A Lexicon

In another thread over on the Pagan board there was some confusion and disagreement about the use of certain words. These words were considered inflammatory and insulting by at least on person while other thought them perfectly apt in the context in which they were being used. It seems that in todays world anyone may choose any word to be insulted by and everyone else is supposed to stop using that word.

This is silly and can only lead to the end of communication as we know it (a path we seem to be running headlong down anyway - but I digress).

So it occurred to me that what we need is a Lexicon. Something we can refer to when we're not sure if someone is trying to insult us or not. I fully realize that in a community as divergent as this one this could be an exercise in futility. But it also sounds like fun, so I though "what the heck, lets give it a go."

Below are words referring to all things pagan (and some not) that I use in common discourse. None of these are meant to be insulting unless I put this at the end of the definition. If you are insulted by a term that I have not marked as insulting - lets examine why? Post your own words. Expand upon or rip apart my definitions (none of which were written to be fully exhaustive) at your whim.

And so...,

Atheism: Belief in NO GODS. If you’re calling yourself a Pagan but you believe all the gods are just man-made Jungian Archetypes you are an atheist.


Blessed Wanna-Be: (borrowed from Willow on B.T.V.S.) These are self-identified pagans of any stripe who would appear to have acquired most (if not all) of their knowledge from ‘teen-witch’ books and Charmed. Really this is anyone who can use the term “white-lighter” with a straight face.


Christopagan: These fall into two factions (in my experience) - Rebelling Christians and Pagans who can’t let go of their Christian baggage. While I have a certain sympathy for both groups I maintain my belief that one may be either pagan or christian but one may not be both. Any attempt to reconcile the two beliefs only serves to create a third category which belongs to neither.


Druid: A useless word - wrenched out of shape by too many groups and agendas going as far back as the 16th century.


Eclectic: Among Pagans this is an individual who picks and chooses their beliefs and/or gods from multiple sources.


Fluff Bunny: Can you go more than ten minutes without talking about “The Burning Times”? Is your ‘craft name’ more than fifty letters long and includes unicorn, dragon, twilight, or fairy? You know who you are, or..., well, you probably don’t.


Hard-Polytheism: Among Polytheists the belief in multiple distinct and independent gods (and by extension - entire pantheons).


Heathen: What the Asatru call themselves because ‘Pagan’ sounds too wishy-washy and ‘reconstructionist’ sounds too clinical. No, but really, modern revivals of Germanic Paganism go here.


Monotheism: Belief in ONE GOD. If your god splits into three parts on weekends or twelve parts after 6 p.m. on tuesdays but is still functionally a singular being you are a monotheist.


Neo-Paganism: A subdivision of Paganism. Specifically any polytheist belief system founded in the modern period without the intent to reconstruct any ancient paganisms. Wicca (despite all of Gardner’s horseplay about regarding its origins) would be the most famous example.


Paganism: Any polytheist religion which at it’s core is based on or related to (in however small a way) Indo-European cultural beliefs. In this view both Wicca and Asatru are equally Pagan.


Polytheism: Belief in MULTIPLE GODS. Any number above 1 qualifies here.


Reconstructionist: A methodology in which religious practice is based on the surviving historical record, and on surviving folk practices of a particular culture.


Soft-Polytheism: Among Polytheists a belief in a specific finite number of gods (usually two but sometimes up to twelve) who represent themselves as every other god ever believed in. Duotheists are this by definition Soft-Polytheists.

This eclectic enjoyed this list. I just want to know how you found out about the 6-PM rule on Tuesdays.

TigersEyeDowsing wrote:This eclectic enjoyed this list. I just want to know how you found out about the 6-PM rule on Tuesdays.

A well-meaning friend signed me up for the God-of-the-Month Club and now I'm getting all their mailings!

You left out NeoWiccan and Wiccanesque!

Dromahair wrote:

TigersEyeDowsing wrote:This eclectic enjoyed this list. I just want to know how you found out about the 6-PM rule on Tuesdays.

