Why is Paganism Political?
The question "Why is Paganism Political?" is a good one and I feel it is one that everyone asks as some stage or other. It is most certainly one that everyone must face sooner or later.
I say this totally recognising the fact that most people who attempt to take Paganism into some sort of political arena by way of "religous rights/recognition" etc never actually do in any useful fashion though! Truly enough, for some reason or other I have never been able to fathom, those most likely to make Paganism overtly Political are teh least likely (in my experience) to be able to accept it as inherantly so and therefore make best us of it in this regard. Bizarre ...
So "Why is Paganism Political?"
Well I shall avoid the obvious statement that it is by nature as that is not helpful and can be construed as glib even though, it most certainly is by definition.
Of course I know some people would argue this most vociferously but hey, most of them would argue the opening of a coke bottle .. and besides most of them are VERY unused to actually picking up that dictionary to READ it !?!? lol
I personally feel that one of the simplest explanations results from Marxist Theory.
While this is by no means the only way it can be explained; that he is by no means my favourite chappy and while I feel some of his theories can only ever be theories due to their utopic nature … I feel this in no way diminishes the use of certain of his stuff here.
Many of the specifics of the various stances I will refer to can be argued several ways – that is why they are useful in this sense.
Marxist Theory asserts that some form of socio political maneuvering is rather inevitable due to the fact of friction resulting from the antagonism between social classes who experience and value different economic and social interests. This results in class struggle which is therefore by definition political in nature. This is especially the case if we consider the nature and practical applications of religion and religious belief in a social sense. This is further especially the case in relation to Weber’s views of power as being the ability to enact one’s will even against opposition, (a situation all magicians of any religious creed should know well!)
To be succinct, when we consider the nature of any form of belief as a social group determinant; we are forced to consider the same as a possible precursor to the formation of social units and groups which may, in turn; prove antagonistic to each other. The more cohesive such are – the more likely they are to be at odds with others who do not share their beliefs, values and customs in concrete ways.
It is also rather pivotal to note that the longer any social grouping remains cohesive as a unit to any degree; the more likely it is to show a tendency towards forms of internal social stratification. These positions within the unit will ever be rather dependant on the capability of those in each strata to enact well and acquire skills, tools and understandings that allow them to fulfill their roles to the benefit of themselves and those others of their people. Hence we have the often observed statement that any political party is for naught if not as a party against all other political parties. This is observably the case even in social groups with no or ill defined social goals!
It is somewhat irrelevant whether this model is applied to priesthoods or laity. Indeed it can easily be argued that this very theory is reinforced by the existence *at all* of, (to use a commonly understood example) the difference between say the skills of a First or Second and a Third Degree. Each of the strata has a job to do in order to advance and safeguard the views, ideals, practices and customs that they value. This is no different when applied to the individual who simply does so in a different manner with less hands to make the work light so to speak.
Some view it as a mark of honour to loftily “reject” politics, some view it as their duty to engage in such so as to fulfill their roles to their people, (for precisely the same reasons!) and some simply revel in the scenario. It has often been observed that the differences between all of these stances has more to do with the level of participation in relation to personal ethic than any sort of “across the board” level of honourable behaviour. Indeed, the argument of rejection in favour of democracy, (for example) is one that is quite amusing when viewed from an Aristotelian point of view and often smacks of the desire to have one’s cake and eat it too thus highlighting the political nature of modern language usage! lol
I argue that politics exists and that whether or not we would prefer it to be such; we are to some degree subject to the pressures it creates. Indeed even absenting oneself from wider society can be argued as a political act of positioning. Whether overt or covert we all participate in it to one degree or another simply by way of social interaction. That we consider anyone as political or Apolitical, (I often feel) is more a function and marker of how closely congruent the observed is to our ideal of the enacting of one’s role in the social contract with grace and precision – as we’d consider it aesthetically. It goes without saying that this is dependant of the degree of conscious and decisive utilization of the same toward shared goals. Indeed I often observe that while I feel that to leave any tool unused toward one’s goals shows a disdain for success of the same, this same maxim is rarely considered by most in this arena – even though I consider it somewhat basic. *Shrugs* Horses for courses obviously.
There then is one way of explaining it. Obviously the positioning of the self where one feels comfortable is a matter FOR the self – as is the acquisition of acceptable tools for the bettering of one’s own position individually or otherwise. In that light, I have opted to attempt, (as much as is possible without obvious bias!) to explain the situation in an accessible form without suggesting position specific views or avenues for debate and action. This is as much the case in the path TO as FROM subjects as social rights, acceptance and “legitimacy”.
I find that even the hermit often has a big stick – they just avoid people they may be most tempted to use it on! lol
At the end of the day, I see politics as something that is there and as such must modify our approach to any form of progress in line with our personal codes and the wider social movements. That some will therefore adopt one stance to another is inevitable and should likewise be factored into our progress individually and collectively.
