Absolutly worth reading!
Ein kleiner Einblick in die aktuelle Debatte in der englischsprachigen Heidenszene zu dem Thema “Paganismus & Pop-Kultur”. Sehr gutes… ich sag jetzt mal Fazit oder Ergebnis. Ich selbst weiß zwar ganz gut wo ich in dieser Diskussion stehe, beteilige mich aber nicht daran. Spannend zu beobachten.
Ursprünglich veröffentlicht am The Allergic Pagan:
All revelations are personal.
That’s why all revelations are suspect.
– Neil Gaiman, American Gods
In my last post, I reviewed some of the recent controversy over the issue of so-called pop culture Paganism, and tried to make sense of the varying perspectives of those participating in the debate. I concluded that post by observing that both “sides” of the debate (polytheistic recons on one side, and a variety of non-recon polytheists, magickal Pagans, and archetypal Pagans on the other) had valid points: I think the recons have a legitimate concern about danger of trivializing or desacralizing Pagan religiosity by conflating it with pop culture. However, the problem that recons face is how to distinguish true worship from profane fandom; in the process of trying to draw the distinction, they ended up excluding whole groups of people whose religiosity is arguably genuine.
The most common mistake made by recons participating in this debate was trying to draw the distinction based on the object of one’s religious attention. Obviously, reconstructionists privilege older religious forms. But the fact is that one person’s worship of Superman might be genuine religiosity, while another person’s adoration of Odin might be an example of what Galina Kasskova calls “spiritual puerility”. PSVL writes that just because something may be sacred, does not mean that it is. I think that’s right, but it applies just as much to ancient Greek gods as it does to pop culture icons. There is a difference between worship and fandom, but I think that the difference is not in the object, but in the subject — in the worshiper, not the worshipee.