The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum

I was just discussing Paidric Colum's Norse Gods and Heroes for a university class, and my professor had an interesting reading of the text. Though I didn't see these elements when I read it, he made a pretty compelling argument that Colum (an Irish nationalist and radical) was subtly telling the myths in such a way as to present the Aesir as representing an immoral hierarchy which should be overturned. I wasn't unfamiliar with these kinds of readings of Norse myth, though I didn't necessarily see Colum's presentation as supporting it at first.

I want to know what people here think about these more radical readings of hierarchies and power dynamics in Norse myth. Events that particularly interest me include:

The fact that the Aesir seem to have fired the first shots in the Aesir/Jotun war.

The fact that the Aesir seem to have fired the first shots in the Aesir/Vanir war.

The Aesir have no intention of dealing with other races fairly, as evidenced by the building of the wall.

The only way they really interact with the Jotuns is by killing their men and stealing their women.

The binding of Loki's children seems preemptive and unfair.

Essentially, what I want to know is why I should side with the Aesir when they seem to be the equivalent of pretty much any imperial, conquering force that harms indigenous people to establish their own "order"? What makes them different from the British in Ireland or the Europeans in the Americas?

I want to know what people here think about these more radical readings of hierarchies and power dynamics in Norse myth.

Personally, I think most pagan myths (for that matter, so are many monotheistic ones, though less directly) were originally mixed with a lot of ancestor worship. That is, I think the Aesir, Vanir, etc, were flesh and blood people once, and as the generations separated them the tales and mythology grew until they became the mythos we know today. This isn't to say they're not real, nor is it to say that they're the ghosts of those distant ancestors, rather they were just part of the inspiration that created...whatever the gods are (and I'm not sure exactly what they are myself).

I mention this because that, along with some political and social realities through the ages, shaped the specific stories you're referring to now, what I call "vestigial tales" from a darker time when no one pretended life was fair, survival in a cruel world (both natural and other people) was the ultimate morality, and the amount of power one had (of self, family, clan, nation, etc) determined the quality of your life. Those with enlightened values back then weren't likely to stand strong, so such values were a rare (even an absurd) belief, and the religions of the world showed that (even the so-called peaceful ones--heck, those tended to be the most violent since they all seemed to equate "peace" with "forced submission").  

Like every other religion, Heathenism is one to take with a grain of salt in our modern world, and I've seen enough Heathens say the same, point out contradictions, and of course they argue with each other over specifics as other religions do. And like with other religions, people focus on what's important to them and treat the rest as optional or even reject it altogether (Christians who do this tend to call what they reject as "apocryphal" or "no longer applies" in an arbitrary manner which means "it doesn't count for me, or for anyone with any sense"). So some will focus on the more warlike ways while others focus more on hospitality and nature (these days more as becoming responsible stewards rather than trying to placate it) depending on what they value and what is most relevant to their lives.  

Much more importantly, the religions change with the times, even the so-called Orthodox Church (let alone Catholic) has changed significantly from its origins, and it's a rare Christian today who promotes slavery as a Christian ideal (though the Bible clearly does), but they'll still say they practice Christianity as it was intended to be practiced and probably believed it had been by "true Christians" for thousands of years. It's difficult to live by vicious values in this (relatively) enlightened world for any old religion, and that includes reconstructionists.

Heathens typically aren't pretending to still live thousands of years ago, and though they may admire Viking shipbuilding I've heard of one Asatru group encouraging young adults to take up engineering (can't recall any details) with an eye to being the best builders in THIS age as well (and one day travel through space rather than over the sea). And that's even more true of the Enlightenment (few if any Heathens would even entertain the idea of keeping slaves as the very idea would be repugnant--at least those I've been around). It should be noted that many of our enlightened values do have roots in otherwise vicious cultures, it wasn't all bad (but then I don't believe in pure good/evil anyway).

Of course if there's an apocalypse and our species returns to the dark ages then so will our religions...those that don't will be wiped out/enslaved by the vicious, and I'm sure Heathenism (and all other religions, even Wicca if it were to survive) would itself become extremely grim, militant, and somewhat merciless...and that would probably be best if you care about survival of yourself and your loved ones.  Luckily, we have the luxury of enlightened values today (and I hope that remains the case) and we all (regardless of religion or lack thereof) continue to mature as a species. But the "vestigial tales" as I call them remain behind regardless.

