I hate labels, but like everyone else, I have to use them. We have to communicate what is important to us, to others, and words are just about the only way to do that. Without these words, we couldn't learn or find others of like mind.
That being said, the currents of activity and tradition born from words have a tendency to calcify, don't they? I remember when "Recon" was a lot more flexible and open- but now, certain vocal groups within the "recon" world seem to have forgotten that they don't own words, or other people, and begun thinking that they own the term "recon" now. By owning it, they own the right to tell others when they are or are not "a good recon" or a "good pagan" or even a "good person".
Like all calcifications, value judgments become entangled with the word-game quickly. "Bad guys" are needed, and they are crucial to the success of the entire enterprise. The "neo-pagans" are the needful villains to the "recons", for their differences illustrate (by easy contrast) things that the recons think are important.
But therein lies the trap, the pitfall: the recons cease being anything other than "those people who aren't like the neos". They take to writing little or nothing about actual religion, and instead spend their time ripping on "the others". Their wedlock is complete; never can there be a divorce, for who are the recons, if not the crusaders against the dreaded fluffs?
"Recon" is hijacked. Even I hate to use the word sometimes, because some of the biggest "recon" names are right twits. They actually make the "fluffs" look COOL sometimes, and that's saying a lot.
I personally think the only answer to the label wars and the name games and the politics is found right were the problem began: language. We have to stop being so uncreative with language, and continually create labels with more and more subtle layers of meaning. "Recon" has either become meaningless now, or it has become subsumed into the ego-kingdoms of a few jackasses.
The response? I have seen groups of Celtic recons (or should I say, people with an interest in Celtic paganism being studied and revived, following models that are not based on popular new-age models) who refuse to call themselves "recon" and instead use other specific terms (most in Celtic languages) that specifically refer to their approach and practice. That way, there is no real confusion, and they are free to operate within the unique sphere that they have defined for themselves, in any way they see fit.
As I said, language is important, even though it has strong limitations. So we have to use language for all its worth, if we want to escape the trap of a few labels becoming accepted and then confused and then political. Many city-states, not just one kingdom.
no subject
I hate labels, but like everyone else, I have to use them. We have to communicate what is important to us, to others, and words are just about the only way to do that. Without these words, we couldn't learn or find others of like mind.
That being said, the currents of activity and tradition born from words have a tendency to calcify, don't they? I remember when "Recon" was a lot more flexible and open- but now, certain vocal groups within the "recon" world seem to have forgotten that they don't own words, or other people, and begun thinking that they own the term "recon" now. By owning it, they own the right to tell others when they are or are not "a good recon" or a "good pagan" or even a "good person".
Like all calcifications, value judgments become entangled with the word-game quickly. "Bad guys" are needed, and they are crucial to the success of the entire enterprise. The "neo-pagans" are the needful villains to the "recons", for their differences illustrate (by easy contrast) things that the recons think are important.
But therein lies the trap, the pitfall: the recons cease being anything other than "those people who aren't like the neos". They take to writing little or nothing about actual religion, and instead spend their time ripping on "the others". Their wedlock is complete; never can there be a divorce, for who are the recons, if not the crusaders against the dreaded fluffs?
"Recon" is hijacked. Even I hate to use the word sometimes, because some of the biggest "recon" names are right twits. They actually make the "fluffs" look COOL sometimes, and that's saying a lot.
I personally think the only answer to the label wars and the name games and the politics is found right were the problem began: language. We have to stop being so uncreative with language, and continually create labels with more and more subtle layers of meaning. "Recon" has either become meaningless now, or it has become subsumed into the ego-kingdoms of a few jackasses.
The response? I have seen groups of Celtic recons (or should I say, people with an interest in Celtic paganism being studied and revived, following models that are not based on popular new-age models) who refuse to call themselves "recon" and instead use other specific terms (most in Celtic languages) that specifically refer to their approach and practice. That way, there is no real confusion, and they are free to operate within the unique sphere that they have defined for themselves, in any way they see fit.
As I said, language is important, even though it has strong limitations. So we have to use language for all its worth, if we want to escape the trap of a few labels becoming accepted and then confused and then political. Many city-states, not just one kingdom.