Historically Oriented Polytheism

Sometimes you accidentally coin terms that catch people’s interest. But one of the largest problems with using new terms coined by other people, is in ensuring that you’re using them the way they were intended.

As of 2018 this post it out of date; I no longer use the term “Historically Oriented Irish Polytheist” to describe myself or my religious practice, especially since the understanding of Reconstructionism and Revivalism espoused here is fundamentally incorrect on many levels. For a more correct understanding of Reconstructionism and Revivalism, see here -- For my new terminology, see here instead.

If you’re familiar with my blog you’ll have seen me begin using the term “Historically Oriented” here and there, with increasing frequency; when talking about my religion, it’s become my go to religious identifier since converting to Irish Polytheism and (as far as I know) coining it in reference to my own practice.

J, the voice behind TMSP, reblogged a post on Tumblr tonight which called for practitioners of Gaelic Polytheism. His reblog included a response I’d made to the post myself a while back when I initially reblogged it to my own Tumblr, wherein I’d referred to myself as much. And in his own response to that post, he said that [he’s] “totally gonna have to steal that leading btw”– which I can only assume references the Historically Oriented aspect of mine.

With it beginning to pique people’s interest lately, it’s probably important I finally get around to defining what I actually mean by it when I use it- mostly in order to ensure that other people aren’t misunderstanding or misusing it. To get there, though, you have to understand how I approach what I do.

Firstly, I don’t think reconstructed or revitalized faiths can survive without being updated and modernized; religious stagnation simply isn’t realistic, as even cultural systems change and adapt over time. Revitalized religions such as ours are (and should be) no different. But at the same time, I’m incredibly concerned with historical accuracy for a number of reasons, and it’s the primary foundation on which I’ve built my faith.

That being said, there’s an incredible amount of information missing in Irish Polytheism- and unfortunately, that missing information leaves gaps which need to be filled. And yet they can’t be without either extrapolating on our own, or borrowing from elsewhere. However, in my opinion, any and all attempts to reconstruct a system should, first and foremost, be based in the correct historical meaning and context that it originated in (as well as any ideologies and practices of the surviving culture, should one exist).

In other words, I don’t feel as if you can genuinely and accurately reconstruct or modernize these portions without having an understanding of its historical practice and context; we have to respect, and place importance on, the words of the parent cultures who created them- even if those words are centuries old.

These beliefs place me somewhere firmly between Reconstructionism and Revivalism. So if I’m technically either or, according to anyone’s definition, then why don’t I just use either of those terms which already exist? Why do I instead opt to use “Historically Oriented”?

I don’t use it simply because once you get past the base similarities, there are numerous differences which mean they don’t just fit for me. Furthermore, my motivations for certain actions are different.

Reconstructionism doesn’t wholly describe what I’m doing because of the fact that much of the religious data that we need to viably reconstruct the faith, simply didn’t survive. And while you can certainly glean a lot of useful information from surviving materials? There’s simply far too many gaps. As a result, complete and accurate reconstruction is absolutely impossible.

But I don’t feel like Revivalism completely fits, either, because I’m not simply using this information to update the faith and bring it forward into the modern era… I’m outright plugging holes in what is arguably a sinking ship- and I’m doing that so I can even get it back to the harbor to fix it in the first place. And that, to me, requires a slightly different methodology than simply updating a well documented faith does.

I also don’t live in Ireland, and I’m not Irish. Instead I’m a partial descendant of the Irish-Scottish Diaspora in America. And the culture and practices of the Diaspora is much different, and frequently has different meanings, than the culture of the native Irish and Scottish living in their homelands today.

So even while I’m focused on updating the faith, I’m not just updating things based on how I think they would practice today if the faith survived unbroken in Ireland. I’m updating it based on how I think the differences between the culture of the Diaspora and the culture of the Homelands would have effected it had it survived- particularly in my own location here in Oklahoma, and in the Southern United States in general.

Both of these, I feel, requires a slightly different method and approach that’s not always common to Reconstructionism or Revivalism. As a result, using their identifiers is akin to having a large square hole and a small triangle peg; because the square hole is bigger, the small peg will certainly fit into it… But just because it fits, it doesn’t mean it’s the right shape.

The Irish Polytheism that I practice is a weird mish-mash of various things that are mostly historical but not entirely… And yet I’m not eclectic, either.

It’s a grey area that puts history first- meaning that my practice and focus is oriented in Historically verifiable information left over from the culture back when they held those beliefs… But also recognizes that culture changes, culture in different areas may vary despite being shared among the same parent population, and that gaps exist and outside sources and extrapolation are necessary… And that, due to this, a large portion of my practice may not actually reflect what those practices should be if following either of the two acceptable methodologies.

The end result may contain some Scottish or Manx Polytheism to fill gaps where beliefs were similar; draw on Hellenic methods for burning offerings because they’re practically the only community that has modern information on that particular method of offering disposal; may incorporate Native American methods I learned from my adopted family growing up, because the Irish, Scottish, and Native Americans here had an intense relationship, and my own ancestry derives largely in part from that relationship; may focus on my relationship with the land in Oklahoma as opposed to Ireland itself; and so on and so forth.

For me, this terminology and method of describing my practice works. For others, though, it might not; more might probably call it redundant, pedantic, and unnecessary, and try to convince me that I’m really doing A or B “and need to stop being a special snowflake”; it certainly wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been told as much.

But ultimately how we choose to identify and describe our faiths is a personal thing which can only be left to the individual to decide upon in the end. So if you like it and want to use it with this in mind? Great! If not? That’s also great! But it works for me and I’ll continue to use it- and I hope this helps everyone understand why I chose to do so in the end.