A well-meaning friend signed me up for the God-of-the-Month Club and now I'm getting all their mailings!

Oh, I was part of that. It's so hard to get out of, as some of those gods are so 'jealous'.

SeventhCrow wrote:You left out NeoWiccan and Wiccanesque!

Yes I did. The first is a word I have never used. The second I would likely add in an upcoming post (I do have a few more definitions up my sleve) but please feel free to do it yourself. This is supposed to be a group exercise.

And what's the point of it if I might ask? What you are putting up is your personal definitions for words aren't you?

Pagan from ReligiousTolerance:

There is no generally accepted, single, current definition for the word "Pagan." The word is among the terms that the newsgroup alt.usage.english, calls "skunk words." They have varied meanings to different people. The field of religion is rife with such words. consider: Christian, cult, hell, heaven, occult, Paganism, pluralism, salvation, Witch, Witchcraft, Unitarian Universalist, Voodoo, etc. Each has so many meanings that they often cause misunderstandings wherever they are used. Unfortunately, most people do not know this, and naturally assume that the meaning that they have been taught is universally accepted. A reader must often look at the context in which the word is used in order to guess at the intent of the writer.

We recognize that many Wiccans, Neopagans, and others regularly use the terms "Pagan" and "Paganism" to describe themselves. Everyone should be free to continue whatever definitions that they wish. However, the possibility of major confusion exists -- particularly if one is talking to a general audience. When addressing non-Wiccans or non-Neopagans, it is important that the term:

Be carefully defined in advance, or that
Its meaning is clearly understandable from the text's context.
Otherwise, the speaker or writer will be referring to one group of people, while the listeners or readers will assume that other groups are being referred to.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/paganism.htm

Eclectic Wicca (from Wicca For The Rest of Us)

Those of us outside of a Tradition are Eclectics. They most often learn from books, websites, and personal experience, finding particular practices that are meaningful to them and constructing their own unique forms of worship. Eclecticism is not a Tradition. There is no tradition being passed between practitioners, and two Eclectics may have nothing in common outside of their basic understandings of Wicca.

http://wicca.timerift.net/gathering.shtml

I do not conform to this definition because I am in a tradition. My tradition defines it this way:

Webster's New World dictionary defines eclectic as "selecting or selected from various sources." UEW is based upon not one or two sources but upon an infinite number of sources... any source its students find useful, provided the context of the source is taken into consideration and respected.

Kaatryn MacMorgan - All One Wicca

NeoPagan:

a general term for a variety of movements both organized and (usually) nonorganized, started since 1960 c.e. or so (though they had literary roots going back to the mid-1800’s), as attempts to recreate, revive or continue what their founders thought were the best aspects of the Paleopagan ways of their ancestors (or predecessors), blended with modern humanistic, pluralist and inclusionary ideals, while consciously striving to eliminate as much as possible of the traditional Western monotheism, dualism, and puritanism. The core Neopagan beliefs include a multiplicity of deities of all genders, a perception of those deities as both immanent and transcendent, a commitment to environmental awareness, and a willingness to perform magical as well as spiritual rituals to help both ourselves and others.

Isaac Bonewits http://www.neopagan.net/PaganDefs.html

Isaac has his own Pagan Glossary here:

http://www.neopagan.net/Pagan_Glossary.html

I think that everyone will find it interesting how he defines different words.

Actually Gilly, I like that definition of Neo Pagan, that is just not the way it is usually thrown around. I usually hear it as an insult and one becomes defensive when that happens.

I understand and agree with the value of a shared / recognized lexicon. Makes communication easier: scientific names for species v. local names, etc.

The danger of establishing a "concrete" lexicon for something as fluid and subjective as someone's faith/spirituality is that there will never be a global agreement on what each term really means. It will always be a "general" description.

For example: I call myself Pagan even though my beliefs are pretty much lock-step with Pantheism. I don't pray to any Gods or Goddesses.

