Author Topic: Reconstructionism and Living Cultures (Read 5558 times)

Juni · « **on:** March 18, 2014, 04:12:17 pm »

I've been having some thoughts on the label "reconstructionist", its general usefulness as an approach, and how it intersects with living cultures, cultures of origin, and cultures in diaspora. I'm attempting coherency on the subject now because of two different things- reading Naomi's post here on cultural misappropriation and differences, and Veggie talking about a podcast in chat, in which Tamara Siuda said "reconstructionism is a dead end because we cannot replicate how people lived then when we are living now." (I don't have the link for that podcast, maybe someone could share it here?)

I almost always describe myself as a syncretic eclectic with a strong interest/preference in history and historical sources, but not actually a reconstructionist. I also, on my blog, list my culture of origin in with the three ancient cultures I draw from, because that lens of origin is a thing and I think it needs to be paid attention to. In Naomi's post, she talks about how reconstructionism is heavily a North American thing, and how North American Celtic pagans are divorced from the modern Celtic cultures. It's brought up a few questions for me.

- Are there any cultures that pagans reconstruct (or attempt to reconstruct) that do not have any modern legacy? I think people would probably jump on Kemeticism, but Egypt does have a distinct culture, and Coptic Christianity and Egyptiam Islam are different than Christianity and Islam elsewhere; and as mentioned by Nykti and Veggie in chat, there are folk traditions that persist today that really ping off older practices and beliefs.

- Can one realistically and faithfully reconstruct an ancient culture if there's a modern living culture, and one is not part of said modern living culture? Where does reconstructing while living in diaspora, or having no cultural connection whatsoever, cross the line into appropriation?

- Why do reconstructionist pagans seem (to me, at least) to very rarely publicly acknowledge and discuss their culture of origin and its influences on their reconstructionism?

- If you are a recon, why do you use the label? What do you feel is different about your approach from other culturally-focused religious approaches? (Like, say, calling oneself a revivalist, or a cultural polytheist, etc.)

Hyacinth Belle · « **Reply #1 on:** March 18, 2014, 07:12:15 pm »

Quote from: Juni;142868

- Can one realistically and faithfully reconstruct an ancient culture if there's a modern living culture, and one is not part of said modern living culture? Where does reconstructing while living in diaspora, or having no cultural connection whatsoever, cross the line into appropriation?

Interesting question! Something I haven't thought about directly before, but perhaps unconsciously.

I wouldn't really call myself a reconstructionist... which I think is a semantic / term thing with me, partially because of this issue. I am interested in the historical basis of Heathenry and in recreating some of those practices and world views. But I wouldn't call myself a reconstructionist.

I wouldn't call myself that because I don't think it's possible to really reconstruct anything. We can interpret and adapt, but "reconstruct" is a misnomer, I think. And I'll admit I have an image of re-enactors and ren faire geeks (and I was one!) that comes up when I think about reconstruction, and I'm not interested in doing that religiously. Although the capitalist / materialistic focus of modern culture isn't really my cup of tea... hence my interest in taking a look at historical attitudes and practices.

Juniperberry · « **Reply #2 on:** March 19, 2014, 02:14:03 am »

Quote from: Juni;142868

- Can one realistically and faithfully reconstruct an ancient culture if there's a modern living culture, and one is not part of said modern living culture? Where does reconstructing while living in diaspora, or having no cultural connection whatsoever, cross the line into appropriation?

This is a little close to home for me because my husband and in-laws happen to be citizens of Germany. I feel...ridiculous? in a way talking to him about historical Germanic practices and the ways that those practices have evolved because it is his culture.

Quote

- Why do reconstructionist pagans seem (to me, at least) to very rarely publicly acknowledge and discuss their culture of origin and its influences on their reconstructionism?

I often see it discussed but in the sense that their CoO is the old christianized worldview that needs to be identified and eradicted from the worldview that they're reconstructing.

