Pagans, do you feel the words Recon and Neo can be interchanged?

Question

I love watching the fireworks fly on this one. LOL

Oh trust me. I know when one certain person sees this, we'll get an earful. LOL I do happen to agree with you though. Right down to the Hel no, but it's still innteresting to see other people's view

*Looks completly innocent to Thrud* I have no idea what you're talking about cupcake. I would never do that.....

Answer 1

::twitch,twitch::

You did this on purpose, didn't you?

Well I ain't taking the bait THIS time cupcake. :-)~

see me in like an hour, I'll totally forget and go on a tangent..................

Answer 2

Generally speaking I do not, but that does not mean that Reconstructionist (or Recon) Pagans such as practitioners of Hellenismos cannot be termed "Neo-Pagans" using a STRICT interpretation of that term as many of these faiths ARE being reconstructed after having the original practitioners exterminated for their beliefs in the first Christian millenium.

I usually reserve the term "Neo" for people who worship the Gods but do not use the same methodology as "Recon" Pagans. This does not mean that NEO-Pagans are any LESS Pagan than the RECON Pagans, just that they use a differant approach.

It is a matter of what a person feels comfortable with, although I prefer a Recon approach as I like knowing where a practice comes from (including whether it is modern or not) before I incorporate it into what I do. This does not mean that a Recon will not use a modern practice, although it generally means that a Recon will not accept a practice as "historic" without some sort of documentation.

An example of this would be the differance between the Modern festival of Heliogennia (Birth of the Sun) that some Recon Hellenes celebrate and the Lenaia (a midwinter festival honoring Dionysus that has been documented in Athens going back to the 5th century BCE) . I celebrate both, but would not state that the Heliogennia is an ancient festival when telling people about them.

Answer 3

Interchangably, no, if only because there's a whole lot of non-Recon neo-Pagans out there. It'd kinda be like saying all Pagans are Wiccans.

Now, I can see someone making an argument that Recons are neo-Pagans, simply as a method of differentiating modern practicioners from the ancients. Certainly, that's how Isaac Bonewitz claims it works, so I'm not surprised to see others use his schema. However, common usage of the term typically has Recons as being a different branch of Paganism than neo-Paganism, even if neo-Paganism factored into Recon's growth/popularity.

Personally, I'm not terribly concerned, since CR really is a fairly new area (the term came around in the late '80s). I know a bunch of people like the differentiation, especially due to worldview differences (along with other differences). I consider those differences to be important, but I'm not going to get my pants in a bunch over it. ;)

Answer 4

Considering that even the most dedicated and Type-A reconstructionist can't 100% recreate the cultural and geographic context in which their religion *originally* was created, then yes, I'd say that recons can be included in neo-paganism. Otherwise you might as well say that white people who read as much as they can about Lakhota beliefs and reconstruct a village on someone's land, but are in no way involved with any living members of the Lakhota tribe, are actual Lakhota.

Answer 5

No, I don't believe they can be interchanged, though I've met some Recons (Celtic) that have used them that way. I've never liked using the word Neo to describe myself anyway - even though basically it means Modern. But that usually means mixing different ideas from different paths to make a more modern religion - and I do not follow that course. Recons are making ancient religions more modern (such as, many do not use animal sacrifice anymore, but instead sacrifice food, drink, something of themselves, etc), but they aren't mixing ideas to form a NEW modern religion. So I can't see how they are interchanged.....

Answer 6

No I dont think they are really. As others have said, recon is to try to do things as close to the old ways as possible, some forms of neo look startlingly like playing at it! Just my opinion of course LOL

Answer 7

No, I do not.

Most recons that I know take the time to study the religion they are taking from and try as much as possible to follow it, a trait I have not noticed with most Neos I have met.

Answer 8

i don't use either form. in the strictest sense, they are not the same, but usage is an entirely different thing.

i resent being called 'neo' pagan. even if my practices differ from the ancestors', there's no way to know how they would be practicing today. my religion isn't based on what was or was not done 2,000 years ago. it comes from within, therefore, it's not new. it's what always drew people to honor nature.

Answer 9

I think Recon means they want to practice the religion as close its original form as possible, and Neo means it's a new version of it. Opposites, right?

Answer 10

Neo is something *cough* created in the fifties or later. That's what neo is all about, it means "new". Eclectic is also neo. (if you were eclectic in the old times, they'd kill you. period.)
Recon is bringing into daylight something that's thousands of years old. Recon demands research, study, careful examination of sources.
Neo requires making up.

clear? :D

Answer 11

Pardon me, but HELL NO, Neos are more of what at least I refer to as the fluffy bunny crowd.


Edit:

lol guess you could call that more of a sparkler than a fire cracker.