Mab of Dream

Witchgrove, George Chryssides and Mike Cunningham (the latter is my academic supervisor) have all seen the below draft now. It's the first 3000 words and tapers off at the end ready for either another 2000 words or another 18,000, depending on whether this is my project or my dissertation:

Professor Ronald Hutton identified two major problems facing the historian in a
study of Wicca, firstly, the origin of the religion, and secondly, were all
pagan groups evolved from the same source?[1] Before either of these questions
can begin to be researched and debated, two other challenges to the Wiccan
historian need to be addressed. Firstly, an adequate methodology, which can be
formulized for the study of Wicca, needs to be agreed upon, in order that others
may reproduce and critically examine the conclusions; and secondly, the
overwhelming reliance upon primary evidence, as few academics have produced
secondary sources to date.



It would appear that no scholar has previously formulated a methodology for, nor
even debated approaches to, the study of Wicca. This fact is rendered
unremarkable once applied to the wider context of studying religion. In 1959,
Edwin R Goodenaugh, during his speech at the inaugual meeting fo the American
Society for the Study of Religion, stated that 'we would do well to ask small
questions until we have established a methodology we could all approve and use'.
However, there is still no consensus in the academic world concerning the study
of religion as a whole.[2] Ursula King, in 1995, in her essay, Historical and
Phenomenological Approaches, was still able to write,



'The search for clearer concepts, definitions, and methods is still
going on.'[3]



It is against this wider context that a specific methodology for the study of
Wiccan history will be discussed.



One difficulty inherent in conducting a scholarly study of witchcraft is that it
crosses the academic spectrum, therefore the researcher must understand various
disiplines. It is a subject which, for those being studied, impacts upon every
aspect of their lives. Wiccans view the world itself in a certain way,
according to a personal understanding of their religion. This will have
implications sociologically, psychologically and politically; it will inform not
only how they live their lives, but also how they approach their employment or
studies. Also, witchcraft, in any form, was illegal until 1951 and has been
subject to negative social pressures since, therefore a knowledge about law,
criminology and the social effects of decriminalization could arguably be
useful.



It should be noted that this is a difficulty faced in the study of any religion.
Waardenburg, in his Classical Approaches to the Study of Religion, wrote that
'the study of religion is less one particular discipline than a field of studies
with a strongly interdisciplinary character'.[4] He further warned that
methodology varies according to discipline and therefore he doubted that any
single theory could account for the multiplicity of approaches.[5] In
contemplating this in the context of a broader scope of religious research, King
concluded that,



'. an exaggerated insistence on more rigorous methodological
requirements can result in an unproductive intellectual aridity and a lack of
creative originality, if not to say insight, in interpreting religious
phenomena.'[6]



The question therefore must be raised whether a standard methodology can be
theoretically developed for a historian of Wicca, which, in itself, is an
extremely narrow prospective to place upon the subject. To concentrate on one
academic discipline alone may produce a snapshot perspective akin to judging the
beliefs and practices of all Wiccans based on those of a single practitioner.



GL Simons, in his preface to The Witchcraft World, highlighted this problem,
stating that previous books about witchcraft had had a narrow outlook, as their
writers wrote within their own disipline, while 'various disciplines. indicate
their relevance to an adequate study of witchcraft.'[7] Social historian,
Ronald Hutton, expressed the same sentiments, when he wrote:



'(Witchcraft does not fit into) a religious model which scholars
trained in traditional history, theology, sociology, and anthropology find easy
to understand; which is why, although pagan witchcraft has had a prominent
public profile in Britain for half a century, it has been much less studied than
other religious movements which have appeared or arrived more recently.'[8]



This challenge results in a situation where it is difficult to find texts of a
suitable standard upon which to base one's own research and where there are few
academics who could critically review such a work afterwards.



The academics who are willing to undertake a scholarly study of Wicca tend to be
pagans, if not Wiccans, themselves. Prof Ronald Hutton (University of
Bristol), Dr Vivianne Crowley (King's College, London) and Dr Owen Davies
(University of Hertfordshire) are all Pagans and all have produced studies of
witchcraft.[9] Similiarly, those writing on the subject in a non-academic
capacity are generally practicing Pagans, with the exception of those writing
from the perspective of a religious doctrine which condemns witchcraft. This
creates a natural 'for or against' polarity within the sources themselves. There
are no obvious texts written by those with a prior perspective of relative
objectivity, in the sense that their own spiritual or political ideology
presupposes a judgement upon Wicca particularly, other than as simply another
faith. Therefore, the current debate amongst theologists, about whether a
religion is better researched by those within or without it, is relevant to the
study of Wicca.



