November 2006
·
48 Reads
Debate continues about how to define Paganism, but it is generally agreed that it is a 'nature religion'. Unsurprisingly, Pagans are widely supposed to be environmentally active, and the Dictionary of Contemporary Religion in the Western World goes so far as to say, "Paganism is an ecological faith tradition, a nature-centric spirituality that seeks to break down hierarchies." (Partridge, (ed.), 2002; 326). However, most ethnographic research shows that in practice, Pagans are not especially ecological, and only a minority of eclectic 'Eco-Pagans' are involved in direct action (Adler, 1986, pp. 399-415). Smith Obler concluded that although Pagans' language and beliefs speak of a love for nature, their behaviour is no more environmental than anyone else's (2004), and Adler found that "quite a few" Pagans were actually against environmental activism (1986; 400). We focus on this apparent paradox at the heart of the movement: If Paganism is a 'nature religion', why are so few practitioners environmentalists? The obvious answer is that belief does not always translate into practice, but we offer a more useful hypothesis based on existing research and recent ethnographic work. We make sense of this apparent inconsistency by tracing the genealogy of Paganism, which reveals diverse currents of influence. While Contemporary Paganism originated from esoteric magical traditions, we trace how an ‘earth-based’ Paganism emerged from folk Romanticism and the Free Festival movement. These currents are not isolated but nevertheless carry distinct ideological characteristics and attract different socio-political groups. Although our argument focuses on UK Paganism, the fundamental cross-cultural influences between the US and the UK mean that our analysis is relevant to both countries.