Reconstructionism

[nbdy]

I've read and reread the "Ask a ______ Reconstructionist" threads and cannot identify the why of the matter. I read a number of internet sources that basically repeat each other (copy and paste, anyone?), and decided to simply ask the question of any reconstructionists here who will answer it. Why is reconstructionism preferred? There is a HUGE emphasis on exactly recreating what is believed to have been and then sticking to it like orthodoxy, but why? This seems like a "trapped in amber" experience to me. I totally get exploring one's genetic and/or geographic roots as a path to self knowledge, but not as the end point of the journey. Please explain it to me as if to a child, assuming that there is no commonality of experience or worldview with me. Thanks.

[volcaniclastic]

Re: Reconstructionism

I'm not really sure I can answer this, as I'm not a reconstructionist. That said, I take the most pride out of using forms of worship I've found in history books. For me, my interest in keeping things the same as 1000 years ago is simple. People were more in touch with nature then. I'm in that select group of hypocrites that thinks modernization is a horrible thing, and I'd rather stay true to the roots, I suppose. Also, (and I'm really sorry) but I think wicca is bullshit. I'm glad it started, and got people thinking about paganism again, but all the modern revival stuff kinda makes me go 'ick'. I practice some of it, but I try to stick to things that were done in antiquity.

Same reason people (ie: me) go to medieval events. The novelty that things were better back before modernization. It's awesome to sit around a feast table, give homage to a king, and don armour to fight your opponents with real weapons.

But that's just my two cents. I don't believe enough of anything to be a true reconstructionist. In fact, without fully believing in the gods, most of my practice feels a tad bit hollow. So...take it with a grain of salt.

[Maria de Luna]

Re: Reconstructionism

This is a good question, and I am interrested in seeing some of the answers you manage to scare up...

[Ula]

Re: Reconstructionism

Reconstructionism can be a volatile topic in Heathen circles, lol. There are those who are are very much oriented on lore, archeology and academic sources. I don't know if it's they are more academic natured, it goes back to being raised Christian and having a bible type source or they like to use it to be right. I love those sources but my problem is they can be flat and not really convey the relationship those people had with the gods. I also think as times change so can your interaction with the gods. Most of us are not doing traditional blots but to me, if you are a recon you should be.

UPG is a big part of my individual path. My feelings and interactions with the gods is important whether it matches recon sources or not. I love reading other individuals UPG too. Recons in the Heathen tradition also tend not to accept members doing non-traditional spell craft and are crazy about language. I think if you are wiccan and Freyr and Freya are your god/goddess I am ok with that and don't even mention Loki or call yourself a shaman. I also want to be free to practice local magic tradition in addition too my interaction with the German pantheon. I don't think the god care if I incorporate galdr with granny magic.

I think there is always room to move and recon is too strict for me. You never know what and experience will do. I also think the gods are more flexible then they are given credit for. You have to let them move to this century and still honor their past.

[Dez]

Re: Reconstructionism

I think Ula's point about lore-as-scripture is directly on point. This is by no means universal, but In heathenry in particular there seems to be a strong contingency that think that way. I've had some people elsewhere online get very bent out of shape if I point out evidence from archeology that doesn't match quite up with the opinion of authors like Snorri. Heavens to Betsy if I mention personal experience.

People who head that way seem to be more comfortable with a crystallized view of deity. A distance, and formality. There is nothing wrong with that, IMO, but it doesn't work for me personally, especially given the reticence to see the way gods changed and shifted as time passed. A deity like Odin not only changed in the way he was seen and honored through time (some even suggesting that he and Loki began as the same being in mythos) but through his hero's journey...there is a great deal of difference between working with young impulsive Odin, suffering Odin/the hanged man, Gangleri the wanderer, his role as seid worker and rune master, fierce warrior, or the somber ancient one on Hlidskjalf. Some find that in dealing with a deity like this, they will interacted with many facets, not just one.

