Neo-Wicca, Buckland and Cunningham

[Kaio]

I've read elsewhere that Cunningham's Wicca: a Guide for the Solitary Practitioner was around before Neo-Wicca according to some members of this forum. And it seems that Seax Wica as a system is not Neo-Wicca from some people's viewpoint. Therefore it seems that self-dedication (and/or self-initiation) is not necessarily a feature of Neo-Wiccan Wicca-related religious witchcraft according to some people.

 Given that I've never read anything, say, by Ravenwolf, I would like to know which features distinguish Neo-Wicca from the Wicca Cunningham's said book refers to and from Seax Wica. Moreover, I would like to know whether Buckland's Wicca For One falls under the Neo-Wiccan label.

[RandallS]

Given that I've never read anything, say, by Ravenwolf, I would like to know which features distinguish Neo-Wicca from the Wicca Cunningham's said book refers to and from Seax Wica. Moreover, I would like to know whether Buckland's Wicca For One falls under the Neo-Wiccan label.

One generally distinguishing feature of Neo-Wicca from BTW and Traditional Wicca is seeing the Wicca Rede as "An it harm none" with little or no reference to its full form AND the interpretation of that version of the rede as some type of moral law. That is, a command to "Harm none!" instead of moral advice (advice: if it cause harm to none, then it is moral -- and not saying if it causes harm them it is definitely not moral).

[dragonfaerie]

I've read elsewhere that Cunningham's Wicca: a Guide for the Solitary Practitioner was around before Neo-Wicca according to some members of this forum. And it seems that Seax Wica as a system is not Neo-Wicca from some people's viewpoint.

I know nothing of Seax Wicca beyond that it exists and that it was created by Ray Buckland. This is going to be one of those topics where you ask 5 people and get 8 answers.

To my knowledge, there isn't a hard and fast list of what designates "neoWicca" from older forms. The Rede interpretation Randall mentioned is one general indicator. I'd add a general lack of/disrespect for the heirarchical coven system. Perhaps also eclecticism with a general abandon for the whys and hows of each bit and concern for it work as a whole.

Looking over that, you'd probably think that for me "neoWicca" is a pejorative term. I think that's a fair assessment. I'm eclectic Wiccan myself, both by solitary work and by coven, but I do often find that the stuff people are calling Wicca via books they've read in the last 5 years or so is a watered-down, feel-good mess.

Your mileage may vary, and certainly don't take my opinions as gospel. I'm just one Witch.

Karen

[Micheál]

I've read elsewhere that Cunningham's Wicca: a Guide for the Solitary Practitioner was around before Neo-Wicca according to some members of this forum. And it seems that Seax Wica as a system is not Neo-Wicca from some people's viewpoint. Therefore it seems that self-dedication (and/or self-initiation) is not necessarily a feature of Neo-Wiccan Wicca-related religious witchcraft according to some people.

 Given that I've never read anything, say, by Ravenwolf, I would like to know which features distinguish Neo-Wicca from the Wicca Cunningham's said book refers to and from Seax Wica. Moreover, I would like to know whether Buckland's Wicca For One falls under the Neo-Wiccan label.

I'd say Cunningham, and Seax Wicca(which isn't Wicca traditionally), kickstarted Neo-Wicca, therefore a lot of their material can be considered Neo-Wicca, including self dedication.

What really distinguishes Neo-Wicca from Traditional Wicca is the fact that one is orthopraxic, and the other orthodoxic, with one being an established tradition, and other a personal spirituality.  What Cunningham was showing the world was an orthodoxy, so I would consider that a Neo-Wiccan characteristic, but it just wasn't defined at the time.

[RandallS]

What really distinguishes Neo-Wicca from Traditional Wicca is the fact that one is orthopraxic, and the other orthodoxic, with one being an established tradition, and other a personal spirituality.  What Cunningham was showing the world was an orthodoxy, so I would consider that a Neo-Wiccan characteristic, but it just wasn't defined at the time.

That's an interesting way to look at it. I've just never thought of Neo-Wicca as being any type of orthodoxy given every Neo-Wiccan author or group seems to do their own thing.

