LABELING WICCANS
By: Lucie
Hello. I'm the academic that Khaled mentioned. sigh... I've read the thread on
definitions and I can see the trouble you have gotten into: prescriptive definition
versus descriptive definition. Let me explain: I am currently working in the Dept of
Religious Studies of the University of Ottawa as a graduate student studying
contemporary religious movements in Canada, especially women centered or
women defined. This, by definition, includes Wicca/Witchcraft/Neo-Witchcraft/
Neo-Paganism/Women's Spirituality/Women's Urban (Neo) Shamanism...etc...
I'm not the only one there involved in this research (we have an actual "Centre
for Research in Women and Religion"). We also have a number of women (and
one man) researching collateral aspects of the above mentioned religious
phenomena. We have had to come to some working definitions so that we can
talk to each other and to other religionists.
Personally, I have also had to come up with some minimal definition of Wicca/
Witchcraft that I can use as a representative of said phenomena (yes, I am using
the plural form) when I am asked to present/explain/ explicate said phenomena
to forums such as the Canadian Council of Churches or the Canadian
Association for Pastoral Education (CAPE). It is as a result of this need, that I
have developed a minimal inclusive descriptive definition that can be used to
differentiate Wicca/Witchcraft from other religious phenomena.
What is a minimal inclusive descriptive definition you ask? Ok. Minimal = smallest
number of characteristics Inclusive = includes rather than excludes Descriptive =
what is actually there rather than what should be there (prescriptive) Definition =
what can be used to define, i.e. to draw a line around, to know relative to what is
left undefined/ unknown
I'm using a technique common in Anthropology: componential analysis, ie. the
identification of discreet analytical features (components) that can be seen as
occurring or not. A set of these which minimally defines something is seen as its
descriptive paradigm. A descriptive paradigm is unique in that it can only be used
to define the phenomenon it describes and no other. Ok? Just so you know what
kind of language I'm using.
Yes, I consider myself 'Wiccan'. No, I am not a member/initiate/follower of any
specific 'tradition'. I'm too much of an anarchist at heart for that, and anyways,
how can I swear secrecy if my only stock in trade as an anthropologist is the
knowledge I have gained by experience? Sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
Ok. So here goes....Relative to any other faith system, Wicca/Witchcraft (I won't
separate them yet) can be minimally defined as consisting of these five
necessary components:
1) faith system is nature based
2) divinity is conceived as inherent
3) divinity is apprehended as gendered and as minimally female
4) the locus of decision is the individual
5) the locus of action is the individual in the present
What does this mean? Remember, this is to distinguish this faith group relative to
any other type of faith group. It does NOT include variations, only
COMMONALITIES.
1) nature based: as far as I can tell, all forms of Wicca/Witchcraft (WW for short?)
are based on humans being part of and in nature rather than apart from. Also,
seasonality and elements (air, earth, water, fire) are central to the human
apprehension and interaction with nature.
2) divinity is inherent: divinity has manifested in all that is, all that is, is an aspect
of divinity, we are all manifestations of divinity.....
3) divinity gendered and female: divinity in one of its most apprehendable forms
knows itself in the specificity of gender and that gender is at least female "The
Goddess". All groups, whether they acknowledge the God or not, know divinity in
its female form.
4) locus of decision: morality is a personal, individual thing and responsibility for
choices is also a personal, individual thing. No one can (successfully) impose a
set morality on any one else. Ostracism seems to be the only -effective- means
of moral cohersion used by adherents to this faith. Its the other side of "Do what
thou wilt, An it harm none" and the Law of Karma. If a person acts contrary to the
community norm, this person will be shunned, ostracized, severely criticized, and
may as a result, leave the community. No matter the behavior which the
community wishes to refuse to accept, the individual will not be 'punished' or told
that they may not continue to behave in their chosen way. Again, even
community norms (and community may be read as 'tradition') cannot be imposed
or dictated. Even in oath bound traditions, oaths are taken freely and as freely
adhered to or broken.
5) locus of action: nothing is differed to the 'ever after', nor is the past fully
responsible for what occurs in the present. This is it, this is all there is for anyone,
make the most of it. Again, no predestination, no fatalism, no 'heaven' or 'hell',
this is not a prelude.
Secondly, no congregation, no group, no church, no polity has any more
importance and certainly far less immediacy than the individual as the believer
and the definer of what is believe. Faith is lived within the individual, as an
individual.
Ok. Remember, this describes ONLY what all forms of WW share, NOT what
differentiates them from each other or what is defined within a tradition as what
constitutes the whole of THEIR tradition. It is a minimal, inclusive, descriptive
definition..... (part 2 follows)
Whew....So what use is this type of definition? It allows me to compare WW to
other faiths such as Christianity, Shinto, Islam, etc. It allows me to talk about
beliefs and practices without getting mired in the specificity of traditions. It also
allows me to speak of Gardenarians and Dianics in the same breath. They have
more in common relative to other faiths than they have different relative to each
other...
I was asked what defined WW relative to other Pagans and to nature based
faiths such as Shinto. It took some thinking but I think I've been able to do it:
WW is
1) focused on the human (rather than nature or divinity)
2) divinity always takes a human form (at least)
3) WW works according to principles (fundamental underlying realities which
inform behavior)
4) WW is law driven (there is a 'right' or 'proper' way...)
5) believers need to rationalize and to make scientific their faith (just think of
tables or correspondences and our explanations of 'why it works')
I was also asked what distinction I made between Pagan, Wicca and Witchcraft. I
do make a difference.
Pagan: from paganus (latin) for of the country side as opposed to "civitas" of the
city
Neo-Pagan: post 1960's revival of country cum nature based spirituality -seen in
opposition to Christian/Mainstream church -logical spiritual outcome of the 'back
to the land' and 'experiential experimentation/mystical quest' of this same era
Witchcraft (revival): British phenomenon dating from the 1950's. Wicca is used in
Gardenarian texts but not used as a label of the faith group or practice. Wiccan
NOT used.
Wicca/Wiccan: preferred terms adopted by many North American developed
Traditions of WW to differentiate themselves from British Traditions
(Gardenarian, Alexandrian)
Witch/Dianic: terms of self definition used by many North American women to
acknowledge their mythopoethic/political reclaiming of woman centered / woman
defined spirituality. Often expressed as: Women were burned as witches in the
Middle Ages, well, I'm a witch and you're NOT going to burn me! May or may not
express the adherence to a specific tradition (Reclaiming, Dianic (Z. Budapest),
etc) but is always an indicator of woman centered / woman defined experience
and self definition.
Neo-Witchcraft: all forms of contemporary Anglo (ie of English language, not an
ethnic or nationalistic label) witchcraft to distinguish from Ancient, Middle
Eastern, Medieval, or non-European forms
Wicca versus Witchcraft: as it seems to be used by most people today. Wicca is
a type of religion and witchcraft is a technology (ie spell crafting, craft of the wise,
nature magic....)
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
First 