The study of a religion for the historian is perhaps more difficult than for
those of other disciplines. The historian is not concerned with matters of
theology or philosophy, but simply in how that religion came to be and its
evolution to the state of that religion today. This point was made by King,
about the theory and study of religion,



'The historical. approach (is). generally understood to be
non-normative, that is to say, to describe and examine facts, whether
historically or systematically, without judging them from a particular
theological or philosophical standpoint.'[10]



In short, the historian is expected to be objective about the facts, though the
conclusions arising from these facts may be developed from a particular
perspective, for example Marxism or Feminism.



However, as Robert Crawford warned, in What is Religion?, historians can easily
miss the significance of any writing on the subject of the religion under
scrutiny, as such writings are the subjective responses of believers.
Historians tend to dismiss this subjectivity, seeing the work as part of 'a
progressive understanding by humanity', rather than the understanding of one
individual or sect;[11] which is a standpoint which led Ursula King to ponder if
objectivity misses the value of the facts.[12] Both Jean Holm, in The Study of
Religions, and Crawford suggest that a religion is best studied either by a
practitioner of it or by extensive consultation with a wide selection of
practitioners. Crawford warned that, for the non-believers, 'judgement of value
often occur', which could lead to the academic missing the subjective reactions
of the same source on believers.[13] Holm wrote,



'If we want to understand a religion we have to ask what a
particular belief or practice, story or event, means to a believer, not what it
means to us, and what better way is there to supplement our study of literature
than by getting to know adherents of the religion?'[14]



Clive Erricker was emphatic on the point that 'the study of religion cannot be a
purely objective enquiry but must take account of the researcher's involvement
in the subject itself.'[15]



If, as seems to be the case, the historian would benefit from a subjective
understanding of the beliefs and practices of Wicca, in order to adequately
research its history, then should this subjectivity be confined to a single
Tradition within Wicca? Just as questions might be asked about the
perspective of a Protestant commenting upon the history of Catholicism, then
similarly an Alexandrian debating Gardnerianism might lack the required insight,
despite their shared roots.



Vivianne Crowley identified five major Wiccan Traditions: Gardnerian (based on
the teachings of Gerald Gardner); Alexandrian (based on the teachings of
Alexander and Maxine Sanders); hereditary covens (Pagan traditions passed down
through generations of a particular family); Traditional Witchcraft (based on
the teachings of Robert Cochrane); and Dianic Wicca (feminist and singular
amongst the British Traditions in that it originated in America).[16] Arguably,
if the requirement for better academic enquiry is for the historian to be
Wiccan, then the same arguments would require the historian to confine their
enquiry to sources within their own Tradition and conclusions based only upon
that Tradition.



The greatest challenge to that restriction, at this point in time, would lie in
the sources available; and would exclude utterly the other influences upon the
sources and practitioners of the Tradition, throughout its growth, by other
practicing Wiccans. Each Tradition has not grown in isolation to the others.
They each have shared roots (though this is debated by the hereditary covens and
adherents of Traditional Witchcraft) and shared primary sources, which are, at
the earliest, only sixty years old. Therefore the respective schisms between
these Traditions must be relatively recent and between people from a similar
cultural background, and so would not generate an insurmountable lack of
empathy. Furthermore, the shared common ground is greater than the differences
once these schisms are scrutinized, for example, between Alexandrian and
Gardnerian Wicca, as Crowley commented upon,



'The two traditions use more or less the same ritual material and
Alexandrian Wicca can be seen as a Gardnerian offshoot. The differences are
more in the ritual style and outlook than anything else. Loosely speaking, the
Gardnerians could be described as more 'Low Church' and the Alexandrians more
'High Church' and Alexandrian witches tend to be more interested in ritual magic
than in folk Paganism.'[17]



Nevertheless, Crowley felt it necessary to state that her own perspective was 'a
unification of the Gardnerian and Alexandrian traditions', and that her work was
confined to enquiries within these traditions.[18]



Contrary to these considerations, Tanya Luhrmann, whilst researching Persuasions
of the Witch's Craft, explicitly stated that she consciously chose to 'view
phenomena as an academic and not as a witch';[19] though, as has already been
shown, religious scholars have argued that that would be an impossible position
to take. It may be concluded that, though a subjective understanding of a
Wiccan Tradition would be beneficial to its academic study, it is not necessary
for an adherent of one Tradition to be considered without subjective insight
into the beliefs and practices of another Wiccan Tradition, at this stage in the
evolution of the religion as a whole.



