Reconstructionist Polytheism: My View

So I think I am finally getting back into writing, now that an extensive series of annoyances are out of the way. Anyway, today's topic is on my refined and updated view on Reconstructionist Polytheism.

In my view, Pagan Reconstructionism is a very careful and respectful methodology to use in setting up a system of sound devotional practices in the home. Employing reconstructionist methods, a practitioner can put together a pretty impressive home altar (some refer to this as a 'hearth') that is respectful to whichever deities or entire pantheon they choose to venerate. Using these methods a small group of affiliated practitioners could even set up a basic group ritual, say outdoors somewhere in a beautiful and secluded natural area. And all this can be done on a shoestring budget and without the need of any organized priesthood or complex system of priestly procedures or doctrines; all this requires is the presence of semi-competent and resourceful practitioners. So far, so good, eh? I do have to say, before I go into my usual scalpel-ish critique mode, that I think anyone who takes up venerating the gods and goddesses of old is taking a step in the right direction and embarking on the path of rediscovering what religion was for most people for many millennia before the great ideologization of religion fell upon us -- that great memetic plague that hit us like a ton of bricks and became a curse on humanity.

Is Reconstructionist Polytheism a real Religion?

Moving on, I have to say that I don't think Reconstructionist Polytheism is an actual replacement for religion. In fact, it can't be a religion all on its own. The people partaking in Reconstructionist devotional practices are most certainly not immersed in the worldview and value system of the ancient culture they are attempting to emulate through their practices. The old 'pagan', pre-Christian religions of the west (save the Greco-Roman tradition) that Reconstructionists are attempting to breathe new life into are usually so fragmentary and incomplete as far as what can be recovered today. There's no real philosophical schools or substantial systems of ethics we can historically associate with these long dead religions; as a result, people who take up pagan reconstructionism just end up filling in the gaping holes with modernist (almost always secular materialist derived) philosophy and ethics. And many don't do this as a deliberate action, but rather they subconsciously infuse whatever values pop culture and the corporate mass media have burned into their brains. People today absorb pop culture by osmosis just as ancient pagans absorbed the mythical narratives of their culture or nation. A simple thinking exercise would reveal that the true religion and worldview of modern-day, would-be 'pagans' is not so different than most 'normal' (i.e. non- polytheist) people around them. So their "pagan religion" really ends up being the usual bland, uninspired grab bag of secular humanist (ironically based on athesitic and/or non-theistic presuppositions about reality) + progressive liberal platitudes, sentiments, and talking points + whatever pagan-y window dressing they've opted to use as thin aesthetic veneer.

Syncretism, the dirty S word

Reconstructionists tend to be quite the sticklers when it comes to warding off anything that reeks of an attempt to bring 'syncretism' into their practices (by syncretism, we mean the act of mixing elements of different traditions together); they're always quite fearful that their system gets considered the oh-so-dreaded prejorative Neopagan Gods-forbid one might to suggest to Reconstructonist that they mix in and incorporate a well-documented and commented upon philosophy (ex, Platonism, Hermeticism, Stoicism, ect.) from antiquity or an age approximate to whatever dead folk religion they're trying to LARP into reality, is somehow seen as sacrilege and totally wrong/inappropriate, yet mixing in secular modernist crap is just fine. It's like there's a total disconnect and cognitive dissonance on this. Having said that. I'd certainly agree with RPs that keeping sloppy and ill-thought syncretism at bay when it comes to the actual practices/ritualism (I'm looking a you, Eclectic Neopagans) is a good thing. Because of the knee-jerk anti-syncretist sentiment that is common among RPs, even the mere act of trying to describe their practices and mythical elements using general terminology that any fluent English speaker might be familiar with (as opposed to specialized ethnic jargon specific to the tradition being 'reconstructed') will surely elicit a few jeers and even condemnations. Might a Hellenic reconstructionist recoil in horror when you refer to their 'Bomos' as a mere Altar? What they might consider the defense of 'authenticity', someone of a more generalist disposition like myself would consider to be petty word-games employed to defend the RP's fragile sense of religious uniqueness. Funny enough, 'uniqueness' in a religious context is an explicitly Abrahamic trait (this might suggest quite a bit of unresolved post-Christian baggage on the part of RPs). Actual historical polytheists the world over were usually quite pluralistic and open to syncretism when done in a pious and symbolically-appropriate manner.

The Priests of Academia

Finally, Reconstructionists tend to rely on academia for most of the knowledge they use to reconstruct their traditions. They tend to rely on the latest archeological find or translation of some recovered text (usually fragmentary and mock-interpolated by medieval Christian scribes, but that's neither here nor there), which of course relies upon academians to do all the interpretive legwork in terms of distilling down the find-in-question to a format understandable to a general audience outside of their academic field. Now, there's nothing wrong with academics who work very hard to recover bits and pieces of the old, lost traditions. They are doing great work, for the most part. But they are not (in most cases) seers, philosophers, oracles, diviners, poets, ect., i.e. the kind of people who are best equipped to interpret religious materials and devise workable practices that connect practitioners with the gods and goddesses. In fact, most academics today in these fields (and in general) tend to be ardent materialists, and usually some combination of atheist, non-theist, agnostic, and even anti-theist. In other words, their beliefs and the inherent biases that come prepackaged with those beliefs are going to probably steer them away from interpreting the evidence they work with in a manner that's conducive to properly understanding religion and spirituality on its own terms. Instead, the academic researcher is probably going to spin materialist conclusions out of whatever they're working with. Despite this reality, RPs seem all-too-willing to appoint these academians as their (de-facto) priests! This sad fact might point to the conclusion that there's nary a real priest to be found within RP circles, and they they end up outsourcing that duty to other parties. And if we have a religion without priests, then it's not a religion at all. This seems to tie into the argument I have made before that modern 'paganism' is mostly just a lifestyle cult that exists in an ecosystem of other lifestyle cults that are available in today's vast affluent consumer economy. Sorry to say but a mere lifestyle cult is most certainly NOT a system of genuine religious practices and beliefs.

Ending on a Good Note

So now I finally end this with some nice words. The genuine Reconstructionists I've come across actually believe in the existence of the deities they venerate. And they actually believe these deities to be real, living beings each with their own individuality and will (some call this view 'Hard Polytheism'). This is the correct view, in my view, and one that is in accord with what peoples the world over have intuitively understood for many millennia. This view is in sharp contrast to other Neopagans and New Agers who sometimes imagine the gods as being mere forces of nature, archetypes, or some other mundane psychological explanation. And then there's some among the 'Pagan Monists' who believe the gods and goddesses are just aspects or archetypes of a monolithic spiritual 'oneness'...but that's a topic for another day.

Overall, I think that Reconstructionism is a great methodology for establishing high-quality home ritual and devotional practices. But a religion itself, it does not make. To actually accomplish this, which I believe can be done, I'd say these practices must be combined with a substantial system of philosophy and ethics, preferably from within the Western canon, if it's indeed a Western polytheism one is practicing. And yes, this might mean a system of thought from a region or country that's not in the same exact place as the dead religion one is trying to raise-dead back into existence. Oh well, life isn't fair or particularly rational. We must make do with what we have, and in a semi-coherent manner.