Pantheist describes how I think about the world and my relationship to it.
Pagan describes how I feel spiritually.

MaineCaptain wrote:Actually Gilly, I like that definition of Neo Pagan, that is just not the way it is usually thrown around. I usually hear it as an insult and one becomes defensive when that happens.

I like it do too and groups that call themselves recons can fit into it, too. Isaac Bonewits has an interesting point of view.

I don't really mind the term NeoPagan, although it is frowned on within my tradition. I realize that some people use it to mean things that aren't insulting, and if they explain their definition, I know what they do mean and don't take offense. Other people do use it as an insult and it really isn't difficult to deduce from the rest of of their post(s) that they are calling names in a passive aggressive way. It is all in intent.

MaineCaptain wrote:Actually Gilly, I like that definition of Neo Pagan, that is just not the way it is usually thrown around. I usually hear it as an insult and one becomes defensive when that happens.

That is exactly the meaning intended the vast majority of the times I've seen it used. I've only heard it used as an insult a couple of times--and each of those saw somebody correct the usage.

I have had a couple of people on boards and in real life say it in a derogatory manner. I guess that is why I have developed a sensitivity to the word. But that is like any word really. A nasty person can make cupcake sound bad.

I have no problem with you Seventh Crow Have a good evening my friend

gillyflower wrote:And what's the point of it if I might ask? What you are putting up is your personal definitions for words aren't you?

The point (if there needs to be one) is to look for some commonality in our speech, to avoid (if possible) the silly miscommunications and accusations of "name calling" that cropped up in that other thread. What do WE mean when we say certain words? Can we agree on particular (or even general) definitions? Because if we can't, we are doomed.

I do not accept the axiom that anyone is allowed to define any word in any way they want to and the rest of us have to just accept that. The only reason we are able to have this conversation at all is because thousands of years ago our ancestors agreed that words and symbols DID have specific meanings. I hate to see all their good work gone to waste.

While I appreciate the various quotes you have provided, for the purposes of this thread I couldn't care less what ReligiousTolerance.org, Webster or Bonewits have to say on the topic. I'm much more interested in YOUR definitions or your specific criticisms of mine.

Drom, I don't think that we are doomed for not agreeing on the meaning of terms. We have a 1st Circle lesson (well, part of it) that is about exactly this thing, We have definitions of words that are used and known within the tradition and it is useful as a sort of shorthand but not useful at all when discussing things with outsiders. We have another vocabulary set that is useful for discussing things within the religion itself. We understand that people outside of the religion are going to define words differently than we do. It's expected. We also expect to explain the way we are using words when discussing anything of a religious nature with people in other religions, if we want them to understand us and for them to explain how they are using words.

I don't think that it is important that we all use the same words to mean the same things as long as no one minds explaining how they are using a word. It think that it is more important that people realize that we don't have to all have the same definitions and still be able to get along.

Possibly I should explain that my profession strongly influences the way I think about the definitions of words. Every day I am asked to define words and explain things and I would never give my own personal definition for a word. I open a dictionary and read that definition straight from it and source it. It's one reason why I said that outsiders define, or help to define, the umbrella terms. People, when they don't know what a word means, go to a dictionary or an encyclopedia which has the common usage, according to that source. They accept it as accurate, even if people within the religion don't. If you would like my personal definitions for words, it will be heavily influenced by sourced material.

Dromahair wrote:What do WE mean when we say certain words? Can we agree on particular (or even general) definitions? Because if we can't, we are doomed.

Exactly. If we can't observe common definitions, then all hope of conversation is lost. We may as well delete the Paganism forums here for we can't know what we should be discussing on them, if we have no working definitions. As when I join up with a great many social sites, I'll only be able to list my religion as "Other."

Fire up the Other Debate board! We'll also have to create a list of terms we can't use because we have no damn clue what they mean.

Your definitions are pretty much the same as mine, Drom, for what its worth. Though the anthropologist in me does love a little Bonewits...