I say this totally recognising the fact that most people who attempt to take Paganism into some sort of political arena by way of "religous rights/recognition" etc never actually do in any useful fashion though! Truly enough, for some reason or other I have never been able to fathom, those most likely to make Paganism overtly Political are teh least likely (in my experience) to be able to accept it as inherantly so and therefore make best us of it in this regard. Bizarre ...
So "Why is Paganism Political?"
Well I shall avoid the obvious statement that it is by nature as that is not helpful and can be construed as glib even though, it most certainly is by definition.
Of course I know some people would argue this most vociferously but hey, most of them would argue the opening of a coke bottle .. and besides most of them are VERY unused to actually picking up that dictionary to READ it !?!? lol
I personally feel that one of the simplest explanations results from Marxist Theory.
While this is by no means the only way it can be explained; that he is by no means my favourite chappy and while I feel some of his theories can only ever be theories due to their utopic nature … I feel this in no way diminishes the use of certain of his stuff here.
Many of the specifics of the various stances I will refer to can be argued several ways – that is why they are useful in this sense.
Marxist Theory asserts that some form of socio political maneuvering is rather inevitable due to the fact of friction resulting from the antagonism between social classes who experience and value different economic and social interests. This results in class struggle which is therefore by definition political in nature. This is especially the case if we consider the nature and practical applications of religion and religious belief in a social sense. This is further especially the case in relation to Weber’s views of power as being the ability to enact one’s will even against opposition, (a situation all magicians of any religious creed should know well!)
To be succinct, when we consider the nature of any form of belief as a social group determinant; we are forced to consider the same as a possible precursor to the formation of social units and groups which may, in turn; prove antagonistic to each other. The more cohesive such are – the more likely they are to be at odds with others who do not share their beliefs, values and customs in concrete ways.
It is also rather pivotal to note that the longer any social grouping remains cohesive as a unit to any degree; the more likely it is to show a tendency towards forms of internal social stratification. These positions within the unit will ever be rather dependant on the capability of those in each strata to enact well and acquire skills, tools and understandings that allow them to fulfill their roles to the benefit of themselves and those others of their people. Hence we have the often observed statement that any political party is for naught if not as a party against all other political parties. This is observably the case even in social groups with no or ill defined social goals!
It is somewhat irrelevant whether this model is applied to priesthoods or laity. Indeed it can easily be argued that this very theory is reinforced by the existence *at all* of, (to use a commonly understood example) the difference between say the skills of a First or Second and a Third Degree. Each of the strata has a job to do in order to advance and safeguard the views, ideals, practices and customs that they value. This is no different when applied to the individual who simply does so in a different manner with less hands to make the work light so to speak.
Some view it as a mark of honour to loftily “reject” politics, some view it as their duty to engage in such so as to fulfill their roles to their people, (for precisely the same reasons!) and some simply revel in the scenario. It has often been observed that the differences between all of these stances has more to do with the level of participation in relation to personal ethic than any sort of “across the board” level of honourable behaviour. Indeed, the argument of rejection in favour of democracy, (for example) is one that is quite amusing when viewed from an Aristotelian point of view and often smacks of the desire to have one’s cake and eat it too thus highlighting the political nature of modern language usage! lol
I argue that politics exists and that whether or not we would prefer it to be such; we are to some degree subject to the pressures it creates. Indeed even absenting oneself from wider society can be argued as a political act of positioning. Whether overt or covert we all participate in it to one degree or another simply by way of social interaction. That we consider anyone as political or Apolitical, (I often feel) is more a function and marker of how closely congruent the observed is to our ideal of the enacting of one’s role in the social contract with grace and precision – as we’d consider it aesthetically. It goes without saying that this is dependant of the degree of conscious and decisive utilization of the same toward shared goals. Indeed I often observe that while I feel that to leave any tool unused toward one’s goals shows a disdain for success of the same, this same maxim is rarely considered by most in this arena – even though I consider it somewhat basic. *Shrugs* Horses for courses obviously.
There then is one way of explaining it. Obviously the positioning of the self where one feels comfortable is a matter FOR the self – as is the acquisition of acceptable tools for the bettering of one’s own position individually or otherwise. In that light, I have opted to attempt, (as much as is possible without obvious bias!) to explain the situation in an accessible form without suggesting position specific views or avenues for debate and action. This is as much the case in the path TO as FROM subjects as social rights, acceptance and “legitimacy”.
I find that even the hermit often has a big stick – they just avoid people they may be most tempted to use it on! lol
At the end of the day, I see politics as something that is there and as such must modify our approach to any form of progress in line with our personal codes and the wider social movements. That some will therefore adopt one stance to another is inevitable and should likewise be factored into our progress individually and collectively.
posted by BissekArt at 12:27 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home