The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum

Hello.

I've noticed that a number of neo-pagans seem to be critical of eclectic paths.  Do you feel it's ok to be on an eclectic path (either tendentially or absolutely)?  Why or why not?

Thanks in advance for any responses.

Hello.

I've noticed that a number of neo-pagans seem to be critical of eclectic paths.  Do you feel it's ok to be on an eclectic path (either tendentially or absolutely)?  Why or why not?

Thanks in advance for any responses.

 
There's nothing wrong. Just a bunch of people who frankly need to back off and leave eclectics alone.

Hello.

I've noticed that a number of neo-pagans seem to be critical of eclectic paths.  Do you feel it's ok to be on an eclectic path (either tendentially or absolutely)?  Why or why not?

Thanks in advance for any responses.

There is nothing wrong with being eclectic, I am eclectic myself. I tried in all earnesty to be reconstructionist and it just wasn't for me. I am glad that there are people out there who are trying to reconstruct the pre-christian European religions they should be preserved but it isn't everyone's cup of tea just as the eclectic path isn't for everyone.

Do not worry too much about what others think of your path no matter what path you follow someone out there will be critical of it..

Hello.

I've noticed that a number of neo-pagans seem to be critical of eclectic paths.  Do you feel it's ok to be on an eclectic path (either tendentially or absolutely)?  Why or why not?

Thanks in advance for any responses.

I don't think eclecticism in itself is a problem, but there can be a problem if there is a living culture, especially one that has been dominated and exploited like the Native Americans, is offended.  Their traditions belong to them.  They get to draw the lines.

But it is not always black and white where to draw the line. Celtic Reconstructionism was largely started by members of the Celtic diaspora in America.  The community has healthy relations with the living Celtic cultures and many Celts are Reconstructionists.

I tend to think dead cultures are okay to draw from, too.  I've been reading the Greek myths and I love them.  They are where our Western mindset comes from, there is something I can identify with in it, and it's very much part of the cultural heritage of the West, the names of the gods making themselves even into the English language.

This is how I draw my line when I'm invited to a eclectic ritual by my friends.  They have invited me to eclectic and reconstructionist rites and I never had a problem.  It might be different if it was a different group, though.

I don't think eclecticism in itself is a problem, but there can be a problem if there is a living culture, especially one that has been dominated and exploited like the Native Americans, is offended.  Their traditions belong to them.  They get to draw the lines.

But it is not always black and white where to draw the line. Celtic Reconstructionism was largely started by members of the Celtic diaspora in America.  The community has healthy relations with the living Celtic cultures and many Celts are Reconstructionists.

I tend to think dead cultures are okay to draw from, too.  I've been reading the Greek myths and I love them.  They are where our Western mindset comes from, there is something I can identify with in it, and it's very much part of the cultural heritage of the West, the names of the gods making themselves even into the English language.

I do believe this is often the heart of the matter when someone, anyone, talks about having a problem with eclecticism. In the circles I've been in and interacted with the critique often brought up was that eclecticism often missed out on specific contexts of the different theologies they took parts from to make the whole of their religious practice and system of belief. To me it raises a good point that one should be mindful of what is actually being said and done in theological context, and that trying to marry together very different concepts from different theologies often doesn't work unless you know and understand the concepts involved in the religious parts you wish to marry together from both inside their original theologies and from outside the theologies.

Then there is the whole bag of snakes that is cultural appropriation from living cultures (The First Nations being a prime example). But that's something that's been so commonly talked about and EclecticWheel has pretty well hit the nail on the head in mentioning it. The next biggest thing I've often heard is the fear that eclecticism is often used as license to just make up shit. I'm not talking about making up connections and structures that are a creative but insightful and well thought-out and reasoned way to get around theology snarls. I'm talking about cloudcuckoolander, whacky mescaline trip with alien jesus and flying pyramids stuff on one hand, and in the other hand the close-but-not quite beliefs about a certain cultural practice or theological concept but has been doctored by either ideological agenda, cronyism, or just mistaken information into something very different than what it might have been. The things that you hear and you just go "dafuq". I've only ever seen eclecticism used as this once or twice, but that fear gets circulated quickly and before you know it it has become the latest thing to use to gauge whether or not someone is "up to snuff" in terms of their paganism. Personally I feel looking at eclecticsm in that kind of a light is pretty short-sighted, and blaming everyone else for one chummer's fantasyplay.

Hello.

I've noticed that a number of neo-pagans seem to be critical of eclectic paths.  Do you feel it's ok to be on an eclectic path (either tendentially or absolutely)?  Why or why not?

Thanks in advance for any responses.

 
In addition to what everyone else has said, another reason why some pagans seem to be critical of eclectic paths is the lack of work that some eclectics put into their practice that comes off as disrespectful. For example, the other day on another pagan site I'm a member of, someone wanted to join who was a Lokean who viewed Loki as a god of love.

Loki as a god of love. I'll let that sit in for a minute.

I'm all for exploring within a path or tradition, but there's exploration, and there is "I'm just gonna do whatever the hell I want because magic!" When you completely toss aside all or most of a tradition's information on deity and do what you want, you aren't being considerate to that tradition's history or to the followers of that path, and that's not cool. To me, when you can take the time and learn about the deities you are honoring in an eclectic path, it shows a certain discipline that I can respect even without agreeing with you.

Ok... My screen just had some tea... I should know better by now.

 
When I saw it my laptop decided to look like a coffee waterfall. It was a rough day.

Loki as a god of love. I'll let that sit in for a minute.

 
I once had an eclectic friend swear to me that cinnamon was sacred to Freya, and when I expressed skepticism to the idea that cinnamon would really be available to the Viking-age Norse, he scoffed at me. He told me that since he practiced actual magic, where I focus more on scholarship, he was the authority and knew better than me.

Another complaint against eclectics can simply come from a hard-polytheist vs. soft polytheist approach. Most of the eclectics I've known tend toward soft-polytheism, while most recons tend toward hard-polytheism, so they can often see some eclectic approaches as being disrespectful. Like that same friend of mine who insisted that Brigid followed the Mother-Maiden-Crone dynamic, even though there's really nothing to support that idea.