[Louisvillian]

Re: Reconstructionism

Most reconstructionists take a different approach to what we could consider "quintessential" Neopaganism. Where the latter is based on reviving ancient beliefs, and some practices, with a focus on adapting them for the modern world, the former is based on adapting mostly ancient practices and beliefs as they were. The premise there is usually that the ancient people, being almost unilaterally polytheistic, had more regular contact with the gods and spirits, and thus had a better understanding or connection with the gods, nature (for recons that also practise nature worship--some do, some don't), and spiritual what-have-you.
They also usually have an education in history or anthropology, and so try to stick to those ancient ways in an effort to be more "correct" in their replication of the ancient relationship to the gods.

In some cases, it presumes that modernity is bad. With which I take issue. But not all reconstructionists think that way. The overriding idea behind it is historical accuracy and rebuilding the ancient ways.
I'm not a reconstructionist; I am a Wiccan. But I can definitely respect what reconstructionist are trying to do.

[nbdy]

Re: Reconstructionism

hmm. I can tell you all have thought about this somewhat yourselves, and each reply makes sense to me, but not one reply where the word "Reconstructionist" is part of the "Religion." Please reply via message if you are a shy reconstructionist don't want to just throw it out here. My curiosity is sincere. This is not a trap.

Volcaniclastic, I, too, enjoy playing medieval, but afterward I don't really want to go home to a one room mud hut with no windows and sleep on straw, you know? And that is the medieval equivalent of who I am today.

[Caelia]

Re: Reconstructionism

I've read and reread the "Ask a ______ Reconstructionist" threads and cannot identify the why of the matter. I read a number of internet sources that basically repeat each other (copy and paste, anyone?), and decided to simply ask the question of any reconstructionists here who will answer it. Why is reconstructionism preferred? There is a HUGE emphasis on exactly recreating what is believed to have been and then sticking to it like orthodoxy, but why? This seems like a "trapped in amber" experience to me. I totally get exploring one's genetic and/or geographic roots as a path to self knowledge, but not as the end point of the journey. Please explain it to me as if to a child, assuming that there is no commonality of experience or worldview with me. Thanks.

It's been covered pretty well, but I'll throw in my two cents as someone whose "technically" reconstructionist. It's "preferred" (I don't like this term because it implies we aren't capable of being drawn to a particular path) we want to recreate the practice as truly as possible to how it would have been practiced today. This gets to fun little debates at times and requires some speculation, but we base it off of the same academic sources scholars use where possible. They also get pissed when you point out no matter how accurate the practice is reconstructionism is a modern religion.

As to why: we want to practice the way the ancients did because this is more true to us. A few of us have no qualms to your "preferred" path or UPG. We just don't accept it as a "preferred" path for us nor as fact. It's experience, which is fine. Religion requires some experience as part of the practice.

- - - Updated - - -

hmm. I can tell you all have thought about this somewhat yourselves, and each reply makes sense to me, but not one reply where the word "Reconstructionist" is part of the "Religion." Please reply via message if you are a shy reconstructionist don't want to just throw it out here. My curiosity is sincere. This is not a trap.

Volcaniclastic, I, too, enjoy playing medieval, but afterward I don't really want to go home to a one room mud hut with no windows and sleep on straw, you know? And that is the medieval equivalent of who I am today.

As for "Reconstrucitonist" as a word: it's actually used to describe rebuilding something. In that sense, we did answer it. Repeatedly.

[volcaniclastic]

Re: Reconstructionism

Volcaniclastic, I, too, enjoy playing medieval, but afterward I don't really want to go home to a one room mud hut with no windows and sleep on straw, you know? And that is the medieval equivalent of who I am today.

I suppose. For me, I'd be alright with it. I don't really need central heating, or a duvet, or pillow-top mattress. I cook just as well over a fire as over a stovetop, I sleep better on the ground than on a bed, and I like needing to survive to live. I want my religion to be like that too. It could be easy like an easy-bake oven, but I'd rather it be demanding and difficult, instead.

