 |
|
|
It seems like syncreticism is the new black. Everywhere you look someone is talking about hyphenating their faith. You've got people who are interested in Greco-Egyptian, Greco-Roman and even Greco-Celtic fusions, all of which have a solid historical basis behind them. However there are also people who are interested in fusing their Hellenism with doses of Taoist philosophy, Lakota practices, and Hindu deities - to say nothing of those groups and individuals who are eyeing the monotheistic religions for material to harvest. This represents a profound - and at times amusing - shift from the way things were just five to seven years ago. Back when I first joined the lists - around '99-'00 - if you even suggested that Zeus and Jupiter were the same you'd be subjected to scathing attacks from all corners. And if you so much as posted a non-Greek text, for instance to highlight the similarities between Buddhist and Stoic thought, why you were as good as labeled a Wiccan in many people's eyes. And now, some of the one-time staunchest defenders of traditionalist Hellenismos are in the forefront of the syncretic wave. What gives? Well, I think there could be a couple reasons for this monumental shift. One important factor was the migration of some of the noisier hardliners. Some left Hellenismos altogether, or at least the Hellenic polytheist lists, or started their own lists with like-minded individuals so that they wouldn't have to be constantly subjected to the irritant of the 'fluffy epidemic' as they often termed the views of their ideological foes. Others simply grew up. In the beginning, we were still sorting things out, defining ourselves by the things that we weren't, as opposed to articulating what we are. Now we've been around for a while, and have a stronger sense of ourselves and so we no longer need to be quite so vehement in our definitions. On the personal level, many found less bellicose ways to communicate their opinions, and started focusing more on their own thing, what they did and believed, as opposed to policing the thoughts of others. And a lot of us began researching more of what the ancients actually said about their religion, as opposed to getting our information second-hand through academics with agendas to push, and we discovered that the sort of exclusivism and 'purity' of thought and action which everyone was so concerned with in those first days is almost entirely absent among the ancients. For instance, Herodotos and Diodoros frequently identify the gods of foreign people with their own. Bendis, Kybele, Sabazius and Isis were granted official, state-rites at Athens at a relatively early date - and many of the Olympians originally came from lands outside of Hellas: Apollon from Asia, Ares from Thrake, Aphrodite from the Near East, and Dionysos from any of a dozen different places depending on which theory you accept. Additionally, Alexander's conquests brought Hellenic culture, language, and religion to every part of the known world at the time, and the Greek successor kingdoms that followed in his wake were established as far apart as India, Afghanistan, Syria, Babylon, Egypt and the bulk of Asia Minor. Considering this, one must either accept syncreticism as a natural part of Hellenismos, a response to the collision of cultures and ideas in a pluralistic world - or else place an end-cap at the fourth century BCE - which cuts off a great deal of beautiful art and poetry, and pretty much the whole development of Greek philosophy. Few individuals, however purist their inclinations, are willing to do that. Another factor which contributed to this shift in our community was the gradual realization that there is a difference between syncreticism and eclecticism. (Okay, obviously everyone hasn't realized this, or I wouldn't be writing this article, now would I? But there are certainly a lot more today who grasp this than there were in '99!) I am perhaps one of the most syncretic individuals in our community, with my fusion of Greek and Egyptian religion under the aegis of recreating the polis religion of Alexandria and the research I've done tracing the currents of Dionysos' worship that ran through Asia Minor, Egypt, India, and even parts of the Near East such as Syria and Palestine. But I don't think there's anyone around (even among the many enemies I've collected over the years) who would call me eclectic. So what's the difference? Syncreticism is derived from a Greek word that originally had political connotations: sugkretizo which meant a confederation of different Cretan communities which had combined in opposition to a common enemy. There are two important elements which distinguish syncreticism from eclecticism: the simultaneous fusion and distinction of the different elements combined. This may seem contradictory, but hear me out. Syncreticism is the blending of two distinct elements, in my case Greek and Egyptian elements. This is not done haphazardly or carelessly. Great thought is put into it and the individual must be familiar with these concepts, what they actually mean, how they work, what they are complimentary with and what they are opposed to. He does not assume that all things are interchangeable, that the ancients all basically believed the same things. He carefully distinguishes a Greek idea from an Egyptian and tries to understand what that idea meant in the cultural, religious, and political climate in which it came into being. Those ideas which are harmonious he blends, those which are not he respects their differences, and does not diffuse or render them down into an easily-palatable mush, but finds a way to work with them as they are. The fusion, which is fundamental for syncreticism, comes through experience, through living and working with these ideas and integrating them into a recognizable system, something that ceases to be entirely Greek or Egyptian, but is now Greco-Egyptian. And this he clearly and honestly labels as such, not claiming that his creation is something that it is not. Take the creation of a syncretic deity such as Serapis. Serapis has elements of the Egyptian gods Asar and Hapi, as well as the Greek Zeus, Haides, Asklepios, and Helios. Serapis is not simply Asar or Zeus under a different name - he has become something else entirely, which must be understood on his own terms, as his own being. And so must all successful syncreticisms. Now, eclecticism is a different creature altogether. Eclecticism in my experience (and I readily accept that a self-identified eclectic may have an altogether different experience and understanding of things) is characterized by its casual and haphazard approach. It is almost as if they are children running through a toy store, wowed by all the pretty, shiny things they see. Each one seems to him the best ever made, and he absolutely must have it - until he comes across the next new toy, and the old one is discarded and completely forgotten. The eclectic rarely spends the time necessary to understand the deeper meaning of things or how they work. At best he has only a casual and superficial knowledge of things - and at worst it is nothing but a fetishizing of names, as if by plastering a label on something you will imbue it with all of the supposed qualities of that name. When combining diverse elements there is rarely any thought put into how well these things might work together, or if in fact they possess completely antithetical natures. While this approach would be considered bad form in music or art - in religion, especially religion dealing with powerful entities who possess unique minds of their own, this can be downright dangerous. I can only wonder at the temerity of white, middle-aged suburban housewives who go to weekend seminars on shamanism and never think that those Native spirits might still be holding a grudge for the things her ancestors did such as the Trail of Tears. So, if elements within our community are moving towards a more syncretic approach, I see no problem with this - and not just because I'm a syncreticist myself! - provided it does not turn into eclecticism, which I heartily and vociferously condemn. Now I admit that from the outside it can be difficult to distinguish between the two. But time usually tells. Do they stick with it? Have they put in the necessary research? Do they understand what the concepts actually mean, and how culture shaped them? Is it something integrated into their lives or just the spiritual equivalent of a fashion statement? There's no hard and fast rule here, and we have to judge it on an individual basis. Which really is true of all things. There are plenty of poseurs who never venture outside of the mainstream Hellenic field - and frankly I'll take a sincere syncreticist over them any day! |
