Validity

[Juniperberry]

I do see heathens getting a lot of flack- not all heathens, mind you, but certain heathens- because they seem to think that a known predisposition towards bluntness gives them the excuse to be rude, patronizing and elitist. And in those cases I think it is entirely deserved. Just because someone calls themselves a heathen and is not what you (general) would call a heathen does not give you the right to tell them what they are, what they are experiencing, whether it is valid, and whether they are mentally stable or not. They and their practice are not reflections on you or your practice, and I find many pagans are perfectly capable of saying "we might use the same label but we do and see things differently." It just seems to be a certain subset of heathens that cannot.

The only thing that I have seen to be treated as controversial is that it's "not in the lore." (With a side dish of "how dare they use *our* label and not stick to the lore?") Which seems to be the go-to answer for a certain subset of heathens these days.

snipped

If the only way to avoid having an “offensive view” is to change that view to being the same as those I disagree with, where does that leave me? I hope people can see and accept that delusion is the right and only conclusion / explanation from my perspective.


I could maybe dodge the issue by saying “such views are valid, but not valid for me”, but that would be lying because I don’t believe such views are valid. I strongly believe them to be invalid.

As regards the “such views are valid, but not valid for me” approach, it’s perhaps ironic that that does not seem to apply to my views for some in this thread. My non-acceptance of explanation 1, and the logic of what there leads me, is seemingly unacceptable.



Mark.

There are articles out there about this already, but I just wanted to make a post and ramble a bit, anyway.

One of the huge differences between paganism and heathenry is that paganism is more focused on emotional validity while heathenry is focused on informational validity. And I say this as someone who spent a lot more time as a pagan than I have as a heathen.

In a debate a heathen will say that they don't agree with someone's information. "Galina Krasskova's information is wrong, until a precedent for this type of practice is discovered."

A pagan will debate using emotion "Galina Krasskova is right because it's what she feels is right, and no one can say otherwise."

As Juni said, some people find the attitudes of heathens to be insulting. I find it incredibly refreshing and civil. Debates centered on emotions are personal, they attack the person. "Your view is insulting, presumptous, offensive." The 'winner' in these fights has successfully made the other look like an insensitive dirtbag. Debates centered on the information attack concepts and accepted facts. "You're opinion is wrong because they information shows a different story." Completely impersonal. The 'winner' in these arguments is the one who made a better case for their interpretations of the history.

In heathenry, you put out information and discusses the information- the discussion isn't about YOU.

In paganism, you put out a feeling and discuss a feeling- the discussion is about YOU.


I think those heathens, like myself, who aren't interested in feelings as much, but in firm information, do tend to dismiss the feelings of pagans which makes them feel dismissed and insulted. We are comfortable in saying that someone's view point isn't valid because we don't judge validity in the same way. And I don't think it's so much that we don't find the feelings valid, but they aren't relevent to the discussion.

Anyway, I'm sure this was insensitive, and that my mouth has gotten me in trouble again. :D But it's something on my mind, since we've had such a clash of types lately. And it's probably helpful to know the culture of heathens, for any newbies out there wondering why heathens are such 'jerks'.

[sailor]

There are articles out there about this already, but I just wanted to make a post and ramble a bit, anyway.

One of the huge differences between paganism and heathenry is that paganism is more focused on emotional validity while heathenry is focused on informational validity. (snip)

Anyway, I'm sure this was insensitive, and that my mouth has gotten me in trouble again. :D But it's something on my mind, since we've had such a clash of types lately. And it's probably helpful to know the culture of heathens, for any newbies out there wondering why heathens are such 'jerks'.

As you pointed out, nothing new. I'll have to see if I still have the essay by Lew on this topic.

[Maythe]

I know I've been away for a while and may have missed a key debate, but when did Heathens stop being a kind of Pagan?

[treekisser]

One of the huge differences between paganism and heathenry is that paganism is more focused on emotional validity while heathenry is focused on informational validity.

Kinda perplexed by a) the separation of heathenry from the pagan umbrella, and b) the sweeping generalisation that pagans in general focus on emotional rather than other forms of validation.

Anyway, I'm sure this was insensitive, and that my mouth has gotten me in trouble again. :D But it's something on my mind, since we've had such a clash of types lately.

I'm guessing you're talking about a 'clash of types' in another thread. Rather hasty to generalise from that, especially if you factor in all the pagans who read what you wrote and didn't start talking about being offended.

[sailor]

I know I've been away for a while and may have missed a key debate, but when did Heathens stop being a kind of Pagan?

In 1979 with Adler's publication of Drawing Down the Moon. It wasn't until many years later that they became accepted again.

[sailor]

Kinda perplexed by a) the separation of heathenry from the pagan umbrella, and b) the sweeping generalisation that pagans in general focus on emotional rather than other forms of validation.



I'm guessing you're talking about a 'clash of types' in another thread. Rather hasty to generalise from that, especially if you factor in all the pagans who read what you wrote and didn't start talking about being offended.

Maybe Bob can speak up, but the generalization at least used to hold water in the 1980s thru early 2000s. Generic neopagan / wiccan drew heavily from the liberal / feminist / hippie / eco-activist community. Heathen / Asatru drew much more from the conservative / libertarian community.