(Not that I'm comparing any mythical characters to these two, just demonstrating opposing example of leadership.)

 
Opposing leadership?  The political realities are different for each, that has a lot to do with their style.  And yes I would prefer Obama.  It takes more strength of character not to reach for the sword as a first resort.

Of course if there's an apocalypse and our species returns to the dark ages then so will our religions...those that don't will be wiped out/enslaved by the vicious, and I'm sure Heathenism (and all other religions, even Wicca if it were to survive) would itself become extremely grim, militant, and somewhat merciless...and that would probably be best if you care about survival of yourself and your loved ones.  Luckily, we have the luxury of enlightened values today (and I hope that remains the case) and we all (regardless of religion or lack thereof) continue to mature as a species. But the "vestigial tales" as I call them remain behind regardless.

 
You see, I'm not sure that I buy this argument. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm inclined to believe that values tend to have a more direct effect on living conditions than living conditions have on values. That is, as a Utilitarian, I believe that cultures that emphasize cooperation and inclusivity are going to produce more utility. That is, I'm inclined to believe that the more grim, militaristic worldview of the past contributed to the bare-bones survival as opposed to bare-bones survival leading to the worldview. Certainly necessity does sometimes favor the powerful, but it seems like, even in the past, it's the cultures that incorporated the foreigner that survived better.

In the mythical example then, I would expect a group of Aesir that deal with the Jotuns more fairly would be more likely to survive than the Aesir we are presented in myth.

This has been on and off my mind a bit today as I deal with regular life bullshit. And at the heart of it I think the answer is that we aren't supposed to side with anyone. It's essentially the question on a child's lips "Why do bad things happen?" and a mother's helpless answer "Because they just do."  

Why is there creation and destruction? Why does creation sometimes destroy, why does destruction sometimes create? They just do. It's impossible to pick a side because there aren't sides. There just is. One can't chose to honor Loki over the Aesir with any expectation that a separation actually occurs in reality. There wouldn't be an Aesir without the Jotuns, no spring without winter. We know these things.

If we're going to ask how we can honor Loki or how we can honor Aesir, knowing their contradictory natures, then we should go right to the core of the question and ask why we should honor anything.

 
This is a fair question. However, in my experience, most heathens and Asatru that I've interacted with are pretty unanimous in their belief that the Aesir do deserve to be honored where the Jotuns don't. There seems to be a logical inconsistency from my perspective as, those same individuals, do express the belief that the Native Americans and the Irish deserve to be honored more than their conquerors, even though it seems to be the same power dynamic. I just think it's an interesting question to pose.

I was just discussing Paidric Colum's Norse Gods and Heroes for a university class, and my professor had an interesting reading of the text. Though I didn't see these elements when I read it, he made a pretty compelling argument that Colum (an Irish nationalist and radical) was subtly telling the myths in such a way as to present the Aesir as representing an immoral hierarchy which should be overturned. I wasn't unfamiliar with these kinds of readings of Norse myth, though I didn't necessarily see Colum's presentation as supporting it at first.

I want to know what people here think about these more radical readings of hierarchies and power dynamics in Norse myth. Events that particularly interest me include:

 
Those aren't actually "radical" readings, though--it's a pretty common and basic line of analysis when looking at any version of a folk text. It's, like, a standard thing within folkloristics, certainly, to ask, when we're looking at a given version of a folk narrative, to talk about when and where it was written, and what (if anything) we know about the writer/teller/recorder: that leads into looking at what stuff was floating around in the culture at the time, what were the existing discourses of power, authority, gender, sexuality, race, class, nationhood, etc. etc. etc.--and how does this version of X story engage with those issues?

For example, you really can't talk about the Grimms' collection without discussing things like: the rise of Romantic nationalism and the role the Grimms played (and therefore what versions of which tales they included in their collection--later editions involved dropping versions that weren't "German" enough); the cult of motherhood and female silence that arose among middle-class Germans (which led to female protagonists losing direct speech, female villains speaking more as a sign of villainy, and evil mothers turned to evil STEPMOTHERS--to distinguish proper German women from chatty, witty, verbal Frenchwomen, the horrors), and changing conceptions of who, exactly, the primary audience for folktales was (the tales arose long before the idea of children as a separate and unique audience really existed, and over the course of the Grimms' lifetimes children-as-audiences became more and more segregated, and they edited the stories according to new notions of "appropriate for children."). Like, all of this stuff is standard lines of study for the Grimms.

