Defining Paganism

Note: This particular discussion represents my views and opinions on the nature of Paganism. It has often been said that if you ask one-hundred Pagans to define Paganism, you will get one-hundred-and-two different answers. Simply put, religious terminology (‘Paganism’ included) is highly subjective. Some Pagans will agree whole-heartedly with what I have to say; some will agree partially; and some will wish to reject it all. Hence why this is my interpretation of Paganism.

Topic 1: What Paganism Is Not

It is perhaps easiest to begin defining Paganism by first discounting what it is not. There are a lot of misconceptions both outside of and within the Pagan community as to the nature and breadth of Paganism. That being said, Paganism is not: Devil worship, Satanism, Goddess spirituality/religion, New Age, Earth-based religion, witchcraft, nor magical systems. Now this is not to say that these things cannot be considered Pagan; however, none of these items are synonymous with Paganism.

Take this analogy for a bit more explanation: Paganism is to monotheism as Earth-based religion is to Islam. Yes, Islam is most certainly monotheism, but monotheism is not Islam. Monotheism encompasses many traditions, not just the Islamic tradition. It is the same with Paganism: Earth-based religions may be considered Pagan, but Paganism itself is too broad to be limited to these traditions.

Topic 2: Problems With Defining Paganism

As already insinuated, there are a number of problems with defining ‘Paganism.’ All titles and labels, especially those of religion/spirituality, are highly subjective to the individual experience. This makes it hard to define a religious community, especially one as amorphous as Paganism. Thus many people are likely to produce definitions that are biased to their personal experience and/or immediate surroundings. Accordingly, when American Pagans attempt to define ‘Paganism’, the resulting definition often closely resembles Neo-Wiccan ideals and practices, which in turn marginalizes those who consider themselves to be Pagan but who do not have any connections with or similarities to Neo-Wiccan traditions.

The second problem that comes into play when we attempt to define ‘Paganism’ is the fact that this particular word has already been used in our culture for hundreds of years, and thus has developed its own schema of meanings which are often quite dissimilar from the religious realities of contemporary Paganism. Therefore, in attempting to define ‘Paganism’, I draw a distinction between lowercase ‘p’ paganism and capital ‘P’ Paganism.

 Topic 3: Lowercase ‘p’ Paganism

I ascribe the lowercase version of ‘paganism’ a more secular definition of the word: That which is non-Abrahamic, especially, in our culture, that which is not Christian. Under this definition, religions such as Hinduism and Taoism may be considered pagan. Additionally, non-Abrahamic-sanctioned practices, such as same-sex marriage and crime, may be considered pagan. However, as will be explained below, just because these items are ‘pagan’ does not make them ‘Pagan’.

Topic 4: Capital ‘P’ Paganism

Differing from the lowercase version of the word, I use capital ‘P’ Paganism to denote the modern community of people who self-identify their persons, beliefs, and practices as religiously and/or spiritually Pagan. In this sense, Paganism is a reclaimed title: It has been taken out of its secular, lowercase ‘p’, and often more negative context to be given a more specific, and perhaps a even more original, meaning.

So what is this ‘Paganism?’ Good question; I would love to know.

As stated above, there are many, many different definitions of Paganism. However, there are a number of definitions which are more common than others, namely:

Paganism is Earth-based religion.

Paganism is polytheistic religion.

Paganism is non-Abrahamic religion and spirituality.

Now, I agree with all of these definitions, but I also heatedly disagree. True, many Pagan religions are Earth-based. However, what of the religions that are not Earth-centered but still claim the title of ‘Pagan’, such as Celtic Reconstructionism? And true, many Pagan religions are polytheistic (i.e. believing in more than one god). But what of the self-identified Pagan religions that are pantheistic, having no concept of personified deities? No, the first two definitions are too narrow to accurately describe Paganism.

The last definition closely resembles the notion of ‘paganism’. However, whereas the previous two definitions were too narrow, this definition seems to be too broad. Utilizing this understanding, religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Shinto easily fall under the umbrella of Paganism. While many Pagans tend to be okay with the assimilation of these non-Abrahamic faiths into the Pagan community, I very much disagree on the ground that these faiths do not consider themselves to be Pagan. For example, if you ask an American-born Hindu about his religion, he will most likely tell you that he is a Hindu. Indeed, he may become angry if you call him ‘Pagan.’ He does not understand himself in this manner. If this is the case, why should the Pagan community endeavor to force its labels on those who do not wish to carry them? No, the breadth of this third definition makes Paganism far too pompous for its own good.

Topic 5: My Definition

I am neither foolish nor egotistical enough to believe that there is only one definition of Paganism nor indeed that my definition is even the most accurate portrayal of Paganism. Rather, my definition is based upon my own experiences from within the Pagan community and from my participation in a variety of Pagan religions and spiritualities. If anything, all of these experiences have taught me that Paganism is eternally in a state of flux—things are constantly being added to and dropped from the community. Accordingly, the definitions of Paganism are both expandable and contractible: They change as the community’s dispositions change. That is the beauty of a living community: What is Paganism today may not be Paganism tomorrow.

All of that being said, here is my definition of what Paganism is:

Paganism is a collection of religions and spiritual traditions that have been reconstructed, re-interpreted, and/or inspired by pre-Abrahamic religions, spiritualities, and cultures. Additionally Paganism is non-essentialist and non-normative.

Now what does all of that mean? Let’s break it down:

Firstly, Paganism is a collection. It encompasses many different systems of beliefs and practices. Some of these traditions closely resemble each other, while others seem to be—and indeed are—from worlds apart.

