New Animism?

[beenherebeforeagain]

As an animist, had to flip a coin, to allow the spirits to decide whether this should go in the Indigenous DIR or Neopagan DIR, because I couldn't come up with a reasonable choice of one or the other, when I think it applies to both...

Anyway, I've been reading Graham Harvey's edited Handbook of Contemporary Animism, which apparently came out in the last year or so. Many of the contributors talk about the "New Animism." :sarcastic

From the context, I would suppose that the "Old" and "New" refer to scholarly anthropological and sociological approaches to animism, with "Old" animism revolving around Tylor's "Belief in Spirit Beings," and the "New" animism revolving around the general recognition--at least common among the contributors to the book--that most animistic cultures organize their thinking in terms of ongoing social relationships with "other-than-human" persons, which can include other species as well as what Westerners think of as inanimate objects, such as rocks, rivers, etc.

I also get the sense that people such as myself, born and raised in a Western culture, but who have come to animism later, might qualify as practicing "New" animism, since I don't have an indigenous cultural history of animism among my immediate ancestors.

From the tenor of many of the contributions, it seems that there is a recent surge in scholarly and practitioner interest in animism--something I was not aware of until getting hold of this particular volume. I'm only a quarter of the way through, and I've already got a list of authors half a page long I'll need to follow up on.

I find the articles intriguing in their variety and well-considered perspectives, but am having a time digesting it all. Any of my animist, or even non-animist, kin around here have any familiarity or thoughts about this New versus Old idea related to animism?

 

[Quintessence]

Dang, that books on my reading list. Too many things on my reading list.

At any rate, as part of my research into Paganisms several years back, I read a number of works on magic and animism by early anthropologists like Tylor. The problem with their research is that it was painfully ethnocentric, an issue that was later recognized by the field itself and has, over time, undergone corrections. Because of that, I'm somewhat hesitant to take up this "old" and "new" designation as presented here, because in at least some sense, the "old" understanding of animism is grounded in outdated anthropological study.

It does go without saying, though, that contemporaries reviving or adopting Pagan practices/theologies outside of their more original or indigenous context are distinctively neo. It's not just the lack of an indigenous cultural history that sets Neopaganisms apart somewhat from indigenous/historical Paganisms; it's also things like the strong influence of the 60s counterculture of America, feminism, and environmentalism. Contemporary Westerners also (usually) lack the sense of place and connection with the land that characterized and shaped indigenous/historical Paganisms. I notice this all the time with the slant in the Neopagan literature towards universalizing lore instead of tailoring things to a local area.

I don't really know where I'm going with all this. I have my own internal schema for classifying Paganisms based on the reading I've done of the academic literature, but in the end, they're boxes. Constructs. With respect to me actually doing stuff, those boxes don't much matter. I won't go around claiming what I do is the same as what our Pagan ancestors did, because it isn't. It doesn't need to be the same, and IMHO, it shouldn't be. What Paganisms have always been good at doing is adapting to the local environment and being relevant for the right here and right now.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I have a very materialistic approach to animism. I believe that everything in the universe is animated by the fundamental forces of nature, though some prefer to call it "spirit". There is no such thing as "inanimate" objects since all matter, as Max Planck would say it..."originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds that most minute solar system of the atom together." It this sense, everything is animated and interactive.

 

[Riverwolf]

I won't go around claiming what I do is the same as what our Pagan ancestors did, because it isn't. It doesn't need to be the same, and IMHO, it shouldn't be.

After all, what they did wasn't the same as what their ancestors did, in many cases. Sure, a few elements seem to go so far back that they were practiced when Doggerland was still above water, but their cultural contexts were likely very, very different.

The way I see it, I think if we're going to categorize Animism, "old" and "new" aren't sufficient, since there are many more variations.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Dang, that books on my reading list. Too many things on my reading list.

At any rate, as part of my research into Paganisms several years back, I read a number of works on magic and animism by early anthropologists like Tylor. The problem with their research is that it was painfully ethnocentric, an issue that was later recognized by the field itself and has, over time, undergone corrections. Because of that, I'm somewhat hesitant to take up this "old" and "new" designation as presented here, because in at least some sense, the "old" understanding of animism is grounded in outdated anthropological study.