Quote

- If you are a recon, why do you use the label? What do you feel is different about your approach from other culturally-focused religious approaches? (Like, say, calling oneself a revivalist, or a cultural polytheist, etc.)

I'll currently use it because it expresses the school of paganism that I've been most influenced by, but I don't think that I'll ever-- EVER-- be able to reconstruct an accurate understanding of what a 1st century worldview was like.

Also, I came across a question a while back-- How has religion and faith evolved and advanced similarly to science, medicine and technology?-- and that question has me agreeing with Suida's comment you mentioned. It is a dead end in a way. It's a starting point, I think, but then we have to also accelerate from the reconstructionism just to try to catch up to today. And thats...where I think the really interesting aspect of it all might come in.

Sophia C · « **Reply #3 on:** March 19, 2014, 06:17:15 am »

Quote from: Juni;142868

- Are there any cultures that pagans reconstruct (or attempt to reconstruct) that do not have any modern legacy? I think people would probably jump on Kemeticism, but Egypt does have a distinct culture, and Coptic Christianity and Egyptiam Islam are different than Christianity and Islam elsewhere; and as mentioned by Nykti and Veggie in chat, there are folk traditions that persist today that really ping off older practices and beliefs.

I guess the reconstructions of the very ancient cultures, like Canaanite reconstructionism, don't have the same potential problems as those that interact with living cultures. All the same, there are still potentials for offence there - for example, when I went to Israel and reached out to the Canaanite gods, and was told in no uncertain terms that this was poor hospitality in a land where the majority of people are Jewish. It's certainly going to be a lot less problematic generally, though.

Quote

- Can one realistically and faithfully reconstruct an ancient culture if there's a modern living culture, and one is not part of said modern living culture? Where does reconstructing while living in diaspora, or having no cultural connection whatsoever, cross the line into appropriation?

I think you can, although I'm starting to change my mind about the idea that we can ever reconstruct ancient paganisms. As an example, the Brython group (Brythonic reconstructionist group) were talking about 'reconnection' rather than reconstructionism towards the end of their existence as a group. It's definitely easier to reconstruct some ancient religions than others, but ultimately I wonder if it's futile to think it can be done really well - especially with some cultures, where there just isn't complete enough information. Cultural polytheism has been my alternative since I started feeling this way.

Quote

- Why do reconstructionist pagans seem (to me, at least) to very rarely publicly acknowledge and discuss their culture of origin and its influences on their reconstructionism?

I think this varies from group to group. Gaol Naofa, for example, is very aware of, and rooted in, recent (if not modern) Irish and Scottish cultures. But there does seem to be a sort of embarrassment about some modern cultures from some groups. I've heard a lot of people - mostly outside the cultures in question - talking about how terrible it is that people in such-and-such a country no longer practice 'traditional' ways. They seem to miss the ways that those traditions have evolved and developed. One example is the way that Irish step-dancing is sometimes laughed at for not being traditional enough - as though 'traditions' can't be things that developed after the medieval period. I find this especially ironic when, to use the example I gave in my post, the British forms of druidry and other modern Paganisms are mocked - usually for things that are integral to their British character.

Quote

- If you are a recon, why do you use the label? What do you feel is different about your approach from other culturally-focused religious approaches? (Like, say, calling oneself a revivalist, or a cultural polytheist, etc.)

I use some reconstructionist methods - but not solely those, as I said in my post, as I think those methods have developed in ways that don't work for certain cultures. There are some things taken for granted by many reconstructionists that I think need to be questioned. The primacy of texts is one, and the general ignoring of modern cultures and folklore is another. But there I'm generalizing, of course - there are no doubt plenty of reconstructionists who don't do these things.

celtickitty16 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 19, 2014, 06:41:06 am »

Quote from: Juni;142868

I've been having some thoughts on the label "reconstructionist", its general usefulness as an approach, and how it intersects with living cultures, cultures of origin, and cultures in diaspora. I'm attempting coherency on the subject now because of two different things- reading Naomi's post here on cultural misappropriation and differences, and Veggie talking about a podcast in chat, in which Tamara Siuda said "reconstructionism is a dead end because we cannot replicate how people lived then when we are living now." (I don't have the link for that podcast, maybe someone could share it here?)