Secondly, Paganism may be reconstructed. Reconstruction is the taking of historical practices and religious ideals of pre-Abrahamic peoples and literally resurrecting them in the present. For example, Roman accounts tell of the Gaulish Celts building a twenty-foot, humanoid structure, filling it with food, animals, and captives, and burning it as an offering to their gods. A reconstruction of this practice would entail the building of the twenty-foot figure, filling it with the corresponding goods, and setting it alight (which is the major underpinning of the movie The Wicker Man).

Thirdly, Paganism may be re-interpreted. Re-interpretation is the translating of pre-Abrahamic practices and beliefs so that they have the same meaning but take on a contemporary form. Using the above example again, a re-interpretation of this practice would involve discerning the underlying meaning of the event and the creation of a new, modernized practice which would carry the same meaning. Thus, instead of constructing a twenty-foot effigy, a person may instead make an offering of fresh produce to his gods by burning it within a small fire pit. In both cases, the meaning behind the practices is the same: honoring the gods by offering some of the harvest. However, the forms are radically different. That is re-interpretation.

Fourthly, Paganism may be inspired. Inspiration is the process by which someone’s present religious/spiritual experience is influenced by the past ideals of one or more pre-Abrahamic cultures. For example, a Pagan may like the way that some ancient cultures did not necessitate a priest as an intermediary between humanity and the gods and that thus these cultures understood that all people could have direct experience of the deities. The Pagan may then decided to adopt a similar philosophy, believing that he is his own priest. This is inspiration at work, which differs from re-interpretation and reconstruction in that it is not based upon historical practices but rather purely on ideals.

Fifthly, Paganism is pre-Abrahamic. In other words, Pagan traditions draw from cultures, religions, and/or spiritualities which have been eradicated (largely or entirely) by Christianity, Judaism, and/or Islam. In this way, Paganism differs from paganism, for not all of the religions which fall under the umbrella of paganism will fall under that of Paganism. For example, while Hinduism may be considered pagan, by use of my definition, it cannot be considered Pagan. Hinduism has not been destroyed by one of the Abrahamic religions. While it certainly has come into contact with these religions and while it cannot be denied that Hinduism has been altered because of this contact, the fact remains that Hinduism is a thriving religion in its own right; thus there is no need for it to be reconstructed, re-interpreted, or to provide past inspiration. The same is true of Buddhism, Shinto, and many other non-European religions.

Sixthly, Paganism is non-essentialist. This is to say that there is nothing fundamentally common to all of Paganism. Therefore, it cannot be said that “Pagans believe…” or “Pagans do…” Paganism is far too broad for this type of classification. Just because two paths identify as Pagan does not mean that they have to resemble each other at all.

Finally, and in conjunction with non-essentialism, Paganism is non-normative. There is no common moral code between Pagans. Different Pagan traditions may have very different ideas of what constitutes proper morals, ethics, and conduct. Thus, different Pagan traditions cannot be held to the same moral standard, which means that there is no such thing as “Pagans should…”

(A special note here about normative values: Many people will say that the Wiccan Rede [‘An it harm none, do as ye will’] is the pinnacle of Pagan morality. The simple fact is that the Rede is just what it claims to be: Wiccan, not pan-Pagan.)

To recapitulate, then: Paganism is a collection of religions and spiritual traditions that have been reconstructed, re-interpreted, and/or inspired by pre-Abrahamic religions, spiritualities, and cultures. Additionally Paganism is non-essentialist and non-normative.

Topic 6: Paganism is Personal

Calling oneself a Pagan is a highly personal decision. In being so personal, the term ‘Pagan’ should—in my mind—only be a self-donned title. Only you can decided whether or not you are Pagan, and only you can decided why you are or why you are not Pagan. Additionally, those who do not term themselves ‘Pagan’ should not be so-labeled by others. Labels have power, and we should not impose our labels on those who do not wish to carry them.

Topic 7: Neo-Paganism

As a final note here, I will briefly discuss the term ‘Neo-Paganism.’ ‘Neo-Paganism’ means ‘new Paganism’, and I have seen it used in a variety of ways. Primarily, it is used to distinguish between the religions of pre-Abrahamic cultures and the modern Pagan movement. In this schema, the distinction between paganism and Neo-Paganism is somewhat, but not exactly, akin to my distinction between paganism and Paganism.

My problem with this first definition of ‘Neo-Paganism’ is this: In its dichotomy, it classifies the pre-Abrahamic religions as pagan/Pagan while it terms the modern religions as Neo-Pagan. However, from a historical perspective, ‘paganism’ did not exist until Christianity, for it was Christianity that adopted the term from the Roman culture and began to apply it to religions, and it was also Christianity that lumped the non-Abrahamic religions together under this term—no matter how different they were. Thus, etymologically, it seems silly to have a ‘new’ Paganism if there never was an old, pre-Christian Paganism. (It is also interesting to note that, using this logic, while Christianity spread its Gospels, it also spread Paganism!)

Secondly, and less popularly, I have seen the term ‘Neo-Paganism’ used to refer to Neo-Wiccan and Neo-Wiccan-inspired traditions within Paganism. In this case, ‘Neo-Paganism’ is used as a contrast against the more reconstruction-orientated traditions of Paganism.

While I may not be a huge fan of the term ‘Neo-Paganism’, I nevertheless maintain that labels, especially religious labels, should be self-donned. Thus, if someone wishes to term himself a Neo-Pagan, by all means, I prompt you to accept this and refer to him properly.