It does go without saying, though, that contemporaries reviving or adopting Pagan practices/theologies outside of their more original or indigenous context are distinctively neo. It's not just the lack of an indigenous cultural history that sets Neopaganisms apart somewhat from indigenous/historical Paganisms; it's also things like the strong influence of the 60s counterculture of America, feminism, and environmentalism. Contemporary Westerners also (usually) lack the sense of place and connection with the land that characterized and shaped indigenous/historical Paganisms. I notice this all the time with the slant in the Neopagan literature towards universalizing lore instead of tailoring things to a local area.

I don't really know where I'm going with all this. I have my own internal schema for classifying Paganisms based on the reading I've done of the academic literature, but in the end, they're boxes. Constructs. With respect to me actually doing stuff, those boxes don't much matter. I won't go around claiming what I do is the same as what our Pagan ancestors did, because it isn't. It doesn't need to be the same, and IMHO, it shouldn't be. What Paganisms have always been good at doing is adapting to the local environment and being relevant for the right here and right now.

I agree, there's quite a difference between the experience/perception, and the categorizing/conception. What do you think of the "other-than-human persons" idea? That indigenous and animistic people categorize at least some non-humans and even some non-living as persons worthy of respect, and often actually related to humans?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I have a very materialistic approach to animism. I believe that everything in the universe is animated by the fundamental forces of nature, though some prefer to call it "spirit". There is no such thing as "inanimate" objects since all matter, as Max Planck would say it..."originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds that most minute solar system of the atom together." It this sense, everything is animated and interactive.

In his introduction to the volume, Harvey talks about his encounters with modern/Western pagans, and makes the distinction between two senses of the term animism:

[FONT=&quot]Metaphysical encounters: “part of their religious practice or experience, which involved encounters with…spirits…that would have been recognized by Tylor" and
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Relational and often “naturalist”: “as a shorthand reference to their efforts to re-imagine and redirect human participation in the larger-than-human, multi-species community.”[/FONT]

I like your approach, starting with how science understands the nature of matter and energy. I find it hard to get people to grasp that the "spirit" IS what we see when we use the methods of science to better perceive what we can't with our unaided senses. At least that's how I see it.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

After all, what they did wasn't the same as what their ancestors did, in many cases. Sure, a few elements seem to go so far back that they were practiced when Doggerland was still above water, but their cultural contexts were likely very, very different.

The way I see it, I think if we're going to categorize Animism, "old" and "new" aren't sufficient, since there are many more variations.

This seems to be the point of the contributions by the different writers in this volume. The editor (Harvey) and several of the writers note that this Old and New seems mainly to have to do with the approaches of scholars who are studying animism, who for the most part are trying to come up with universal statements about animism, while all the historical and current examples they are using point out how different "animism" can be in practice, to the actual participants.

The classification of the "other-than-human persons" seems to be the primary point of interest, along with the construction of the appropriate social relationships and behaviors for interacting with them. LOTS of variety there!

 

[Runewolf1973]

In his introduction to the volume, Harvey talks about his encounters with modern/Western pagans, and makes the distinction between two senses of the term animism:

[FONT=&quot]Metaphysical encounters: “part of their religious practice or experience, which involved encounters with…spirits…that would have been recognized by Tylor" and
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Relational and often “naturalist”: “as a shorthand reference to their efforts to re-imagine and redirect human participation in the larger-than-human, multi-species community.”[/FONT]

I like your approach, starting with how science understands the nature of matter and energy. I find it hard to get people to grasp that the "spirit" IS what we see when we use the methods of science to better perceive what we can't with our unaided senses. At least that's how I see it.

Thanks! I agree. I wish what people would realize is that animism does not go against scientific reasoning. In a way, science actually supports animism. I'm talking real science and real physics here, not pseudo-science. Physicists know that all matter is animated and exists by virtue of the fundamental forces. Those forces are what I call the animating principal or animating factor. That IS the "spirit". That which animates our bodies, our environment and everything else. Even our earliest, most primitive ancestors understood that their was some "spirit" that caused the stars to move, the seasons to change, the Sun to set, and was also the giver of life and the bringer of death. What they did not know is that one day that "spirit" would be known to science.



---