Democratic Forest Trusts (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.Democratic trusts with leadership elected by citizen-members promise to solve many of the problems afflicting both traditional government and corporate ownership of forestlands. This article explores these issues in some depth.Complexity and the Dream of Human Control of Eco-Systems (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.The title captures it. I then explore the kinds of institutions compatible with both nature and the modern world that are implied from this analysis.Rethinking the Obvious: Modernity and Living Respectfully With Nature (PDF)The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy, Winter, 1997.Modernity is usually considered a wrong turn in terms of respect for and sustaining the environment. I argue the reality is more complex, for modernity has freed us from personal dependence on agriculture, ended the economic value of children, radically reduced the likelihood of large scale wat, and shifted much production to intellectual rather than material capital. This partially decouples society from nature, which gives us important opportunities as well as problems.Towards an Ecocentric Political Economy (PDF)The Trumpeter, Fall, 1996.This paper begins my effort at showing how liberal modernity can be harmonized with an ecocentric perspective on our relationship with the natural world. It is a corrective to much “free market environmental” literature that sacrifices Nature to money as well as to anti-liberal attacks by well-meaning but economically naïve environmentalists.Unexpected Harmonies: Self-Organization in Liberal Modernity and Ecology (PDF)The Trumpeter, Journal of Ecosophy, 10:1, Winter 1993This is my initial paper exploring how what I term ‘evolutionary liberal’ thought can be an important means by which society and nature can be brought into greater harmony. The other Trumpeter papers build on it.Deep Ecology and Liberalism: The Greener Implications of Evolutionary Liberalism (PDF)Review of Politics, Fall, 1996.Liberal thought and deep ecology are usually regarded as mutually exclusive. But the “evolutionary” tradition offers a way to integrate the two through commonalties in the work of David Hume, Michael Polanyi, Arne Naess, and Aldo Leopold, providing a stronger foundation for liberalism while strengthening the case for an ecocentric ethic.(Related subjects: Ecology)Saving Western Towns: A Jeffersonian Green Proposal (PDF)in Writers on the Range, Karl Hess and John Baden, eds., University Press of Colorado, 1998.Developmental pressures in the rural and small town West involve three groups: long term residents, new arrivals, and environmentalists. Today their interests often conflict. This conflict is in part the outcome of institutions which prevent harmonizing competing interests. The concept of developmental trusts, both for rural regions and for small communities offers a means whereby these interests can be harmonized for the benefit of all concerned.(Related subjects: Politics)Social Ecology, Deep Ecology, and Liberalism (PDF)Critical Review, 6: 2-3, 1992.Murray Bookchin is considered a leading radical environmental theorist. However, his analysis is incapable of leading humankind towards a more respectful and sustainable relationship with the natural world. Criticisms of Bookchin from both the deep ecology and evolutionary liberal perspective complement one another, pointing the way towards a better understanding of how modernity relates to the environment.The paper as a whole offers an early discussion of issues that are more clearly addressed in later papers, particularly Deep Ecology and Liberalism (1996) and the three Trumpeter articles in 1997, 1996, and 1993. However, there are other ideas in the article which have not been developed more thoroughly elsewhere.
When I was reading Starhawk’s argument for why the Pope should apologize, for past crimes by the Catholic Church, I was bothered by a key paragraph that raised other issues. When I wrote my piece in response to David Gibson’s discussion, I decided to deal with it separately, at a later time. That time is now.
Before I make this criticism, I want to emphasize that in my view Starhawk has made enormous contributions to the Craft, probably more than anyone else now alive. I was also moved by her discussions of her Interfaith work when I heard her at Pantheacon this February, and reported as such in this blog. I emphasize these points because I have found out the hard way that some of her more fervent supporters seem to regard all criticism of Starhawk as personal or some kind of rejection or a sign of personal dementia on my part.
Nope. It comes from a place of respect and gratitude for past and likely future service to the Craft. But all of us learn not only from praise when we do something praiseworthy, but also from criticism when we are thought to have done something that falls short. I certainly have. And I believe not one of us is wise enough to keep our feet on the ground when we never hear a word of criticism.
So I believe respectful criticism is in reality a kind of praise, recognizing the recipient is worth the time to criticize and able to deal with it.