So, in the case of Colum's collection, it would strike me as weird--and frankly, super problematic-- if your professor DIDN'T address issues of nationalism and imperialism in his tellings of the stories. Just as it would be weird and problematic if someone teaching the Grimms, or any other folklore/myth collection. It's actually a big problem that folklorists are always dealing with: there's a really strong tendency, among people who don't know anything about folklore, to treat collections of folk narratives as if they, like, sprang forth from the ether and therefore present some kind of like Pure Truth of The Essential Mystical Spirit of the People, or something. Dude, no! No no no! It's basically the central tenet of our field that folk narratives are ALWAYS located in a specific time, place, and cultural milieu, and these stories therefore will tell you something about whatever issues were floating around. Are there "good guys"? Who are they? How do you know? How does this story articulate ideas of virtue and villainy, or power and authority, or order and chaos, or class and wealth, or licit and illicit sexuality, or men and women, or what? What was the impetus for creating the collection of stories? What do we know about their positions on issues of their time? How did they see their collection of stories--and themselves as tellers?

I like your questions, about why we just assume the Aesir are the ones we should venerate and worship--I think it's an awesome way of looking at the way the Aesir's right to authority is presented within the texts. I think digging through this stuff is a pretty crucial thing if one wants to develop a workable theology. It's not just for, like, analysing how these stories would have been told and understood in various contexts Back in the Day, but also how we, today, need to think through them.

Those aren't actually "radical" readings, though--it's a pretty common and basic line of analysis when looking at any version of a folk text.

I don't mean "radical" as in "a bizarre way to approach a text", but as in "challenging dominant power structures". Like, the text itself is radical, not our reading of it.

I like your questions, about why we just assume the Aesir are the ones we should venerate and worship--I think it's an awesome way of looking at the way the Aesir's right to authority is presented within the texts. I think digging through this stuff is a pretty crucial thing if one wants to develop a workable theology. It's not just for, like, analysing how these stories would have been told and understood in various contexts Back in the Day, but also how we, today, need to think through them.

 
I am very interested in looking at how pagan texts can and should be interpreted in a modern context. On other sites I often encounter a lot of pagans that are highly invested in a particularly ancient model of religious philosophy without really deeply considering the ways in which we have improved.

...is that the finality of death hadn't yet been established. It was only after Baldr's death and Loki/the old woman's refusal to cry that death became permanent.

So basically these 'wars' were like kids protecting their forts and playing capture the flag with nerf guns. Then suddenly one of the kids hands another one a real pistol, without truly understanding the consequence, and innocence is lost forever.

Is this a common view in heathen practice, because I've never heard that particular interpretation of the Baldr myth. I have heard that there was probably a point (before the writing of the Eddas) at which the Baldr myth was meant to be cyclical, as an explanation for the long, dark winters, but I've never heard of his death making death for all permanent. I'd be interested if you have any sources backing up this interpretation (though I don't believe that historical sources are necessary for modern interpretation). It's intriguing and it reminds me of a Native American Coyote story I've read.

Personally, my understanding of the myth is that death was always considered permanent in Norse cosmology, but that Hel was willing to make an exception for Baldr if the gods could accomplish an impossible task. You never really see any Jotuns getting every living thing to weep for them.

Also, I wonder how much the enmity between the Aesir and Jotuns was played up by the eventual compilers of the Eddas (and most modern heathens I've spoken to as well). Certainly all the Jotuns must also have been weeping for Baldr's death, so they can't be entirely filled with hate as some would claim.
 

The Aesir have no intention of dealing with other races fairly, as evidenced by the building of the wall.

The only way they really interact with the Jotuns is by killing their men and stealing their women.

The binding of Loki's children seems preemptive and unfair.

To be fair, these three things aren't really related to death. Inflicting suffering or rape upon people is traumatic whether or not their deaths will be permanent.