I'm not saying that should have no definition. Rather, what I'm saying is that it has always been a broad term, so it's bound to carry additional meanings outside of what you've outlined, just as the word "Christian" can convey meanings outside of what most mainstream Christians would like it to convey. It's regrettable that this causes everyone (including poorly informed teenagers) to be lumped together, but I see this as an inevitable process in the evolution of language.
My only reason for writing to you is that your article cited the same Buckland interview I cited several months ago in one of mine. Because your article was articulate and well thought out, I thought it might be interesting to debate this.
"If there is someone who has put in the years of work yet does not match up to all eight characteristics, then I would have to ask why using the word Wicca and not some other word (even just 'Witch', or 'Magician', or 'Cunning person') is so important. But, that's just my opinion."
Philologically speaking, "witch" and "wicca" are the same word, and actually I probably use witch more often. I never use "magician," but that's more of an aesthetic choice. It's not that I wish to use Wicca and no other label; it's more that I don't like the implications of denying someone a label he/she prefers to carry because of what are (taking the broad spectrum of Paganism into account) small differences.
Fiona
No comments:
Post a Comment