TYPE 4
labelling wiccans
†††††††††††
†††††††††††Ā̀
††††††††††† Ā̱
By: Lucie Re: Labelling Wiccans
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-Pagan-
ism/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, ie. 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 occuring 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 seperate them yet) can be minimaly 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 minimaly 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 behaviour 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
deferentiates 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..... 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
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 behaviour)
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 196o'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 lable 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
lable) 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....)
BLESSED BE.