[Maythe]

In 1979 with Adler's publication of Drawing Down the Moon. It wasn't until many years later that they became accepted again.

Didn't realise they'd ever been out... Heathens have been referred to as a kind of Pagan all the time I've been Pagan (only about ten years, but still). There also seems to have been a shift in the definition of Heathen while I've been away - I think I and a bunch of older 'Heathens' I know may have been defined out. Oh well.

[bobthesane]

Maybe Bob can speak up, but the generalization at least used to hold water in the 1980s thru early 2000s. Generic neopagan / wiccan drew heavily from the liberal / feminist / hippie / eco-activist community. Heathen / Asatru drew much more from the conservative / libertarian community.

We never stopped being under the general 'pagan' umbrella, although many of us seem to be moving away from it. The primary reason being that, well, frankly we DON'T fit in very well in many pan-pagan groups. A lot of that is due to us being uncomfortable with what many of us see as the lassez faire approach to religion and faith that many neopagans appear to exhibit and in an effort to distance ourselves from this some heathens become very vocal about not being like 'those people'. Unfortunately, the brush has gotten wider and wider over the years until many heathens have adopted an extremely Us vs. Them mindset and exhibit out and out hostility towards other pagans.

On the other side of the coin, some current neopagans are operating under the mistaken impression that we're all a bunch of misogynistic nazis. While we have always had issues with some people believing that of us, it seems to me that in some locales it's gotten much worse. Case in point, when I first moved to Indianapolis a few years ago I could find NO heathens at first, because (I was later informed) many of them had basically gone into hiding, sequestering themselves away from the larger pagan community due to all of us being branded by the nazitru label by a large number of the other pagans. It was decided in many circles that it just wasn't worth the fight, and we'd do our own thing away from everyone else. Did the attitude help? No, not really. But I can *totally* see where it comes from.

In order to feel like we're part of the larger pagan community, we have to feel like the community has something to offer us and that WE have something that is of value as well, and frankly these things just don't happen all that often these days. The end result? We become withdrawn, almost clannish, and start to view with suspicion those who we might have welcomed 10 years ago.

And let's face it: we're NOT like most other neo-pagans. Trying to cram us into a neat little cubby gives us muscle cramps and a crick in the neck

[Melamphoros]

We never stopped being under the general 'pagan' umbrella, although many of us seem to be moving away from it. The primary reason being that, well, frankly we DON'T fit in very well in many pan-pagan groups. A lot of that is due to us being uncomfortable with what many of us see as the lassez faire approach to religion and faith that many neopagans appear to exhibit and in an effort to distance ourselves from this some heathens become very vocal about not being like 'those people'. Unfortunately, the brush has gotten wider and wider over the years until many heathens have adopted an extremely Us vs. Them mindset and exhibit out and out hostility towards other pagans.

I know that you have much more knowledge of this, but I have to ask: Why doesn't it seems like the other prominent types of reconstructionist have this mindset? From what I can tell Hellenic, Kemetic, Roman and Celtic Recons do not reject the "pagan" label (or at least not as widely) and do not have much of an "Us vs. Them" mentality.

[Hyacinth Belle]

Kinda perplexed by a) the separation of heathenry from the pagan umbrella,

This is something I've pondered myself and have considered starting a thread about, but I didn't have the energy or care enough about the topic to deal with the uproar I thought such a thread might cause.

It's not a total separation... I mean the two words are basically interchangeable in the meaning "not JCI." But I feel that heathens do tend to see themselves as somewhat separate from the larger pagan community, for several reasons. Here are some I've considered:

- I think Juniper has a point with the "feelings" vs. "information" predisposition.
- The larger pagan population has a tendency towards earth-centered worship; the general pagan population tends to relate to nature in very different ways from the general heathen population.
- Ancestor worship / the idea of heritage and all the ideas these concepts bring up in heathenry is generally not present in the larger pagan population.
- As has come up multiple times on TC, but the differences in the general relationship between human and divine in general heathenry vs. general pagan communities.... roughly, the more impersonal vs. more personal relationship with the divine, respectively.
- A sense of more "liberal" socio-political leanings in the general pagan population, but more "conservative" leanings in the general heathen population.
- Reconstructionist perspective vs. non-recon perspective. I'd be curious to know if other reconstructionists feel a separation from non-recon pagans as well?

Here is an excellent, well thought out, and well written article: The Pentagram and the Hammer. Parts may be a little dated at this point, and it's somewhat long, but I really think it covers this subject well. Of particular interest, I think, to people who want to skim are the comments about the mystery stance to religion, religious symbols (the title of the article), misrepresentative taboos, intra-group strata, and communication and language use.

and b) the sweeping generalisation that pagans in general focus on emotional rather than other forms of validation.

What other forms of validation? Honestly not trying to be rude. If someone is not looking for "validation" from a reconstructionist perspective, what are they looking at besides emotion or "personal" validation?

I'm guessing you're talking about a 'clash of types' in another thread. Rather hasty to generalise from that, especially if you factor in all the pagans who read what you wrote and didn't start talking about being offended.

Good point. Also, just a note, but one can access the original post in a quote by clicking the little ">>" symbol next to the quoted poster's name.