by Jehana Silverwing (Siubhan) Thoughts on Celtic Reconstructionism or whatever one wants to call it
This page dedicated to the Topaz Owl,
Just Because.I'm a Witch. (Until recently I didn't realize Witches were supposed to be only duotheistic or even monotheistic -- ie, honoring just a Lord and Lady, or just the Goddess. I guess I just didn't read that book. Polytheism has always had a strong appeal to me since discovering the various Pagan paths.) I'm not a Celtic Witch. None of the books or material or whathaveyou concerning Celtic Wicca or Celtic Witchcraft really ever spoke to me. More on that below.
But now I find myself on a path into Celtic Paganism. Call it Reconstructionism, Traditionalism, or whatever (there's a large debate out there in the community over terminology, and so I'll wait until the dust settles from the rolling heads of those wiser than myself). For me, it is distinct from Wicca/Witchcraft, and I practice it as such. Separately, although both must infuse the spirit of the body I inhabit.
I came to this from three (appropriately enough) sources: My trip to Scotland and concurrent connection to the Picts, in 1995 ce. My work with the online Summerlands community, which is largely (not exclusively) based on Celtic Paganism. My reading of Alexei Kondratiev's book, The Apple Branch, in late 1998, ce. Even the noisiness of some of the Celtic Reconstructionist mailing lists could not drive me away, even if they did effectively drive me off of specific lists.
Celtic Wicca works for some, and if it works for you, be my guest. However, I am reminded of the various multicultural tarot decks that are out there for sale. Someone gets the idea, say, to create a Japanese-themed tarot deck, and they bend the Japanese cultural and spiritual themes to fit the strictures of the standard tarot deck (which by itself has its own rich antecedents), rather than coming up with a system of presentation that is not Tarot but will fit more accurately into the framework of the Japanese culture and mindset. I would not find it comfortable to read tarot cards created using Japanese cultural and spiritual themes, since inevitably round holes will have to be jammed into square pegs in order to create the thing. (Back in my tarot card-collecting days, I was known to buy such culturally-misappropriated decks, not to read from them, but because in many cases the artwork was truly good). I find that the same analogy holds with Celtic Wicca. The Celts didn't do a lot of things which a slew of Wiccan authors have wedged into their books about Celtic Witchcraft in order to make them jibe with current concepts of Witchcraft. One format holds everything... well, maybe not, I'd say.
Cultural context is important, I think. As another example, there is the Michael Harner school of thought as regards shamanism: one can distill the elements of the shamanic experience out of cultures from around the world, and use those basic elements to provide shamanic benefits to us poor bereft Westerners who no longer have intact cultural experiences of shamanism. This provides to anyone a sort of "generic shamanism" whose intent is admittedly higher than that of those people who produced "generic mystery" and "generic science fiction" novels as gag gifts a few years back. But, as with those generic books, generic, "core", shamanism misses out on the experience of the richness of specific cultures. Now, I have indeed participated in valuable core shamanic journeys presented by a student of the Harner method -- but I think it worked so well in that case due to the personality of the leader of those sessions. And, after all, I do not state that any of these approaches cannot work -- what works for you works for you -- what I'm trying to do here is explain why certain approaches work better for me than others, and it may be that an individual you out there is also wondering about these things. There's a certain valuable enrichment possible through the keyhole of cultural context.
(It is probably appropriate here to note that some -- not all -- of my solitary work is so pared down as to be wordless and tool-less -- but what is going on within me doesn't seem remotely generic. And I don't claim when I do that, that it is anything specific except a Connection... Part of this is that with the spoken word I sometimes simply find it difficult to be verbal, a difficulty which diminishes when I deal with the written word... (grin). It is also important for me to note here that most of my work with Flambé is not tied into a particular culture, putative or real, but is of a "language" we have developed and created together out of working non-heirarchically in partnership over a period of several years -- a synergy of our personhoods -- to the point that it can really be seen as its own organic tradition.)
