Anti-Anti-Fluffbunny Backlash?

Ignore for the moment that a double negative creates a positive. For one thing, the author, one Eclectic Satyr, insists that isn't what he means. Of course, he also says he's a "Wiccan, an eclectic, and a White Lighter," so I hope you'll forgive me if I find the source slightly suspect. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

A few weeks ago, someone whose opinion I respect highly circulated a link to this essay. As I was in the process of finishing up 9LMM, I was initially sympathetic towards the author's position. Doing 9LMM was a very personal process in a lot of ways. Having become very disillusioned with Paganism as a whole, and infuriated by what I perceived as a hijacking of something I considered quite precious by those with selfish, if not nefarious, ends, I wanted to strike back. Hard. But, and I am perversely almost ashamed to admit it, I'm really not a very mean person at heart. Far from it.

So, as time went by, I became less and less interested in bunny-roasting, and more interested in how one can be a Pagan and hold one's head high, given that most of our so-called co-religionists are somewhere between occasionally embarrassing and pathologically delusional. For one thing, I realized that most religions have the same problem. I recently ran across an article written by a liberal Christian that sounded remarkably familiar. How many Pagans have, at some point or another, felt uncomfortable discussing their beliefs, not because they Evul Xtians might burn them, but becamse people equate Pagans with nutjobs & hucksters like Laurie Cabot, Kevin Carlyon, or Oberon Zell? Who feel, you know, I'd like my religion back. Exchange the word "Christian" in the following quote with "Wiccan", and the names "Pat Robertson" and "Jerry Falwell" with the toxic fluffies of your choice:

"It's not that I'm embarrassed to believe what I believe; but the word "Christian" has come to be so strongly associated with beliefs that are the polar opposite of mine. It's frankly embarrassing to share a label with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell."

Look at it that way and, really, we don't have it so bad. Yet, anyway.

And that's the rub: Our problem children aren't particularly problematic, except in comparatively limited fashions. But, as time goes by, and Paganism (let us presume) grows and further diversifies and develops, what is a little problem now will set the stage for big problems down the way.

But let's get back to the Eclectic Satyr.

We'll start with the factual problems. First of all, Why Wiccans Suck may have been the first anti-fluff bunny site, but it's hardly the most influential. Most of the folks that I know who get ther panties in a bunch over Stupid Pagan Games would agree with the Satyr in noting that the author went way too far, and that it's hardly surprising that she's no longer Wiccan. Further, people who read WWS and said, "Hey, I feel the same way!" are no more jumping on the bandwagon than the person who finds a Pagan path and says, "Hey! I feel the same way!" Okay, some of them are, but many of them -- and this is something I heard over & over in the responses I received to 9LMM -- were saying, "My gods, I thought I was going crazy. You mean I'm not the only one who's noticed this? Thank you for saying something, and saying it well!" Those of us who get irked by fluffiness are not making it up. Certainly not the extent that most of those claiming to be famtradders are.

Next, let's look at the Satyr's view of the common antifluff (Paganus eruditus):

"The anti-fluffbunny is a mature pagan. She's done her homework. She's erudite, she spends most of her time doing research on the Gods and on the ancient cultures to whom They were first revealed, she doesn't just pluck those Gods out of thin air. Paganism, she holds, should be based on scholarship, the underpinnings of mythology and magic should be technicalised, methodologised, academicised and scientified. After all, it has nothing to do with spirituality, it is more akin to getting a college degree. Woe be the pagan who sets more store in the electrifying charge of ritual than in the crouching over an ancient tome. That one is a fluffbunny for sure! No! No! We can't have this, we want all pagans to be scholarly!"

Mature ... check. Homework ... check. Erudite ... check. Ascent out of irrational into rational objectivism ... bzzzt!

Bullshit.

For one thing, the Satyr's argument rests on the premise that research and knowledge are inherently antithetical to "spirituality." That's a false dichotomy, although it's not an incomprehensible error. First of all, the nonfluffy Pagans I've met are vehemently of the opinion that their scholarship and knowledge is a tool which allows them to come closer to the gods.