Holm highlighted the fact that individual practitioners of a certain religion
may not be representative of the whole,[20] and also that how a religion is
perceived may differ greatly in respect of the country and culture within which
it is practiced. She used the example that Christianity may appear to be the
same on paper, but is generally approached in very different ways in the West
Indies and Britain;[21] while also making the point that cross-cultural
material and legends might mean different things to different Traditions, for
example, how the Torah/Old Testament is treated by Judaism and Christianity
respectively.[22] King raised a similar point in regard to the phenomenological
approach to studying religion, which she stated had identical challenges to that
of the historical approach,



'The methodological presuppositions of phenomenology imply several
philosophical assumptions regarding the essence of religion and the nature of
relgious experience, too easily assumed to be the same in all people and places.
No phenomenologist can ever deal with all phenomena and the particular ones
chosen for investigation are often dealt with in isolation from the wider
context necessary for their explanation.'[23]



Within the context of the present study, it may be debatable whether the Wicca
of Britain, the United States of America, Canada and Australia[24] may be
considered the same. Though sharing common roots, each country has evolved its
own hierarchy of Wiccan writers and 'celebrities', which would inform the
national Wiccan practices.



How comparable these may be is subject to further research. The national
schisms would face the same conditions as those already discussed in the context
of the differences between Traditions, both in the relative recent history of
the split and the fact that each is based upon the same primary sources.
Therefore, in regard to ritual and belief, the Wicca of different countries
should be expected to correspond as well as, say, the Wicca of different covens
within the same Tradition, with any major differences explained simply as the
influence of the personalities involved on a local level.



However, in the broader context of culture, the concerns of the practitioners
may vary greatly in order to reflect the wider concerns of the population within
their own country. An example would be that issues of secrecy may factor highly
in the life-styles of those Wiccans practicing in countries subject to Sharia
Law, whilst being of far greater consideration to British Wiccans practicing in
a country where legislation has protected their religious rights. It should
also be noted that Wicca has grown (and may have been conceived) within the age
of mass communication. Literature crosses borders easily, as do practitioners
and speakers. With the advent of the internet, mailing groups and chatrooms
ensure that Wiccan ideologies are debated globally, with adherents influencing
each other, regardless of national, or even Traditional, concerns. Without an
international census of Wiccan concerns, it is impossible to judge how
differently practitioners approach their belief systems and integrate them into
their lives according to their national context.



Another concern raised by Holm is that subtle changes can happen within
religions, which might not be obvious to the outsider. For example, between
1962-1965, Pope John XXIII issued an edict wherein Catholics had to have a
positive attitude towards other Christian and non-Christian religions.
Non-Catholics might have missed this fact and therefore continue to treat
pre-1960s Catholic writings, which lambasted other religions, as indicative of
post-1960s Catholicism.[25] This too could constitute an obstacle for academics
treating the works of Gerald Gardner as the best source for all Wiccan beliefs,
on the sole basis that these books were the first written, without consulting
post-Gardnerian texts to ensure that points have neither been altered or
updated.



An historian embarking upon a study of British Wicca will be presented with a
wealth of primary sources and very few secondary sources of an academic
standard. There is a sizable bibliography of studies undertaken in America,
where scholars have researched and debated the subject since the early
1970s.[26] However, until it can be asscertained what differences are
engendered by national identity, American studies cannot be presumed to apply to
the Wicca found elsewhere. Therefore, the first consideration in the source
selection depends upon the nation under scrutiny.



A non-Wiccan studying Wicca must first understand the different Traditions and
the major writers within those Traditions, before making their selection; which
is a daunting prospect given the sheer volume of literature available on the
subject. On the other hand a Wiccan researching Wicca may compromise
impartiality in the source selection process. This may manifest in three ways:




Firstly, the exclusion of any sources which undermine the credibility of Wicca
or its practitioners. For example, Simons raises some interesting points about
methodology; however, the tone of his writing is antagonistic towards Wiccans
throughout, overtly stating his contemptive bias in his introduction[27] and
concluding his work with the statement that modern witches are 'primitive'.[28]
A Wiccan attempting to create an intellectual piece of research may opt to
exclude a source which blatantly questions this intellect.



Secondly, but interlinked with the first point, the exclusion of any sources
which undermine the credibility of all the other sources and therefore the
research itself. For example, Laurie Cabot provided an insight into the
psychology and practice of Wicca, which might render the debate over the origins
of the religion irrelevant.[29] However, she did this in a book entitled Love
Magic: The Way to Love Through Rituals, Spells and the Magical Life.[30] This
is obviously not an academic text, it is written for and marketed towards the
young or vunerable in society, and the very title would probably not recommend
the source to non-Wiccan academics. From a Wiccan perspective, the author is
well-known within the community, wherein she is generally not welcomed as a
representative source; also, there is a large school of thought which would
deem 'love magic' as contrary to religious practice. Nevertheless, its
exclusion would deprive a research into Wiccan origins of an alternative point
of view.



Thirdly, as already discussed, Wicca is a generic term encapsulating many
traditions. While these traditions could be categorized into Gardnerian,
Alexandrian, Traditional, Hereditary, Dianic and Other, within even these
groupings, there are hundreds of greater and lesser traditions reflecting
different beliefs. A direct analogy would be Christianity as a generic term
encapsulating Catholicism, Protestantism, Evangelism and others. While the
challenges inherent in research, for example, into Lutherian traditions
conducted by a Catholic, might be understood, precisely the same challenges
affect, for example, an adherent of Traditional Witchcraft studying Gardnerian
Wicca. Further complicating this issue is the fact that animosity has existed in
the past between some of the older traditions, and, in some cases, still does.




Wicca is a new religion, particularly in comparison with religions such as Islam
or Judaism. This fact can lead the unwary researcher into assuming that all
Wiccan literature can be read with perfect understanding, while adopting a
modern perspective. It has already been argued that the recent nature of
schisms within the Craft does not render lack of subjectivity for those in other
Traditions; however, it has been found to be an obstacle for modern readers, in
understanding the impact of literature, from the early days of Wiccan writing,
on their contemporary readership. For example, Philip Heselton, in Wiccan Roots
described the difficulty in summarizing a philosophy, which, he argued, informed
Gardner in the revival of Wicca.



'. popular awareness of esoteric matters has changed markedly in
the 60 years or more since most of the pamphlets were written. Much of what one
might call the esoteric teachings of the Order are now so much part of general
thinking, certainly among the pagan and New Age communities of which I am
familiar, that one finds it difficult to formulate in modern language what is
being said let alone realise the impact which such teachings had on a variety of
interested individuals.'[31]



This could also serve as an example of how an important theological point, which
may have influenced the course of Wicca's development, might be missed as the
objective historian concentrates on fact alone.



The difficulty of imparting meaning is better illustrated by the presense of the
secrecy oath in Wiccan initiations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Ronald Hutton, 'The Triumph of the Moon', pg 287.

[2] U King, 'Historical and Phenomenological Approaches', pgs 46-47

[3] Ibid, pg 54

[4] U King, 'Historical and Phenomenological Approaches', pg 55

[5] Ibid, pg 55

[6] Ibid, pg 157

[7] GL Simons, 'The Witchcraft World', pg 7

[8] Ronald Hutton, 'The Triumph of the Moon', pg 416.

[9] I am also a Wiccan, initiated into the Alexandrian Tradition.

[10] U King, 'Historical and Phenomenological Approaches' pg 54

[11] R Crawford, 'What is Religion' pg 10

[12] U King, 'Historical and Phenomenological Approaches' pg 53

[13] R Crawford, 'What is Religion' pg 10

[14] J Holm, 'The Study of Religions' pg 39

[15] C Erricker, 'Phenomenological Approaches' pg 75

[16] V Crowley, 'Wicca: The Old Religion in the New Age' pgs 20-21

[17] V Crowley, 'Wicca: The Old Religion in the New Age' pg 20

[18] Ibid pg 20

[19] R Hutton, 'Triumph of the Moon' pg 375

[20] J Holm, 'The Study of Religions' pg 40

[21] Ibid, pg 72

[22] J Holm, 'The Study of Religions' pgs 64-66

[23] U King, 'Historical and Phenomenological Approaches' pg 53

[24] These nations have the greatest Wiccan presense, though Wicca is found in
countries throughout the world.

[25] J Holm, 'The Study of Religions' pgs 73-74

[26] R Hutton, 'Triumph of the Moon' pg 374

[27] GL Simons, 'The Witchcraft World', pg 10-11

[28] GL Simons, 'The Witchcraft World', pg 219

[29] By emphasizing the fact that Wicca is an intensely personal Mystery
Religion, wherein the practitioners create their own 'rules', it would follow
that the religion is re-invented constantly by each individual practitioner.
This would suggest that Gardner could not have invented it, but neither did he
not invent it. It is a theological philosophy which might be explored
elsewhere.

[30] Laurie Cabot, with Tom Cowan, 'Love Magic', pg xiii

[31] Philip Heselton, 'Wiccan Roots' pg 59