Evolve, Dammit!:
thornthewitch:
brit-trad:
I'm currently in the research stage for a book I'm writing, which means that I've been doing a LOT of reading as of late. The book I'm reading now is "Out of the Broom Closet: 50 True Stories of Witches Who Found and Embraced the Craft", edited by Arin Murphy-Hiscock. One story in there,...I have experienced everything you've mentioned in this article, from both sides (as an insecure, teenaged eclectic in the 90s and now as a Gardnerian 3rd running a coven).
Most recently, I deal with intense hostility from young, new Wiccans and often less young (but often still new) non-Wiccan witches who think that I'm all about Gardner worship. The latter, I often find, are mostly parroting (and usually inaccurately) Michael Howard, who writes about his own (not always favorable) time with traditional Wiccans and the authenticity of other forms of witchcraft by comparison. I don't have a problem with Michael Howard, only with the failure to engage with any author's work critically (and, hey, we've totally been there).
What many of these critical folks fail to recognize is that it's 2014 and WE KNOW WE'RE MODERN. The whole "yeah but it's not really ancient" argument means nothing anymore. I am yet to meet the Gardnerian who isn't totally aware that what we do isn't passed down from the Stone Age and that we weren't there for the European witch hunts. We are AWARE of the Masonic influences, the historical inconsistencies, and Gardner's penchant for filling in blanks like frog DNA at Jurassic Park. We've read Ronald Hutton (not to mention the same Michael Howard books), too.
I am not a Gardnerian because I buy into defunct early twentieth century history about ancient European witch cults. I'm a Gardnerian because this is a system of witchcraft that is effective, because I love our gods, and because these are the people who have become my family. IT IS NOT A STATEMENT ABOUT ANYONE ELSE'S PRACTICE OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF WITCHCRAFT (or Wicca for that matter).
I have, on more occasions than I can count, befriended traditional or otherwise non-Wiccan witches only to hear, "You're not really like other Wiccans! You're more like us," or some variation ther. Usually it's because many of these folks haven't actually "met" any traditional Wiccans. We do have things in common, and, more importantly, it's been my experience that we have more things in common with each other than either of us does with popular Wicca (which I don't say to disparage it, only to point out the diversity present amongst Wiccans).
The hostility from other Wiccans is, I think, largely for the reasons you've described. I'm routinely lectured online (never, so far, to my face) about my supposed Gardner worship, but often these individuals aren't familiar with Gardner's work beyond the sexy rumors. For them, Gardner will never be anything other than a dirty old man, a position I would be fine with if I thought they'd reached that conclusion through primary source analysis (rather than via the copying described in the ) and if they didn't misspell "Gardnerian" throughout their comments (Jesus Christ I've even seen these errors in print). I have never found it to be effective to inform these individuals that, in fact, Gardnerians don't worship Gerald Gardner (it wasn't even us that started using the term "Gardnerian"), that I, too, take issue with much of Gardner's published work, and that JUST MAYBE they don't know everything there is to know about being Gard.
I would cite, as further evidence of eclectic "insecurity" (and for the love of all that is holy, I'm not saying that eclectics are as a whole insecure) the recent trend toward describing "any" organized, hierarchical version of Wicca as "traditional" while failing to appreciate what this word has historically meant for Brit Trads (here, I'm drawing a distinction between being a Traditional Wiccan in the BTW sense and belonging to a tradition "of" Wicca, the latter of which could include long-established systems that are respectable but nonetheless "not" BTW). One is not a "Traditional Wiccan" (I capitalize the T here because I want to emphasize a specific use of the term and not the dictionary definition) because one is a member of a version of Wicca (what the folks here on Tumblr would call Neo-Wicca or outer court Wicca) that happens to be well-established, has more than one coven, a training system, a hierarchy, etc. When I say I'm a "traditional Wiccan" in the BTW sense, I'm talking about lineage, experiential training, and an oral tradition that simply "is not available" outside of actually training with a BTW coven (it doesn't matter if you think you've found the BOS online or whatever because that "isn't" the tradition in and of itself). The "yeah, but who initiated the first witch" argument is totally irrelevant because I never said anybody wasn't a witch. All I said (and I probably didn't because I usually just keep my mouth shut) was you needed to be initiated IN ORDER TO BE A GARDNERIAN. Origins are not what is at stake here-consistent practice and the transference of power "is". When I go to a doctor, I trust that she went to an accredited medical school and is qualified to treat me. I don't go, "Yeah, but who trained the first doctor." It's not about how old someone is or how long they've been practicing or how good they are at witchcraft. I'm not saying that there aren't shitty, incompetent doctors in the world or that you wouldn't sometimes be better off going to an herbalist or a chiropractor. I'm only asking whether or not someone went to med school. It's pretty straightforward (and then we can have heated arguments about which med school is better, your class rank, etc.).
But this use of "traditional" by the self-taught (and the descendants of the self-taught in an initiatory coven setting) demonstrates that the label continues to carry weight that people equate to authenticity and realness, however differently it's used. I've also seen young people online describe themselves as traditional Wiccans (even as Gardnerians or Alexandrians) because they want to be set apart from what usually happens on #wicca, an impulse that I understand but that nonetheless demonstrates a failure to appreciate the meanings of these terms in these contexts.
I have personally been on all sides of this fence (I even have a surly journal entry from when I was 15 where I misspell "Gardnerian"). All I try to do at this point is maintain my tradition, uphold my oaths, and stand by for those well-suited seekers that do come my way. I've got no vendetta against other kinds of Wicca or other kinds of witchcraft. Collectively, BTW is perfectly healthy and doing things as we always have for those who care to seek us out.
"I HAVE, ON MORE OCCASIONS THAN I CAN COUNT, BEFRIENDED TRADITIONAL OR OTHERWISE NON-WICCAN WITCHES ONLY TO HEAR, "YOU'RE NOT REALLY LIKE OTHER WICCANS! YOU'RE MORE LIKE US," OR SOME VARIATION THER. USUALLY IT'S BECAUSE MANY OF THESE FOLKS HAVEN'T ACTUALLY MET ANY TRADITIONAL WICCANS."
This. This this this. I can't tell you how many times that's happened to me. It's like people think initiation involves having a stick installed up your ass.
