oh!

[Hedwig]

I think this could go in more than one forum so I am putting it here.

I am working on my MA in Humanities and am doing as much of my work as possible on Wicca (because I consider myself a Wiccan and it is just one more way to explore my spirituality). Anyway, I have just been writing a paper on how Wicca corresponds to the feminist theory of ecriture feminine (feminine writing) and I got to the last few articles of my research and they were all by archaelogists and anthropologists who claim that there is no historical basis for Goddess-based religion.

Here is my problem: I don't care if there is or not! In fact, I think I would rather consider it something new. I don't necessarily use specific dieties or anything. I believe in the force of nature. What I don't understand is why there has to be an historical basis for something in order for it to be considered legitimate.

Here is why I am writing this: For some reason I am feeling really blue now. I'm not usually one to let that sort of thing get to me but I just take personal offense to scholars using words like "bogus" and "hokum." One man (and it's funny, they were all men) said that Wicca was nothing more than a marketing ploy to sell Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Tarot cards. I am so depressed.

:(

[mato]

spacific articles? I am interested in this and would like to read more on it, so please would you post some spacific articles and authors. It is so fun to shake things up and see what falls out of their research. Sometimes they dont even know what they are talking about, it is funny and at the same time creepy. Names articles and such would be helpfull...

Ok as to the other stuff, people are nuts when it comes to that. They have been programed by society and in the case of religion if it hasnt been public and continuous for 100 years then it is just a cult of lunatics (hay hay! They might be on to some thing here!:lol: ) They might have a point in their ideas of wicca just being a pop culture fad, comercialized and sold to the masses. But so is christmass and they have no problem with that (I assume). How sexest, a big fat guy wants to break into your house and leave you stuff (with stinky messy animals on a no parking roof! I would sue for clean up) and you encourage it, while a scarry looking woman threatens you with sharp objects that you are free to walk away from and they are all upity about it. :D

[Myst]

Some people believe in proof and truth for something to be legitimate, not just saying "it feels right". Some people don't believe in just believing something because you like it. *shrugs*

No one says you have to follow their rules.

[flar7]

regardless of facts! If facts coincide with your beliefs all the
better!

But, since you are working on a paper for your MA, be careful!!
Proffessors are very picky about that stuff, and they have no
problem handing out F's for work unproven or unsupported.
Science is funny that way. Things it cant see or prove, just arent.
Even though over time they sometimes are proven wrong and the
believer proven right.

Their was another thread in hear somewhere about the lack of
Earth Goddess thingy. The discussion was quite heated!!! I am
sure Myst could find it and probably remembers it. Love and Light!

[~**foxglove**~]

"I'm not usually one to let that sort of thing get to me but I just take personal offense to scholars using words like "bogus" and "hokum." One man (and it's funny, they were all men) said that Wicca was nothing more than a marketing ploy to sell Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Tarot cards. I am so depressed."

Although I have personally come to a stage where I simply don't allow this sort of thing to bother me in any way, I do understand how it can make you feel, Hedwig. But hey, just because one religion/philosophy has a 'historical basis' and records up to your eyebrows compared to another, doesn't make it any more valid! It doesn't mean it's any more or less real to those who follow it, so I wouldn't let these statements bother you. Still, you should not have expected much more from your research, either.

At the end of the day, it's all about belief. Personal belief. And if there's one thing people in general should have learnt by now in regards to religion/philosophy, it's that there IS no right or wrong, 'historical basis' or not. So cheer up charlie!!

[StormChaser]

Actually, the history channel has done a few shows on witchcraft, wicca, and goddess based religion. It actually told how matriarchy, and wicca as an earth based religion which centered around the healing abilities of women and their mysterious magick.. scared men as it led women to being powerful contributers to society, without "logical" or "deniable" reason.


It all depends on the school you go to really. You have to fight sometimes to get people to recognize that what they consider illegitimate is a bias not a fact.

[talamh]

Yes, it's depressing sometimes how academia encourages tearing something apart rather then building something up... but i think it's frequently mistaken for "academic rigour"....

i don't know of any specific historical "proof" of wicca... but there is a large body of what some impressive scholars call "evidence' about Goddess-worshipping cultures which formed the scholistic basis for revival of earth-based spirituality in the last 30 years. Check out some of the writings of Merlic Stone (When God was a Woman), Mary Daly, Carol Christ, and Monica Sjoo (The Great Cosmic Mother).

Also look at the archeological writing of Marija Gimbutas (The Civilization of the Goddess, The Language of the Goddess). Be warned that her interpretations are considered controversial. She challenges some of the accepted theories of archeological accepted "wisdom"..... like the explanation of the Venus of Willendorf figures found in just about every dwelling in Catel Hayuk that says it's "an examples of early pornography" rather then the household icon of a Goddess-worshipping culture.

i'm sure you know your way around the academic game by now... not to say that all of academia is a game... but like any human endeavour, there are some well-know traps set for the unwary and a lot of academic egos involved. Find out what your prof did his/her Masters and PhD thesis on, to check out his/her own pet theories before you decide on any major challenges. Not to say don't challenge him/her... but at least know that you are if you are.

What is feminine ecriture... or feminine writing? Is it a different set of criteria or a different process? It's interesting because a lot of the re-examination of archeological evidence and new interpretation and approach comes from women's studies.... which is in itself academically controversial.... but also , in my opinion, very necessary. bb talamh

[Hedwig]

Originally posted by talamh anEiac
What is feminine ecriture... or feminine writing? Is it a different set of criteria or a different process? It's interesting because a lot of the re-examination of archeological evidence and new interpretation and approach comes from women's studies.... which is in itself academically controversial.... but also , in my opinion, very necessary. bb talamh

Ecriture Feminine (it should have some accents) is a style of writing proposed by the french poet and dramatist Helene Cixous (also should have some accents). It is a way of finding a method of communication that is feminine rather than masculine. She says that it isn't quite definable but that it is inductive, not fixed or linear, heavily metaphoric and symbolic (because metaphor and symbolism are tools of the unconscious which has been repressed much in the same way that the feminine has). She points to non-verbal, non-written communication as being feminine, along with stream of consciousness literature, song, and her own poetry. In my paper, I proposed that Wiccan rituals, especially those which involve chanting are the ultimate expression of ecriture feminine.

Thanks for the names, I will research them over the break!

[sjgavula]

The Triumph of the Moon
A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft
Ronald Hutton
Oxford, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198207441

The book is divided into sections which cover the
historical development of different aspects of modern witchcraft
including: the Goddess, the God, ritual structure, high magic, low magic;
then it goes on to cover the major figures responsible for shaping
witchcraft as we know it today, first discussing those he calls the god
(and goddess) parents: Aliester Crowley, Dion Fortune, and Robert Graves
before moving on to Gerald Gardner and those he influenced, such as Doreen
Valiente.

While I think the entire book is very good, the first three chapters,
which discuss the development of the goddess, the god and ritual are worth
the price of the book alone. This is one book that I think should be in
every witches' library. It is thoroughly researched. And, there are over
50 pages of notes and a comprehensive index included.

(This is an excerpt of a book review that I wrote for Cup of Wonder, Issue 5 http://www.vireopub.org)