That's what reconstructionism is for me.

[Gardenia]

Re: Reconstructionism

I have to admit, I've always found this to be a somewhat strange question. Why reconstruct? Why not reconstruct? Why follow any sort of pagan path, or whatever else? When I was an Egyptian (Kemetic) reconstructionist, there were all sorts of reasons people came into the tradition. Some felt drawn to a deity but found more modern practices to not be fulfilling, for whatever reason. Some felt as if their deities were telling them to reconstruct. For some it was a way to know and honor their ancestors, and continue that line. The answer can vary from individual to individual, but for many it's simply because their particular tradition speaks to them, provides them with the framework to grow spiritually. That's really what it comes down to for many people. They're called to a particular deity, or pantheon, interested in a certain culture (which may not be related to ancestry or current location), and they want to explore that. If you want to deepen your understanding and relationship with a deity, why not utilize the efforts of those who came before you? Those who had direct cultural connection to that deity? No, you don't have to be a recon to do that, but that's where it leads some people, that's what works for some people.

I think there seems to be this misconception that reconstruction doesn't allow for growth, because people are all working from 'dead' history - but that's not the case. The historical rituals allow one to form a relationship with deity, spirits, ancestors, or whatever. It gives them a foundation to work from. In that regard, it's not really all that different from working in any other tradition (modern or not) that has a particular way of doing things. Reconstruction is not, as you say, the end of a journey, but rather should be seen more as the mode of transportation, or the particular path walked to get to 'the end.' You still have to actually walk the path, to put in the spiritual work, to get anywhere.

Now, at least in the Kemetic community, there were very few people who disliked living in modern times... people were aware that we were not ancient Egyptians, that some things could, or should, not be reconstructed. Sometimes a new thing has to be added here or there, and there was certainly room for some UPG (so long as it was clearly labeled as such). For the most part though, there just wasn't reason to change much, to go too far from the historical practice. Why change something that's already working? Additionally, very few of them thought that everyone should reconstruct (which may vary from one form of recon community to another). Yes, you'd occasionally find the person who thought all modern paths were stupid, wrong, whatever... but there are a lot of non-recons who are happy to say the same things about recons, so it's not like that sort of attitude is limited to one group.

[nbdy]

Re: Reconstructionism

I suppose. For me, I'd be alright with it. I don't really need central heating, or a duvet, or pillow-top mattress. I cook just as well over a fire as over a stovetop, I sleep better on the ground than on a bed, and I like needing to survive to live. I want my religion to be like that too. It could be easy like an easy-bake oven, but I'd rather it be demanding and difficult, instead.

That's what reconstructionism is for me.

Having done more than my share of backpacking and primitive camping, the thing I miss is hot and cold running water. I also find that as I get older I am a 3 season camper, or really 1 and 2 halves. These old bones just don't warm back up once the cold settles in. On the other hand, in medieval times I probably wouldn't have to worry about it because I'd already be dead -- something about which I have neither positive nor negative feelings.

- - - Updated - - -

That was a beautiful answer, Gardenia, and I appreciate your clarity and candor. I understand. I can be very bright at times and at other times very obtuse about fairly simple things that just about everyone else "gets."

[Annwn]

Re: Reconstructionism

I looked at this thread the other day and I had to go away and think about it for bit. I can't speak for any other reconstructionist's here but these are my reasons:-

I feel it is the most respectful way for me honour the Celtic God's and Goddess's. I do not look upon them as my personal friends to be called on when I wish, I honer and respect them, and it is me who has to prove myself to them that I am worthy to do so.

I wanted to go back to basics and cut out the taint of commercialism in my faith. Going back to celebrating the four original agricultural festivals that the Celt's would have (even before Norse intervention) hit a cord with me.