[Darkhawk]

I've read elsewhere that Cunningham's Wicca: a Guide for the Solitary Practitioner was around before Neo-Wicca according to some members of this forum. And it seems that Seax Wica as a system is not Neo-Wicca from some people's viewpoint. Therefore it seems that self-dedication (and/or self-initiation) is not necessarily a feature of Neo-Wiccan Wicca-related religious witchcraft according to some people.

There's more than "Wicca" and "neo-Wicca" out there, even if you keep with just the tree of things that more or less evolved from BTW.

Jenett of course has covered this here but I will babble anyway:

A number of the early Wiccish books were written by people who, like Buckland and Cunningham, had actual formal BTW training, and who wanted to present some of the material that wasn't oathbound to others, both because they wanted to make something more accessible, and for political reasons.  (I was reminded by a recent blog post that The Truth About Witchcraft Today was originally published in 1988, when the Satanic Panic was running high.)

So those books entered a world that had Huson's Mastering Witchcraft (1970), Starhawk's The Spiral Dance (1979), and so on, already - books which were not about Wicca, but since they were marked 'witchcraft' they were stirred into the same pot.  (Uncle Bucky's Big Blue is 1986, Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner 1988.)  And people took the resources they could find - Wiccan and not - and built stuff out of them, and often called that stuff "Wicca".  And that stuff could be sound or not, well-assembled or not, but what it generally was was based off people who were writing from a place of knowledge, either about BTW itself, or other lines of the Craft in which they had received equivalent formal training.

So then we get to another transition point.  To Ride a Silver Broomstick came out in 1994.  Her connection to BTW as standardly calculated is tenuous and compliated (and the Serpent Stone Family is likewise complicated), as noted here.  It is probably reasonably fair to say that she was not operating with working knowledge of how traditionally conducted Wicca was arranged, and that the stew she was working with was an evolution of earlier versions of the stew.  She carried on the respectability politics bent of the publications that were put out in response to the Satanic Panic, and unlike, for example, Buckland, she (as I understand it; I had finished with my Buy All The Pop Witchcraft Books phase by the time she existed as an author) wanted to present a heavily sanitised Wicca.

So now there are several eddies in the pot, and we start seeing the third artist problem.  (The first artist paints from life; the second artist copies the first artist because that's how the masters did it; the third artist copies the second artist because that's what art is.)  Increasingly derivative stuff is now being partially derived from someone who deliberately bowdlerised what she did have (beyond refraining from oathbound materials).  (I believe there were other authors in on this trend, but SRW was the big name as I understand it.)

So now consider the population of people who might refer to themselves with the word Wicca.  That will include:
- BTW Wiccans and edge cases (there is dispute about which lineages are properly BTW, of course)
- People whose Stuff derives in at least some fraction from BTW in an initiatory line, but has mutated sufficiently that it is no longer BTW shared praxis
- People whose Stuff (lineaged or other) is not BTW-derived but who call it "Wicca" because of witch-wars issues over who gets to use what word in the 1970s (if you want to know more about this, ask Sunflower!)
- People who built stuff based off Gardner's publications from the 1950s
- People who built stuff out of the culture that developed from Gardner's publications from the 1950s and other sources, including, for example, Huson or Starhawk (I'm just realising I know nothing of developments in the 1960s, huh)
- People who built stuff out of publications about Seax-Wica (founded 1973) or other more open source Wicca-derived Stuff, with or without significant influences from other lines of religious witchcraft
- People who built stuff starting from the late 80s-early 90s witchcraft book explosion
- and people who built stuff heavily based on SRW's bowdlerised version of things.

"neo-Wicca" in my experience mostly points at the post-SRW developments and some of the things that led up to creating SRW as a phenomenon in the late 80s-early 90s book stuff.  To which Buckland and Cunningham contributed as factors but their actual Stuff is from a different development slice.

[Darkhawk]

"neo-Wicca" in my experience mostly points at the post-SRW developments and some of the things that led up to creating SRW as a phenomenon in the late 80s-early 90s book stuff.  To which Buckland and Cunningham contributed as factors but their actual Stuff is from a different development slice.

 
Or to be more efficient about all that and sum it up:

You don't get to neo-Wicca without stuff like Buckland and Cunningham out there.

However, you can't read Buckland's discussions of proper bondage ties and scourging practices and mistake him for talking about the same sort of thing as Ravenwolf.

[Micheál]

That's an interesting way to look at it. I've just never thought of Neo-Wicca as being any type of orthodoxy given every Neo-Wiccan author or group seems to do their own thing.

It's odd when you consider those authors advocate doing your own thing, and come from disagreeing attitudes towards orthodox organised religious,  yet they disassociate with Wiccan praxis, and make it about what one believes. It's all good as long as you believe in the Rede!

[RandallS]

It's odd when you consider those authors advocate doing your own thing, and come from disagreeing attitudes towards orthodox organised religious,  yet they disassociate with Wiccan praxis, and make it about what one believes. It's all good as long as you believe in the Rede!

While Neo-Wicca does seem to have more elements of orthodoxy than BTW, I don't think I can classify Neo-Wicca as a whole as an orthodoxic religion. I don't think orthopraxy/orthodoxy is an either-or thing but more of a continuum.

[Micheál]

While Neo-Wicca does seem to have more elements of orthodoxy than BTW, I don't think I can classify Neo-Wicca as a whole as an orthodoxic religion. I don't think orthopraxy/orthodoxy is an either-or thing but more of a continuum.

Although it's not so easily defined as black or white, I'd say in regards to Traditional Wicca it definitely stands out as orthopraxic,  being that it's an initiatory priesthood of right practise without an emphasis on personal belief or development.

Neo-Wicca in my opinion, maybe not being as visibly orthodox as many conditionally think of with certain organised religions(or as a whole like said)is moreso in comparison as  it's supplementary individualist, where emphasis seems to be self centred on one's personal spirituality, and their identification with certain beliefs that make them such.

[Darkhawk]

Neo-Wicca in my opinion, maybe not being as visibly orthodox as many conditionally think of with certain organised religions(or as a whole like said)is moreso in comparison as  it's supplementary individualist, where emphasis seems to be self centred on one's personal spirituality, and their identification with certain beliefs that make them such.

 
I'm actually pondering this in connection with this post on pagan respectability politics.

I mean, the bastardisation of the Rede looks to me like it's connected with these things, that also strike me as part of the thread of "cleaning up" witchcraft for popular consumption (quoted from the linked post):

* Dress modestly when you think you might encounter the press.
* Remind people that we are not Satanists, and that we don’t harm children.
* Subcultural markers like tattoos, “extreme” hairstyles, dramatic makeup, or facial piercings, are to be frowned on.
* Sex in our faiths and our communities is to be downplayed at all times, good or bad.
* Remind people that we are doctors, soldiers, lawyers, and members of other respected professions.
* Distance yourself publicly from more flamboyant members of the community. When confronted on their existence in the press, stress that they are the exception, not the rule, to how we look, act, and behave.
* Engage with local interfaith councils to change perceptions about our faiths.
Refer to magic as “another form of prayer,” and stress a general theism, or a nature-loving pantheism, over a more “difficult” polytheism.
* “We love nature.”
* Quietly resist intersectionality within our own struggle. Maintain a false “apolitical” don’t-rock-the-boat facade in public.

Jenett mentioned last night that Ravenwolf is actively hostile to alcohol use in ritual, meanwhile, in addition to her distaste for theological sex.  Which does not work well with fertility and ecstasy threads in Craft work, but is a whole lot more "respectable".

[Jenett]

It's odd when you consider those authors advocate doing your own thing, and come from disagreeing attitudes towards orthodox organised religious,  yet they disassociate with Wiccan praxis, and make it about what one believes. It's all good as long as you believe in the Rede!

 
There used to be a thing you saw a *lot* more (back around 2001 to 2004ish, roughly?) The example I remember most strongly was a conversation that went like this:

New Person in forum: "So, I want to make holy water, and this book by SRW says I have to do it at midnight! But I work the night shift, so I can't ever, and my life is ruined because!"

Forum member A: "Well, actually, you don't have to do it just at midnight!" (example of some other ways to do it, with other books cited)

Forum member B: "Or you could do it on a day you don't work!" (usually with some examples of other ways they adapt scheduling)

Forum member C (consulting the book in question): "And actually, she doesn't say you have to do it at midnight, she says it's preferable." (or whatever it actually said, but it was something like that - not nearly as absolute as the original poster implied.)  

Original poster: "But you don't understand, I have to do it exactly the way she says!"

Now, a single example of that, I'd write up to individual variation, and people not reading for content as well as they could and so on.) Or to the fact that a lot of people find Paganism coming from orthodoxy-focused versions of Christianity with very clear 'how you do things' requirements.

But it was over and over and over - different people, different specific examples, for *years*. That there were Right Ways and Wrong Ways to do things, and at the same time, any suggestion that you consider alternatives other than the one way you picked was wrong.

Anyway, my point here is that part of it is the nature of those books (which is a thing the authors have responsibility for - certainly, one can lay the growing "Wicca is anything I want it to be" commentary at the feet of specific texts) and part of that is the way that individual readers and groups of readers and the community responded to it (which is more complicated.)

[RandallS]

Neo-Wicca in my opinion, maybe not being as visibly orthodox as many conditionally think of with certain organised religions(or as a whole like said)is moreso in comparison as  it's supplementary individualist, where emphasis seems to be self centred on one's personal spirituality, and their identification with certain beliefs that make them such.

I will not argue that Neo-Wicca seems to be more about orthodoxy and less about orthopraxy than BTW or even Traditional Wicca and that some authors of Neo-Wicca 101 books seem to draw in people who are looking for a "one true way".

[RandallS]

New Person in forum: "So, I want to make holy water, and this book by SRW says I have to do it at midnight! But I work the night shift, so I can't ever, and my life is ruined because!"

To me this seems to be more about orthopraxy than orthodoxy as it deals with correct practices rather than correct beliefs. To me, orthopraxy is about doing the right practices while orthodoxy is about believing the correct ideas.

Anyway, my point here is that part of it is the nature of those books (which is a thing the authors have responsibility for - certainly, one can lay the growing "Wicca is anything I want it to be" commentary at the feet of specific texts) and part of that is the way that individual readers and groups of readers and the community responded to it (which is more complicated.)

I hadn't thought about this before, but I can see how telling people that what [insert the book they started with] isn't necessarily the "only correct way" to do things could encourage the idea that "Wicca is anything you want it to be".

[Jenett]

To me this seems to be more about orthopraxy than orthodoxy as it deals with correct practices rather than correct beliefs. To me, orthopraxy is about doing the right practices while orthodoxy is about believing the correct ideas.

You'd think, right? But the way those conversations played out, it was much more a conversation about beliefs than practices.

(I wish I had examples. I have some journal notes about it, but not actual things I can point to, but there were a couple of years where it kept coming up all the time.)

Those conversations are about practices on the surface, but underneath was a really big strand (and sometimes you could tease this out) of "I believe that if I don't do what's in the book, I am Doing It All Wrong and All Hope Is Lost." or "I believe that Doing What Is In The Book Is The Only Thing That Will Make My Life Better." Both of which are decidedly beliefs. Sometimes it was "I believe what This Author says about things much more than I do anyone else."

And particularly in this case, where there was a surface reading that the preferred method in the book was the Only Way, even when the book suggested alternatives if you couldn't do that for some reason. That's belief in there, not just practice, even if it's hard to pin down what the exact belief is.

My experience is also that when it's about practices, the shape of the conversation is different - the reaction to alternatives comes across differently. (In ways I am not managing to articulate today)
 

I hadn't thought about this before, but I can see how telling people that what [insert the book they started with] isn't necessarily the "only correct way" to do things could encourage the idea that "Wicca is anything you want it to be".

Well, I was more aiming at the fact the books themselves often say so directly out loud, but now you point that out, the quoted bit too.