Starhawk wrote
One of the reasons many of us modern-day Wiccans still proudly call ourselves Witches is to consciously identify with the victims of those persecutions. The Witch persecutions are a suppressed history of abuse. Just as suppressed memories of childhood abuse can hamper us in adult life, suppressed cultural histories still constrain our emotions and our imagination in subtle ways. The Witch persecutions left a residue of fear inside women–that if we speak too loudly or too forcefully, become too strong or visible, we will be attacked. They made imagination, intuition, and magic suspect. They set a pattern that judicial torture is sanctified once your enemy has been labeled ‘evil’. And they made nature herself something a dangerous and suspect.
We use the word “Witch” consciously, as a way of reclaiming our power as women and as men. . . .
I am bothered by these words. I think it is a bad reason, and not one worthy of legitimizing. I call myself a Witch and likely always will. It was a word Gerald Gardner’s New Forest coven used, and accurately describes many of the activities we do, activities that were savagely persecuted until not that long ago. But I never used the word to “consciously identify” with victims of persecutions. Nor do I know anyone else who does so. Rather, this is what we are, and in the past people who did similar things were murdered (along with a lot of others). In addition, the word ‘Witch’ helps to remind other people that we have important differences in outlook from today’s spiritual mainstream. Finally, given the experiences that led my to becoming a Witch, if there had never been any murders of women and men over Witchcraft, I’d still use the word.
A person can use Starhawk’s reasoning and not be a Witch for spiritual reasons, only political reasons. But this subordinates spirituality to politics, and as political as this blog can be, it never does that. I think it is backwards thinking and to some degree reduces the impact of the word to simply a political statement.
There is another aspect to this paragraph I found troubling. Violence by some men towards women is far older than the Christian Witch persecutions. Torture is not a Christian invention. The Old Testament has plenty of lethal penalties for magic, and Pagan Rome had laws against doing the emperor’s horoscope. None of these things were Christian innovations.
By contrast, the Christian tradition generated a minority of groups that argued for and practiced a considerable respect for women. I am thinking of the Quakers in particular. Christians did not initiate the critique of slavery, Aristotle mentions such criticisms in ancient Athens, though regrettably he rejects them. But it was Christians who for religious motives first effectively attacked slavery in the West, even as some other ‘Christians’ quoted the Bible in its defense.
Societies based on domination and pathological masculinity long preceded Christianity, and were not necessarily simply products of monotheism. Pagan Rome had Goddesses, and generally treated women poorly. Greece was not very good either. By contrast, Jesus’ spoken words and recorded actions were often supportive of women in monotheistic societies where they were systematically suppressed, and while most Christian groups ignored his example, not all of them did.
We should avoid simple dichotomies because they are historically wrong, inflame differences that are off the topic, and confuse us as we try and understand the real causes behind pathological masculinity and domination.
If Pagan societies could also be oppressive towards women, and some Christian traditions were unusually progressive towards women, the causes of gender exploitation will not necessarily disappear even if everyone became a Pagan. Nor need they necessarily become so for such oppression to disappear. Since the former is unlikely, we should treat this as good news.
I personally believe the real cultural change needed to lead to a respect for the feminine as well as for biological women is to see that the immanent world is as Sacred as the transcendent world, that sacred relationships within a world of duality and the material can be as valuable, as perfect, as the experience of transcendence or even Nonduality, that those relationships are characterized by love and respect, and that a person’s personal spiritual experience is as worthy of respect as written accounts passed down of someone else’s experiences thousands of years ago.
So mine is a different understanding of the problem, and a different diagnosis of what to do about it. I think the logic of Starhawk’s argument leads us away from addressing these evils at their root.
posted April 20, 2009 at 10:27 pm
A-men!!! Er, uh, I mean Blessed Be!!! I couldn’t agree more. I love Starhawke’s work, but she needs to get over the persecution complex. Furthermore, I’m meeting more and more Pagans/Wiccans who appear to be more concerned with being reactionary towards Christianity rather than simply embracing their own system of beliefs. I realize that it can be difficult when the overwhelming majority in the nation hold conflicting views (& even supress/ostricize ocassionally), but if we want respect and peace of mind we must get over this “us against them” attitude, even if “they” often display it themselves. Not all Christians have historically been “witch-burners”, just as not all white Southerners were Klan. Until witches/Pagans get over the fact that we’re a minority religion and probably always will be, we will potentially carrying a huge chip on our shoulders. I’ve met many non-Christians who examplified of the Christian ethic better than many Church-goers.
posted April 21, 2009 at 4:49 am
Hi
I have just linked your blog to the PFI Forum.