They also had a set of ethics I felt I wanted to honour, or at least try to uphold.
Hospitality, truth, generosity, taking care of each other, wisdom, knowledge, eloquence, mercy, justice, and there being a duty of the strong to support the weak.

To honour and respect the knowledge and wisdom of my ancestors who came before me, to learn from my mistakes, and move on from the past.

The belief that sacred space is found and not created, and it also incorporates my belief in reincarnation.

It also appealed to a desire deep in with me to want to try and keep parts of Celtic tradition alive, weather that be trough archery, jewellery making, music or by trying to learn one of the remaining Celtic languages. I am just starting to get the bits together to give Welsh a go, I am not very good at languages but even if i don't reach the point where i can speak it fluently, I at least would like to learn enough to offer a few basic prayers in the language that derives from the Celtic people who lived here so many years ago.

[Yazichestvo]

Re: Reconstructionism

I used to consider myself fairly reconstructionist, although now I realize I'm not. I wish that the pagan traditions of old had survived, but I recognize that if they had, they would now be in a more modernized form. Paganism as it might be now, had it survived- this is what I want to attempt to create- not the paganism of 1000+ years ago. Even so, I can understand why some recons get frustrated. It's confusing to occasionally meet people who call themselves "pagan", yet seem to share none of my interest in historical, Pre-Abrahamic religions. Some seem more inspired by monotheistic occultism and New Age than anything else.

Continuity with the past is a big issue for me. Part of my issue with Christianity was the way it seemed to discard everything that came before it (including its supposed foundation, the old testament.) Yet even Christianity attempts to trace a link back to Judaism, because having a link with the past is necessary for many. People want a faith that has no beginning, and many world religions would like to claim this distinction. For instance, I envy the legacy that the people of India have. There, you see a tradition that can be traced back to the most archaic Indo-Aryan polytheism, but also has more recent philosophical ideas incorporated. They have the continuity with their past that I find so lacking as a westerner.

[Wednesday]

Re: Reconstructionism

I've read and reread the "Ask a ______ Reconstructionist" threads and cannot identify the why of the matter. I read a number of internet sources that basically repeat each other (copy and paste, anyone?), and decided to simply ask the question of any reconstructionists here who will answer it. Why is reconstructionism preferred? There is a HUGE emphasis on exactly recreating what is believed to have been and then sticking to it like orthodoxy, but why? This seems like a "trapped in amber" experience to me. I totally get exploring one's genetic and/or geographic roots as a path to self knowledge, but not as the end point of the journey. Please explain it to me as if to a child, assuming that there is no commonality of experience or worldview with me. Thanks.

It's not reenacting so much as it is uncovering the underlying philosophy and then applying that philosophy to modern life. I could simply reenact leaving spinning for Perchta at year's end as a religious observance but exploring why I'm doing so opens a whole new world of meaning. Women are the gateways between non-life and life. We are the opposite of the grave, and in a way connected to it and death. In the past a women stood outside of men's laws. She was liminal; a being of the natural wild world and yet the giver of life to man. In this way she had inherent qualities that allowed her to be almost divine. A weaver of wyrd. The source of law. The cloth that bore the scars of thread. She can give life and she can end life. Every year a woman shows her commitment to her role and her duty. She leaves it to be inspected by the goddess.

Crossing a bridge demanded a sacrifice. I don't reenact that. I ponder and research what made crossingba bridge worthy of sacrifice. And when I find the meaning it becomes meaningful in my life.

I'm not a person that talks to gods. I don't believe that becoming pagan opens the door to magical relationships with deity. I think pagan is about finding new meaning and philosophy. My gods don't guide me. People guide me. A god didn't potty train me or teach me math; people did. Gods won't teach me about bridges and being a woman; people will. Gods are just the reality of death and life and blood and birth. People are the ones who share how to experience that. Since no people in my life are heathen, I look to those who were and try to learn what they can teach.

[nbdy]

Re: Reconstructionism

^
not only a beautiful thought, but beautifully written.