I almost always describe myself as a syncretic eclectic with a strong interest/preference in history and historical sources, but not actually a reconstructionist. I also, on my blog, list my culture of origin in with the three ancient cultures I draw from, because that lens of origin is a thing and I think it needs to be paid attention to. In Naomi's post, she talks about how reconstructionism is heavily a North American thing, and how North American Celtic pagans are divorced from the modern Celtic cultures. It's brought up a few questions for me.

- Are there any cultures that pagans reconstruct (or attempt to reconstruct) that do not have any modern legacy? I think people would probably jump on Kemeticism, but Egypt does have a distinct culture, and Coptic Christianity and Egyptiam Islam are different than Christianity and Islam elsewhere; and as mentioned by Nykti and Veggie in chat, there are folk traditions that persist today that really ping off older practices and beliefs.

- Can one realistically and faithfully reconstruct an ancient culture if there's a modern living culture, and one is not part of said modern living culture? Where does reconstructing while living in diaspora, or having no cultural connection whatsoever, cross the line into appropriation?

- Why do reconstructionist pagans seem (to me, at least) to very rarely publicly acknowledge and discuss their culture of origin and its influences on their reconstructionism?

- If you are a recon, why do you use the label? What do you feel is different about your approach from other culturally-focused religious approaches? (Like, say, calling oneself a revivalist, or a cultural polytheist, etc.)

These are my thoughts too especially as it was my original question that sparked the discussion (which i love by the way :p)

I dont think we can honestly imitate/reconstruct someones cultural history and practice ,especially with the celtic side as there is so little first person written knowledge ,which is what got me asking in the first place.
I guess it's like running lines in a lay and unfortunately finding pages torn out and having to use improvisation.
Besides these days everything is modernised even if we don't wish or mean it to be.It seems to me a lot of the ancient traditions can be honoured but not sucessfully reconstructed.
That being said there are tools from these original periods and cultures which are used the same way today(crystal ball ,tarot,runes etc)so maybe it is possible to reconstruct..depends on the level of reconstruction you're after with your faith perhaps??

Gilbride · « **Reply #5 on:** March 19, 2014, 07:40:13 am »

Quote from: Naomi J;142931

I use some reconstructionist methods - but not solely those

Same here, even when I'm working with texts. One very common idea in CR is the dream of reviving Iron Age social structures such as the Tuath, sacred kingship, etc and I don't see what the value in that would be. Personally, I feel that reconstructionism isn't really possible even for relatively well-attested areas like ancient Greece. For Celtic cultures, it's really not possible. Still, you can get a lot of good stuff out of ancient material.

DavidMcCann · « **Reply #6 on:** March 19, 2014, 01:31:14 pm »

Quote from: Juni;142868

- Can one realistically and faithfully reconstruct an ancient culture if there's a modern living culture, and one is not part of said modern living culture? Where does reconstructing while living in diaspora, or having no cultural connection whatsoever, cross the line into appropriation?

But is reconstructing a religion the same as reconstructing a culture? Admittedly, some religions are more culture-bound than others. Most people would think Hinduism pretty culture-bound, but no-one can dispute that the Balinese are Hindus and yet Bali has a different culture to India.

For me appropriation is hacking off bits of a religion out of context, or applying inappropriate concepts — like calling Hecate a crone. A Celtic view is expressed here:
http://www.paganachd.com/faq/howdifferent.html#neopagan
and a Heathen view (typically more bluntly!) here:
http://www.robinartisson.com/asatru.html

Juni · « **Reply #7 on:** March 19, 2014, 04:03:53 pm »

Quote from: DavidMcCann;142979

But is reconstructing a religion the same as reconstructing a culture? Admittedly, some religions are more culture-bound than others.