At any rate, I've always appreciated authors who do research and document this research. I also appreciate inspiration and innovation -- authors who define the difference are a joy to behold, and unfortunately not common enough yet within the overall Pagan community. I think my appreciation comes from my background and training in the sciences. Not that the Scientific Method is the end-all and be-all by any stretch of the imagination (here I note that most laypeople have a truly garbled notion as to what is meant by the scientific method to begin with... but that's for another article.) Celtic Heritage, by Alwyn and Brinley Rees, always sung to my spirit, while books on Witta didn't survive much of a random page-glance. And that was even before I really knew very much about things Celtic.
A lot of what the Celtic Reconstructionist movement is about is validating research. This is important, especially to balance out the excesses of misappropriation, which understandibly makes reconstructionists edgy, and indeed also makes surviving cultural peoples (ie, current day Celts who are uninterested in Paganism) happier about our playing around (as it were) in their world. We all are aware of the Native Americans who rightfully resent us Europeans appropriating their religions, hodgepodging it all into one generic Native religion, and attempting to live self-selected portions of it without any true cultural context.
With Celtic spirituality, we can be assured that there was a variety of experiences, depending on place and time. Our guesses in the holes left by the vagaries of history need to be filled in with educated thought. And where inspiration comes in, we need to credit that as such. I may receive inspiration from my Pictish connection, but I can never say that anything from that source was definitively how it was done without external validation, or even use that source as a basis for a hard-core speculation. But I can use what I learn this way in my own practice, keeping my eyes and bullshit detectors open.
Of course, just doing dry research and dry speculations is a great way to write a doctoral thesis, but it doesn't help live the spirituality, which is ultimately what is driving me towards this. We also live in a world distinctly different than those of the ancient Celts. All religions and spiritualities change (microevolution in the spiritual world) -- and different developments in different areas progress at varying rates -- which is why the explosion in Christian denominations, to give one example. One aspect I was impressed with in Scotland is the fact that one can travel twenty miles or so, to a community of the same size one has just left, and the entire atmosphere has changed. Just think how much more this must have been so in the days before speedy transportation!
To live a spirituality, it has to be responsive to you, and you have to be responsive to it. Discern what calls you to a Celtic (or whatever) path; what are the values held by that society? This helps form their gods, their nature spirits, their ways of respecting the Land. Nature spirits are spirits of place -- the gods seem more moveable, by and large.
Learning a language will help -- language itself gives hints as to how a culture thinks. Plus, I suspect, the work involved hones the dedication and the will. I'm very slowly starting with Scots Gaelic, and afterwards hope to proceed to Cornish. (Why Cornish? It is, like Pictish probably was, Brythonic Celtic. The Pictish tongue is now extinct; and Cornish nearly came to that fate, itself. Law of Sympathy, or something.)
Of course, some of this begs the question of how I can consider myself both of the Craft, and of a Celtic path. Dual paths have their pitfalls. But I think if one is consciously aware of this, and willing to take the necessary steps to deal with the pitfalls, that dual path approaches can be valuable. My current approach to Wicca/Witchcraft, after all, is not exactly cut out of the conventional mode, and this may help my own process along this way. Perhaps the Celtic draw appeals to my need for tradition and cultural roots, while the Witchy draw is, well, more of something else whose definition at the current moment eludes me. Both work, for me.
I may have a few droplets of Celtic blood -- but at this point I don't feel comfortable calling myself a "Celt". That would be like my, on the basis of owning a buttload of Native American books, calling myself an Indian. (Despite those books, I am NOT even on a Native American path.) Rather, I am on the Celtic path, and it is an adjunct to, rather than a direct part of, my Wiccan experience. And, vice versa. I am not, NOT a Celtic Witch.
Recommended Links and Resources (keep in mind that my personal focus is Scottish):
At this website:
Some other websites include:
Nine Books, in no particular order:
Just for Interest: