Paganism and Postmodernism

This essay will attempt to analyse the relationship between the type of society in which we live and Paganism. Firstly I shall assess the kind of society we live in and provide a brief introduction to postmodernity, and hence of its necessary opposite, modernity. I will also question the extent to which we do actually live in a postmodern society and argue that a more accurate definition is required that recognises that we may not be 'post' anything. In terms of the possible relationships between Paganism and postmodernism there are (at least) two possible theses. The first is that paganism is symptomatic of the postmodern condition; here I shall explore the notion that within the postmodern the metanarrative is dead and that consequently one is able to construct one's life in the way one chooses (a kind of universal Nietzschian will to power), and that Paganism has grown out of the collapse of earlier metanarratives. I shall also consider how Paganism fits into Deleuze and Guattari's idea of rhizomic as opposed to arborescent structures, arguing that the multiplicity of Paganism is one of its main advantages. The second option is that rather than being symptomatic of the postmodern condition, Paganism is in fact an attempt to escape the demands and constraints of society. Here Paganism is seen as something that rebels against, and retreats from, postmodern society and as being a site of alterity. However, as with most things, society does not fit into two neat, opposing categories, therefore the conclusion will show that both sides of the argument are not necessarily mutually exclusive. (Please read on, it will make sense, honest!)

I will briefly explain the meaning of modernity, without which this paper will make little sense. On a political level, modernity represents the rise of the secular nation state and liberal democracy, on an economic level it represents liberal economics and a belief in the free market, on a social and cultural level modernity signifies reason and rationality, the belief in science and progress and binary oppositions - middle class/working class, male/female, highbrow/lowbrow, right/wrong, rational/irrational, body/soul etc. - stupid Descartes! Now to explain postmodernism and postmodernity, as they are not the same. Postmodernity is a term that has been used to describe the type of society in which we are living at the moment, whilst postmodernism is a theory that attempts to explain that society in a particular fashion. It is also highly debateable whether we are actually living in a postmodern epoch; other terms for contemporary society are hypermodernity, liquid modernity (Bauman 2000) and reflexive modernity (Beck 1992), however, regardless of the terminology, there is a consensus that something has changed that means that 'modernity' does not adequately describe this era, even if there is no consensus on what the changes are.

According to Lyotard a defining feature of the postmodern condition is that 'the grand narrative has lost its credibility, regardless of what mode of unification it uses,' (1984: 37). A grand narrative is a structural discourse that attempts to explain society in some way or provide a unitary experience for people. For instance, Marxism is a grand narrative because it attempts to subsume the entirety of social relations into the bourgeoisie/proletariat dialectic of revolution; similarly organised religion is a grand narrative because it provides a legitimation of existence and knowledge. Also of central importance to postmodernism is the notion that 'it's all relative', everything is of equal value and there are multiple interpretations of everything; it is now impossible, for instance, to judge between highbrow and lowbrow, good art and bad art - Beethoven's fifth symphony is no better than Atomic Kitten, Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel is no better than Damien Hirst's half cow in formaldehyde. Furthermore, within postmodernity one has been freed from the constraints of modernity and is able to construct one's own identity and pursue what one wants without restriction.

I now move to consider the view that Paganism is symptomatic of the postmodern condition. Established and organised religion is very much part of the project of modernity; furthermore modernity produced brutal attacks on those seen to be Pagan. Therefore one can argue that with the death of the metanarratives of religion, people in the postmodern epoch have become able to construct their own religions within the framework of Paganism; now one is able to choose one's own path without having it imposed. (This is not actually a new idea - Nietzsche suggested it when he claimed that God is dead - it is just that postmodernists don't tend to know their history.) Furthermore, Paganism is also highly amenable to a postmodern analysis; to illustrate this I shall be using the work of Deleuze and Guattari on the rhizome and rhizomic structures. (Given the fact that Deleuze and Guattari are not total relativists they are more properly poststructuralists, but I won't open that can of worms here.)

Deleuze and Guattari identify two forms of social organisation and thought, arborescent (i.e. tree like) and rhizomatic (think potatoes). Arborescent structures are highly ordered, go only in one direction, are restrictive, rely on binary oppositions and are unitary, in contrast, 'unlike trees or their root, the rhizome connects any point to any other point, and its traits are not necessarily linked to traits of the same nature ... it has neither beginning or end, but always a middle (milieu) from which it grows and overspills ... the rhizome is an accentered, non-hierarchical, non-signifying system without a General and without an organising memory or central automaton,' (2002: 23).

One can see Paganism as a rhizome; there is no central dogma of Paganism and no central text - Paganism is a multiplicity of beliefs - and it is a continually developing system. Whilst some groups that come under Paganism may be hierarchical, Paganism taken as a whole is not. As there is no central dogma one is free to choose what one believes and how one practices; furthermore there is often a blending and borrowing from other areas. As an example of this witness the number of society members who have shown an interest in the Hermetic Study Group even though they would not call themselves Hermetic magicians; at Phil's Talisman Workshop he said that although of a hermetic origin, the method of talisman creation can be used with any other spiritual system. This demonstrates the interconnected nature of Paganism that is central to rhizomatic as opposed to arborescent structures, moreover, Paganism is continually developing - it has no end point - and is in a state of flux. If this all seems hideously complicated, ask yourself these two questions and compare your answers: a) what is the central belief of paganism? b) what is the central belief of Christianity?

I shall now elucidate the argument that rather than being a synecdoche of postmodernity, Paganism is in fact a retreat from (post)modernity. For the purpose of this essay it is largely immaterial from what type of society Paganism is an escape. This is because that some of the main problems of postmodernity were also identified by Simmel (2004) as being the problems of modernity; that is in using money to be individual one ends up being the same because everyone else is doing the same thing to be individual as well. I should say at this point, however that I do not think we live in a postmodern society, for instance, if a belief in the free market is a symbol of modernity, then in postmodernity such a belief would have been re-evaluated, however neo-liberalism is being pursued more aggressively now than at any other time in history, nor have, for instance, the structures of class or gender been abolished - it is for this reason that I prefer terms such as hyper - or liquid modernity.

In this case, one can see that in society there is an individualistic drive (Thatcher - there is no such thing as society), a move away from religion, and a loss of community. These are all things that I think Paganism can address. Firstly, given that much of Pagan belief is based on the interconnectedness of people with one another, and of people and nature, the claims of individualism are disrupted. One cannot live solely for oneself if one is aware of the consequences that one's actions will have on others, (unless, that is, you happen to be the first female British Prime Minister). As far as religion goes, I think there is a move away from dogmatic religion to those that allow for an individual to fully explore themselves and the world around them - just think how many Pagans you know started of following a more orthodox religion. Whilst traditional notions of community have broken down over the last 50 years there has been an increase in networks based on identity (Maffesoli 1996). I think that the growth of Paganism is part of this, not only with physical groupings, but also with virtual networks. The prevalence of online communities is exemplary of our search for, and need for, a sense of belonging which is generally not satisfied by one's day to day life. These are just some of the ways in which Paganism can provide an antidote to contemporary society. Returning to Deleuze and Guattari, they write that 'the tree imposes the verb "to be," but the fabric of the rhizome is the conjunction "and ... and ... and ..." This conjunction carries enough force to shake and uproot the verb "to be".' (Deleuze and Guattari 2004: 27). In this context one can argue that the conditions of liquid modernity impose the verb "to be," that is finite identities, thoughts and structures, whereas paganism refuses such practices and is a disavowal of arborescent thought and structure.

Again, if this seems complicated, just think why you call yourself a pagan and think if it is anyway in opposition to mainstream society. Given the homogeneity of society - everyone wears the same clothes, has the same haircut, listens to the same music, has the same opinions (or, half the time don't have any opinions in the first place) - how many people come to Paganism, in part, to resist this?

The next question is which argument is most persuasive. I do not think the two options are necessarily mutually exclusive; it could be possible that postmodernity contains the conditions for its own subversion and escape, although this is not to imply a historicist dialectic of progress. As with most things I think it is probably a combination of both, but with more of a focus on the escape from modernity thesis. Whether modern Paganism is symptomatic of, or an escape from, postmodernity, it is evident that this is an area worth exploring. My main intention in writing this paper was to work through some of the theoretical ideas of (post)modernity and Paganism to see if there was scope for further work. Having seen that there is, any comments and ideas would be gratefully appreciated as I am very tempted to write an article on this subject for publication.

References

Bauman, Z. (2000) Liquid Modernity Cambridge: Polity
Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society London: Sage
Deleuze, G. and F. Guattari (2004). A Thousand Plateaus London, Continuum.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge Manchester, Manchester University Press.
Maffesoli, M (1996) Time of the Tribes: the decline of individualism in mass society London: Sage
Simmel, G. (2004) The Philosophy of Money (3rd Ed.) London: Routledge