Given that religion as separate from the rest of culture was not a thing until the Romans, I would be surprised to see one without the other.

Quote from: DavidMcCann;142979

For me appropriation is hacking off bits of a religion out of context, or applying inappropriate concepts — like calling Hecate a crone.

Appropriation is also taking that which does not belong to one- which is why it comes up in conversations wrt FN all the time. Context and accuracy are important, but how well can an outsider grasp that context and accuracy without the necessary cultural grounding? Can an outsider make themselves an insider through their own study? (These questions aren't really directed at you, just further musing.)

Jack · « **Reply #8 on:** March 19, 2014, 05:59:16 pm »

Quote from: DavidMcCann;142979

But is reconstructing a religion the same as reconstructing a culture? Admittedly, some religions are more culture-bound than others. Most people would think Hinduism pretty culture-bound, but no-one can dispute that the Balinese are Hindus and yet Bali has a different culture to India.

Most literature professors, when dealing with authors from cultural backgrounds that the students likely do not share, will give the students enough cultural information for the students to understand, on the most basic level, where the author was coming from when he or she wrote their novel. It's recognized that reading Gabriel Garcia Marquez or Salman Rushdie or Haruki Murakami requires some understanding of their culture.

(Heck, that's why movies are adapted for American audiences and Shakespeare gets updated into 10 Things I Hate About You. The Magnificent Seven and Seven Samurai are both classic movies but they're not the same movie.)

If that level of understanding is required to fully appreciate a novel or a movie, how much moreso is it necessary to understand religion? Especially given the vast divide between how the average Christian-raised American perceives concepts like "having a relationship with God" or "separation of church and state," an understanding of how cultures of the past - or even current, living cultures - view their religion differently is necessary if you want to have any hope of actually understanding the mindset they approach religion with.

Yei · « **Reply #9 on:** March 19, 2014, 06:41:02 pm »

Quote from: celtickitty16;142932

These are my thoughts too especially as it was my original question that sparked the discussion (which i love by the way :p)

I dont think we can honestly imitate/reconstruct someones cultural history and practice ,especially with the celtic side as there is so little first person written knowledge ,which is what got me asking in the first place.
I guess it's like running lines in a lay and unfortunately finding pages torn out and having to use improvisation.
Besides these days everything is modernised even if we don't wish or mean it to be.It seems to me a lot of the ancient traditions can be honoured but not sucessfully reconstructed.
That being said there are tools from these original periods and cultures which are used the same way today(crystal ball ,tarot,runes etc)so maybe it is possible to reconstruct..depends on the level of reconstruction you're after with your faith perhaps??

I think you are taking the term Reconstructionism too literally. Reconstructing is more about repairing older religious practices, world view and belief systems so they can be used in the modern world, not an attempt at regression. To do this the emphasis is placed on historical sources so that the cultural context is accounted for and updates and edits remain consistent with regards to the meaning of the aspect being updated.

It is not an attempt to turn back time. Sure, there may be a few reconstructionists who seriously want to do this, but there are extremists in every group and they should not define the majority.

Quote

Given that religion as separate from the rest of culture was not a thing until the Romans, I would be surprised to see one without the other.

I'd like to point out that it still isn't, and never really was. The Separation of Church and State is largely a political divide, not a values one. Notice how US politicians frequently invoke god, not to mention how many political debates have their root in religious issues, such as gay marriage and abortion?

The truth is that our everyday actions and attitudes are informed by our religious beliefs. This includes our attitudes to charity, crime, nature, diet, shopping habits, animal welfare, sex and of course, the afore mentioned political issues. Just because an idea is old, or comes from far away, does not mean it lacks relevance for the modern world.

SunflowerP · « **Reply #10 on:** March 19, 2014, 11:04:08 pm »

Quote from: Rob;143030

A Reminder:

Hi, Rob,

Just a quick note: Please make sure you have the full trackback for every post you quote from. It makes the discussion easier to follow, and it's required by our rules.

