religion, and are woefully misinformed about ancient religion. It is easy to refute such individuals, since they are really the ones who have no idea what the ancients were like. One has simply to ask them for information about their tradition, or for sources whenever they make blanket statements about antiquity. If one supports everything they say by ample quotations, and demonstrates a sufficient understanding of the material, the Traditionalist usually gets the point, and stops making such comments. At least, that has been my experience.

It should be interesting to see how things turn out. I imagine that the Neopagans are only going to get more fierce in their attacks on us. For a while now, we have been challenging them. It is only proper that they should fight back. But hopefully, through contact with us, they will learn, and change, and lose some of their fluff. I would love to see them become more knowledgeable about their own religions, apply the standards of excellence and scholarship that suffuses Reconstructionism, and grow stronger, better, wiser, and more artistic.