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.
Rabbi Brad Hirschfield over at Windows & Doors has a good post from a Jewish perspective on Newt Gingrich’s latest idiocies regarding Pagans. He makes the very astute observation that
it seems to me that many of what we might rush to call pagan or idolatrous traditions, are actually acutely sensitive to the infinite and make images precisely because they know that such images are not full picture of the infinite but aids to approaching what is. Ironically, if Newt is any example, we may be witnessing a far more idolatrous i.e. falsely absolutized, version of Christianity than we are getting from the traditions against which he seems to be railing.
He has also invited practicing Pagans to contribute definitions and descriptions of who we are. If you haven’t yet, pay him a visit. Here is my description.
I think the core of who we are as a religious tradition is that we honor the Sacred as immanent far more than we focus on the Sacred as transcendent. Most Pagans acknowledge there is a transcendental dimension to the world, but do not themselves focus on it. Pretty much the rest of who we are, in all our variety, emerges from our focus on the immanent.
The world around us is a world of amazing variety, and if the Sacred is found within it all, it follows that there will be innumerable paths to recognizing and honoring it. Even the spirituallly most inclusive manifests through the concrete and individual. As a consequence, Paganism is intimately connected to polytheism: that there are many divine presences in the world, with many ways to honor or get into better relationship with them.
Most Pagans will focus on one or a very few deities in our own practice, but we will recognize the existence of others and the legitimacy of those who seek closer connection with them. Our deities are not bothered by the presence of others.
One perhaps unexpected result is that most Pagans do not deny the legitimacy of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim religions as personal practices. When I became a Pagan and thought about the implications of my beliefs, I became a great deal less antagonistic the monotheistic traditions – so long as they do not force themselves on other people or attack others’ faiths.
As fits a religion focusing on Sacred Immanence, we hold practice as much more important than belief when working with one another. Pagans can disagree strongly about what constitutes proper practice within a given tradition, but at worst this leads to splitting that tradition into two, with adherents free to go their own way. This is also what happened when religious freedom was established in Christian cultures. But for us, this diversity is not a problem for we have never been concerned about doctrinal orthodoxies.
Also flowing from our emphasis on Sacred Immanence, in almost every case we are utterly unconcerned with salvation or enlightenment as roads to escape a fundamentally flawed existence. Nor do we believe in any concept of ‘sin’ as ‘rebellion’ against some God. People mess up – all the time. But that is a different situation. Rather we seek to get into greater harmony with this world through our rituals, personal practices, and work with deities.
Those of us known as NeoPagans differ from Pagans in the larger sense only in that we are members of secular modern societies who are rediscovering Pagan spirituality after our own indigenous practices were all but extirpated and after having thoroughly absorbed the principles of modern scientific democratic civilization. As a result, I think we have much to learn from and also much to contribute to the larger Pagan religious tradition. But as our community matures we are having increasing contact with more traditional Pagan traditions on every continent, and are recognized as practicing in a compatible way. I have been personally told as much by traditional Native Americans and practitioners of African Diasporic and Asian shamanic religions.
“Pagan” was initially applied as a pejorative label to non-Abrahamic religious traditions by Christians. But because of our common focus on Sacred Immanence we have much in common under the superficial variety of practices and aspects of the sacred on which they focused.
posted June 9, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Gus, I would go and leave my explanation, but you essentially said everything I would have. Kudos!
posted June 9, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Well I went and added my two cents – whatever that’s worth in this economy.
posted June 9, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Well stated. Mr. Gingrich uses the term as an all-around pejoritive to describe the wide swath of people who are not considered “real Americans” by the Republicans. We are certainly counted among that group, but it includes gays, atheists, liberal Christians, Hollywood and “The Media”, which are both code words for Jews, and many many others. Keeping the neocons morale up requires a constant reinforcing of the narrative that a cabal of “pagans” is working night and day to deny decent white men a fair shake in this world. We’ve seen how this idea bears fruit most recently in Kansas….
posted June 9, 2009 at 9:57 pm
I love you
posted June 10, 2009 at 9:42 am
What ever happened to enforcement of the Sedition laws of this nation?
posted June 10, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Ananta:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
One act—the Alien Enemies Act—is still in force in 2009, and has frequently been enforced in wartime. The others expired or were repealed by 1802.
posted June 10, 2009 at 5:12 pm
I’ve always been a bit ill at ease with most definitions of modern Paganism.
Margot Adler probably came closest to catching the essence of our community and movement but even Drawing Down the Moon, for as fantastic a work it is, has some omissions.
Honestly, I think that’s something the community should really focus on, something that would be good for us as a group. Perhaps we should have discussion circles on this at festivals and student meetings, perhaps a deliberate dialog across Pagan blogs. One of the weaknesses of our movement is that we lack a cohesive identity; often one is accepted as Pagan simply for declaring themselves so and I’m not sure that that should be considered enough.
posted June 11, 2009 at 11:22 am
Yeah, we could call it the second council of Nicea, and burn everything which came before it which disagrees!
Thermal
(Who apologizes for being rude but couldn’t resist.)
thomas said:
Honestly, I think that’s something the community should really focus on, something that would be good for us as a group. Perhaps we should have discussion circles on this at festivals and student meetings, perhaps a deliberate dialog across Pagan blogs. One of the weaknesses of our movement is that we lack a cohesive identity; often one is accepted as Pagan simply for declaring themselves so and I’m not sure that that should be considered enough.
posted June 11, 2009 at 12:49 pm
As an erstwhile pagan community activist, I must with all due respect to my siblings-in-faith point out that there is no “movement”… it is, at best, superficially a bunch of people travelling more or less in a common direction.
I support unqualifiedly the right for any group — coven, grove, nest, add the label of your choice — to determine in a formal and structured fashion who is privileged to call themselves a member. Note, please, that I do not write “call themselves a pagan”.
In the end, people use labels to communicate. We’ve had a belly overfull of people using labels pejoratively and as incitement to anger and hostility. I, for one, would like to try something else… just don’t know what that might be, yet.
posted June 11, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Thomas — No, please. Let’s not.
Discussing similarities is all fine and dandy, but the Wiccan styles of Neopaganism are already the Borg of the Pagan communities. Cultural reconstructionists often get left out of definitions entirely. We’re not all the same, nor should we be.
Our variety is not a weakness. It makes for our strength. Variety and diversity are a hallmark of any healthy population.
posted June 13, 2009 at 12:03 am
Why do we need to define ourselves to Newt? Why do we need to define ourselves to anyone?
I don’t have to define my views on decorating or politics or cars, why am I expected to define my views on deity?
I am pagan because I say I am. I don’t need others to say I am.
posted June 13, 2009 at 10:00 am
Rhonda, you’re right. You don’t *have* to define yourself to anyone.
But others WILL define us, like it or not. And while a part of me wants to say I don’t care, if the only definition the outside world hears is the one asserting that Pagans/Witches worship the Christian devil, steal babies and boil them in our cauldrons to use the skimmed fat for candles and flying ointments on our brooms and curdle the milk of our neighbor’s cow while cackling gleefully – that is what they’re going to believe. Or at least that we’re simply a bunch of malcontent, Jesus-hating screwballs who want to destroy Society for decent folk.
So some of us HAVE to speak up to dispel the ignorant falsehoods as well as the purposeful deceptions about what it means to be Pagan.