The multiquote function will do this for you automatically (as long as you don't accidentally trim out any of the code) if you're using that function. In general, though, we prefer that you respond separately to each post to which you're replying, except in those rare cases in which doing so would be confusing) and - unlike many forums - don't have any rules or customs against double (or triple/quadruple/howevermany) posting.

This isn't a formal warning, just a reminder. No reply is necessary, but if you have questions or need clarification, please feel free to contact a member of staff privately.

Thanks!
Sunflower, TC Forum Staff

DavidMcCann · « **Reply #11 on:** March 20, 2014, 02:48:06 pm »

Quote from: Jack;143014

If that level of understanding is required to fully appreciate a novel or a movie, how much more so is it necessary to understand religion? Especially given the vast divide between how the average Christian-raised American perceives concepts like "having a relationship with God" or "separation of church and state," an understanding of how cultures of the past - or even current, living cultures - view their religion differently is necessary if you want to have any hope of actually understanding the mindset they approach religion with.

But as I said, a religion can fit into different cultures, like Balinese and Indian Hinduism. Similarity, Christianity in the USA is not quite the same as Christianity in Europe. The concept of "personal relationship with jesus" is characteristic of US Protestantism. The concept of "separation of church and state" is unknown in Britain, Scandinavia, and (as far as education goes) in Spain, Portugal, and Poland.

RandallS · « **Reply #12 on:** March 21, 2014, 08:05:03 am »

Quote from: Juni;142868

- Can one realistically and faithfully reconstruct an ancient culture if there's a modern living culture, and one is not part of said modern living culture?

Most religious reconstruction attempts to reconstruction the religion for current day culture and does not try to reconstruct any ancient culture. Yes, most ancient religions were embedded in their culture in ways many "modern" religions are not, but few people are interested in trying to duplicate that, but rather in reconstructing the religion in a way that works in the modern world.

Quote

Where does reconstructing while living in diaspora, or having no cultural connection whatsoever, cross the line into appropriation?

As my idea of cultural appropriation is pretty much limited to pretending to an authorized agent of that culture to make money (e.g. selling weekend courses that claim to make one a real

Quote

Why do reconstructionist pagans seem (to me, at least) to very rarely publicly acknowledge and discuss their culture of origin and its influences on their reconstructionism?

I see a lot of discussion of the ancient versions of the cultures (as they were when the religion was still practiced). I don't see a lot of discussion of the modern cultures because they are generally Christian, Muslim, etc. and therefore have little to say about the ancient religion.

veggiewolf · « **Reply #13 on:** March 24, 2014, 07:20:52 pm »

Quote from: Juni;142868

I've been having some thoughts on the label "reconstructionist", its general usefulness as an approach, and how it intersects with living cultures, cultures of origin, and cultures in diaspora. I'm attempting coherency on the subject now because of two different things- reading Naomi's post here on cultural misappropriation and differences, and Veggie talking about a podcast in chat, in which Tamara Siuda said "reconstructionism is a dead end because we cannot replicate how people lived then when we are living now." (I don't have the link for that podcast, maybe someone could share it here?)

Here's a link.

Quote

- Are there any cultures that pagans reconstruct (or attempt to reconstruct) that do not have any modern legacy? I think people would probably jump on Kemeticism, but Egypt does have a distinct culture, and Coptic Christianity and Egyptiam Islam are different than Christianity and Islam elsewhere; and as mentioned by Nykti and Veggie in chat, there are folk traditions that persist today that really ping off older practices and beliefs.

I keep thinking about whether there are any truly dead cultures that have no connections to modern culture...and I can't think of any.

Quote

- Can one realistically and faithfully reconstruct an ancient culture if there's a modern living culture, and one is not part of said modern living culture? Where does reconstructing while living in diaspora, or having no cultural connection whatsoever, cross the line into appropriation?

I...don't know. I remember a discussion about Judaism in diaspora and the fact that there's no priestly caste right now; the rabbis are teachers rather than priests.

(Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please.)

Kemetics are in diaspora, but that means different things depending who you ask. To me, it means there's no Pharaoh...among other things.

Materialist · « **Reply #14 on:** March 24, 2014, 10:24:06 pm »

Quote from: Naomi J;142931

I use some reconstructionist methods - but not solely those, as I said in my post, as I think those methods have developed in ways that don't work for certain cultures. There are some things taken for granted by many reconstructionists that I think need to be questioned. The primacy of texts is one, and the general ignoring of modern cultures and folklore is another. But there I'm generalizing, of course - there are no doubt plenty of reconstructionists who don't do these things.

I read your blog post at least three times, and it is the same thing I would have written if I had been in that mood. You're not my clone, are you?:p

Among reconstructionist religions there are "localist" movements in some communities who focus on adapting paganism to their local ecosystems. "Ignoring modern cultures and folklore..." I think this is referring back to your blog, wherein you mentioned Recons acting like nothing happened after the Middle Ages?

Well, coming from my localist viewpoint, "modern culture and folklore"=stuff happening in Illinois. I very quickly lost interest in European texts and folklore because they have nothing to do with North America. Completely different worlds, in my opinion. So I don't "import," as I call it, Scottish fairies or Irish gods, or whatever-they're not of Illinoisan cultures. So it's not so much ignoring your culture as it is being content with mine.

Early modern European culture I do have some interest in because a lot of my ancestors were the first settlers in the colonies, and I like the music and gaming traditions of that era, but that's about as far back as it goes. "Oh, but you're a pagan!" you have probably interjected. Ter-rue, but being born at the time when, and in the country where, the reconstructionist idea was taking form, from my perspective, Celtic Recon (and other recon movements) is a native U.S. religious tradition, part of my heritage as an American, however brief that may be.

So, converting to Celtic Recon, or another pagan religion, wouldn't be cultural appropriation because they arose out of the swamp of American religious culture. But the list of criticisms of Recon you made in your blog, are my own, and there is some appropriation going on, like taking 18th century fairy lore out of it historical context, paganizing Catholic traditions of the same period, or learning a Celtic language which, if you're not living in the area or doing translation work, I don't see the point. And a thing I would add to your list is an anti-syncretism streak, a need to have a "pure" Celtic/Germanic/whatever religion which, in my opinion, ignores the exuberance of the pagan religions they're trying to reconstruct.

"Primacy of texts" with Recons, in my opinion, arises out of the United States' heritage of religious fundamentalism: the Evangelicals, Pentecostals, etc., coupled with our almost equally old heritage of new age ideas (New Thought Movement, Edgar Cayce, etc.). The oldest (and unfortunately a lot of modern) books on "Celtic paganism" were (still are) toilet paper. So a preoccupation with historical accuracy quickly came to the front.

The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum

News:

Recent Posts

Author Topic: Reconstructionism and Living Cultures (Read 5558 times)

Juni

Reconstructionism and Living Cultures

Hyacinth Belle

Re: Reconstructionism and Living Cultures

Juniperberry

Re: Reconstructionism and Living Cultures

Sophia C

Re: Reconstructionism and Living Cultures

celtickitty16

Re: Reconstructionism and Living Cultures

Gilbride

Re: Reconstructionism and Living Cultures

DavidMcCann

Re: Reconstructionism and Living Cultures

Juni

Re: Reconstructionism and Living Cultures

Jack

Re: Reconstructionism and Living Cultures

Yei

Re: Reconstructionism and Living Cultures

SunflowerP

Re: Reconstructionism and Living Cultures

DavidMcCann

Re: Reconstructionism and Living Cultures

RandallS

Re: Reconstructionism and Living Cultures

veggiewolf

Re: Reconstructionism and Living Cultures

Materialist

Re: Reconstructionism and Living Cultures

Related Topics

Who's Online

Please Donate!

Shop & Support TC

In Memoriam

Cauldron Staff