Hi Matthaios,
First let me say that I enjoyed reading your essay. It was well-written, and you obviously have put a lot of thought into your opinion.
However, I found your article sadly lacking. It is clear that you have little if any knowledge of semiotics or the way language functions. Words only have power in that they are a product of consensus--that is, they allow ideas to be conveyed. The idea that words in and of themselves have power is (in my opinion) outdated and overly Platonic. I recommend reading _After God: The Future of Religion_ by Don Cupitt for an erudite and postmodern look at the role of language in the history of religion. Most importantly, Cupitt shows that words are not fixed in meaning, but are fluid and constantly changing.
I also have to say that I take offense at your implication that people who don't subscribe to your definition of Wicca must be using that term with a lack of intent. While this may be true of some people, it is decidedly untrue of many others. There are many people who label themselves Wiccans who possess a vast knowledge of the history and etymology of the word, yet nevertheless would not meet many of the points on your checklist of Wiccan orthopraxy. I know, because I am one such person.
The uncomfortable truth is that the words "wicca" and "witchcraft" both predate Gardner by centuries, and even if Gardner did not create his own tradition, there is no reason to think that the term "wicca" originally implied anything resembling Gardnerian witchcraft or contemporary Wicca. Gardner himself was assigning a new meaning to "witchcraft" and "Wica" (as he spelled it) when he applied these terms to his tradition. In light of this, I find any argument for purity of terminology woefully unpersuasive.
Blessed Be,
Fiona
"Words Have Power--Defining Wicca," by Matthaios:
No comments:
Post a Comment