When I meet someone, I may be drawn to them because of their appearance, because of something they say, or because something just seems to click. As I get to know them better, it may turn out that my initial impression of them was inaccurate; they may not be who I thought they were, or they may be even more interesting and engaging than I assumed. As time goes by, and we become better friends, we shed our ideas about each other, and become more aware with the other as they actually are.

The implication of the Satyr's argument is that I should just go on appearances, on what I think about my acquaintance. Taking the time and effort to get to know them better, on their terms, not just mine, is bad for the relationship.

Of course, relationships change over time. My friend and I, as we get to know each other, will affect each other. We both change as a result of the interaction. The relationship I have with my friend is not the same as my friend's sister has with them. (Because, as we all know, friendship is not transitive.) My relationship with Athena is not going to be the same as a classical Athenian's relationship with Athena. But by learning more about Athena, and how she has related to others in the past, I can deepen my own experience of her.

The tricky part of the Satyr's argument is the part that has some basis in fact. Where "the techicalisation" (So cute! So British!) becomes a problem is in specific ritual or magical practices. As I've said elsewhere, magic and myth are liminal experiences, and they tend to be fugitive in the face of logic and analysis. Ecstasy and logic are seemingly in conflict. Thus, one might conclude, because the mystic defies logic, then mystics must reject logic. That isn't so; mystic experience, as inherently holistic, transcends logic, which is a partial way of knowing that can only work with objects. Gods and spirits aren't objects. (There were Jews who tried to measure God's beard, but you note they gave up that.) Logic and knowledge are tools. One can look at scientific study of the phenomenal world as a religious observance whereby one rejoices in the diversity that arises from the source of all being. That doesn't deny either position, but respects each one's specific ways of knowing, valuing, and experiencing.

Onward...

"First, I wish to make it clear that the Anti-Anti-Fluffbunny Backlash is not a pro-fluffbunny backlash: I don't advocate thinking Wicca is an ancient religion and self-ordination after reading two or three books. But I don't fight those things, as they don't last long, they self-destruct--real fluffbunny Wiccans either defluff or leave the religion altogether after a few years at most."

Errors of history and wishful thinking are symptoms of fluffiness, but they aren't the cause. The cause is selfishness, a belief that the healthy Pagan value of self-sovereignty trumps everything else, from history to physics to hygiene. Sometimes they do blow away, as something more solid and interesting comes along, and the fadfluffy gets attached to it like a burr to a sheep. But not always. Sometimes, they metastasize into despots, petty leaders who try to lord it over the younger set. Sometimes, they seemingly go dormant, and exhibit themselves in other ways, like saying, "When I want to embrace the dark side, I'll read the daily news. Or watch TV. Or go to a Mel Gibson film. There's plenty of violence, bloodshed, suffering and general nastiness in those venues. But when I practice my religion, I want to escape all that kind of thing--I want to be surrounded by the beauty of Nature and the holiness of the Gods. In other words, upon entering sacred space, all the nasty things get a big 'SCRAM!' from me." I would just like to point out that I did not italicize "escape." The author did.

Let me turn this around: If you want an escape, go watch TV or see a Mel Gibson movie. That's what they're there for: entertainment. (In this case, I mean "Lethal Weapon," not "The Snuffing of the Christ.") If you want to get closer to the world, to live inside of it, and recognize it in all of its diversity of good and bad, joy and pain, life and death, and take an active part in that, then get yourself some holy holistic religion. That is what those who have no patience for selfish escapism and wish-fulfillment want, in the end: paths that, no matter what their historical or theological basis, aren't just about running away and kidding yourself and others.

And while I'm being self-righteous, let me note, in closing, that I have heard far more self-righteousness and arrogance from fluffies than I ever have from those calling them out onto the thick pile carpet. For every puerile insult of McWiccans, I can point out a major Pagan organization that claims to speak for all Pagans, and claims they are, unambiguously, life-affirming, worship the earth, and follow the Wiccan Rede. Now if that isn't arrogant and self-righteous One-True-Wayism, I don't know what is.

I say: Kill it before it breeds.