Maybe you would like to check it out.
http://www.forum.paganfederation.org/viewtopic.php?t=1168
You can also email me
I found your comments most illuminating
I am based in the Netherlands,
Greetings,
Morgana
http://www.paganfederation.org
posted April 21, 2009 at 8:32 am
Just touching on one point of response, it isn’t *just* southerners who belong to the Klan. Back in the 1920s the KKK burned a cross in my very white, very Finnish, grandfather’s pasture right here in Maine, pretty North as far as USA goes. The klan of that era did burnings on a lot of French-Canadian properties also.
I never actually found any copies of Starhawk’s published works for sale until a few years ago, after seeing her stuff referenced for years and years. She certainly does have a specific viewpoint, much of which I can understand — even the points where I am in disagreement with her on.
posted April 21, 2009 at 8:22 pm
The danger of looking backward instead of where you’re going is that you’re likely to trip.
It’s far more important that we Witches spend our energies protecting the civil rights of Witches *today*.
If you want to help fight against the persecution of Witches, I believe there are better ways to proceed than trying to pry out a dubious apology for past treatment. There are groups that fight for the civil rights of Witches. They are chronically under-funded, so find one you like and support it.
posted April 21, 2009 at 11:36 pm
I would like to add this point for consideration: If we identify with a past of victimization, regardless of the validity of that history, isn’t there a very real risk of becoming victims in the future? I am not just talking about thought forms here. Muggers tend to pick on targets with submissive body language because they see them as prey. People who see themselves as “jinxed” tend to set themselves up in situations where failure is more likely. Rape prevention seminars hammer this concept home for good reason.
posted April 22, 2009 at 12:04 am
I tended to agree with your critique of Starhawk’s WashPost piece, which seemed somewhat dogmatic, until, about two days later I read this piece in Slate on Christian witch persecutions in Africa http://www.slate.com/id/2216429/pagenum/all/
Then I remember the witchhunting preacher Thomas Muthee from Kenya who was videotaped blessing Sarah Palin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj-on3kfWuE for a copy of the video. Muthee advocates “spiritual warfare” against witches, and personally hounded a witch named Mama Jane in Kiambo, a poor suburb of Nairobi out of town. http://www.csmonitor.com/1999/0923/p15s1.html
Starhawk’s appeal might have referred the contemporary prejudices of some Christians, but I think that she is right that repudiation by fairminded contemporary Christians of their witchhunting heritage would help curb bigotry against Wiccans. I did not read it as trying to claim some sort of victim status.
posted April 22, 2009 at 1:10 am
Morgana-
Your organization looks wonderful, but I do not have your email address.
Maybe you can contact me on Facebook?
bright blessings,
Gus
posted April 22, 2009 at 1:47 am
I have to say that this topic is a rather difficult one for me. Though I agree with most here that we shouldn’t present ourselves as victims, I do see Starhawk’s point of view. Having come from an abusive childhood I can truly say that the distant past can still effect my life. When I read that paragraph I saw it more as a commentary on how women are treated in our society both past and present than about religious differences. My interpretation is that if you don’t deal with the negativity from the past, it will bite you in the future. In an individual state, when people tell those who are dealing with abusive situations like this to just act positive and think good thoughts it can actually cause more harm. The person is silenced and the emotion is never released, thus causing problems in the subconscious which may result in physical ailments. This doesn’t mean the person may be acting like a victim by talking about past abuse; the way to make the situation worse is my silencing it. It can take a long time to heal. Now, Starhawk seems to be taking this to a larger social level. The problem I have with Starhawk’s article is that she is limiting her definition of Witch to just women. Today there are men who call themselves Witch. Also, I have heard the point made that those in the past were probably Christians. I have no problem with Christians, I have many friends of this belief and I like to study Christian history and the Gnostics as well. But if the church is going to apologize for past acts, I think maybe the next group they apologize to should be towards women in general. Wasn’t that what the Burning Times was all about? From my understanding it had more to do about keeping women out of the midwife and counseling business than it really had anything to do with personal belief. The church didn’t want them having that power, nor did the new budding medical profession. As I see it, this is a sticky situation due to the strong emotional content it carries. Women can still feel quite violated in today’s world by the attitudes of some of the denominations of Christianity. And the Pagan community seems to be a haven for those, including me, that have been in this situation. Though I understand the need to not identify with persecution (really, even I get irritated with people sometimes about this), I do feel that there needs to be a way to talk about past abuse and deal with it without it being labeled as a persecution complex. People don’t want to hear about it, I get that, but the last statistic I heard (and this was back in the eighties) is that one in four girls are abused in childhood. That means that there is a large portion of women in our society who have to deal with this. And the statistic could very well be conservative since many women are shamed into never coming out with their story. So though I can see where Starhawk is coming from, I can also see the other perspective as well. Peace.
posted April 22, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Unfortunately there are those who hold up the examples of “Witch” persecutions of the past as justification and authority for beginning their own search-and-destroy ministries. This part of Christianist culture should be fought against always, and checked, if possible. The lies and misrepresentations they present as propaganda should be exposed for what it is in every case, despite the fact that their own members refuse to face the truth of history when it is again and again held up against their prejudices.
posted April 22, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Yesterday was Holocost Rememberance Day. A time to “not forget” and part of not forgetting is not letting time sweep something under-the-rug. In other words, not letting history sweep it up into the cobwebs in the attic. Not letting those who were burned be forgotten serves this purpose.
Witches were our ancestors (whether there is a direct lineage or not). For the folks who’s ancestors burned them to recognize the wrongness helps. (and is time actually linear? Many pagans don’t think so).
BUT another part of honoring those folks – serves as a reminder that those times might come again. Currently here in the States, there’s a fair amt of openness about Paganism and Witchcraft (large and small letter). While the fear from those times shouldn’t be felt/channeled…..a reminder that it could happen is IMHO important. So we can guard/work against it. And honoring our ancestors that way as well.
posted April 26, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Identify yourself as you like. It’s your hobby. But no “wiccans” have ever been burnt. Not one. It would be like calling yourself a Kurd, even though you are not, and saying “Turkey wants to kill me”. Starhawk has been forced to backtrack on her previous exagerated claims of persecution at least twice that I know of. What makes it weirder is that she not only plays loose with the facts of persecution she even plays loose with her identity as one of the persecuted group.
posted April 26, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Kindly note that Wicca is not a “hobby”. Like it or not, agree with it or not, Wicca is a religion. Calling it a hobby is a disrespectful comment that is surely beneath you.
posted May 29, 2009 at 5:58 am
The disagreement over the words “consciously identify” appears to be getting lost here. When I hear someone call themselves a witch, I do not immediately think of “burning times” nor do any of my friends. As is all so common, the subtly of the point being made rather got lost in the ensuing firestorm.
posted July 19, 2009 at 8:35 am
Outstanding article. You did miss one point though: namely pinning the blame for the witch hunts on ‘the Church’ is disingenious. The idea that misfortunes suffered by a community is the result of malicious magic, and retaliating against the ‘witches’ who caused them is not an idea thought up by the Church.
One can see a fear of ‘witches’ go back as far as written records began and judging by the inclination of modern day primitives such as the Papuan Korowai to kill suspected witches they blame for their tragedies, most likely a long time before that.
Witch hunts during the post Medieval period were more often than not the result of grass roots hysteria rather than central Church policy, hence areas where Church and crown authority was weak or non existent (Germany, Eastern France, Civil War era Britain)saw the heaviest incidences of witch hunts, while the opposite is true of places where it was unquestioned: nations with Inquisitions suffered very few witch hunts. The Spanish Inquisition even intervened to suppress outbreaks of witch panics on at least two occasions.
Not only were the wise women, the cunning folk, the ‘traditional healers’ if you like not usually the primary target, but they did in fact dedicate a large portion of their practice to the identification of supposed witches and the negation of their malicious magic (just as their contemporaries such as South Africa’s Sangomas and the Ojahs of north India do today): Elizabeth Clarke, Hopkins’ first victim was initially identified as a ‘witch’ by a cunning woman.
The idea that the Church should uniquely apologise for a universal crime, to a religious group that didn’t even exist at the time is completely idiotic. In fact, seeing as a lot of neopagans like to identify with the very ‘traditional healers’ who were often the ones sniffing out ‘witches’ in their community, it perhaps should be the Starhawks of the world doing the apologising.