Ditching Animism For Good

I’ve spent a lot of time in the garden “connecting” to nature over the last month. And by connecting, I mean I’ve gotten my hands dirty planting seeds; sipped tea on the bench while listening to birds; taken in, and deeply appreciated, the Earth around me and the constant hum of energy and activity. And a lot of that time spent “connecting” has brought the idea of Animism to the forefront of my mind lately.

It bothers me that it seems almost like a prerequisite that you be Animist if you’re Pagan- even within systems that aren’t traditionally Animist systems (and believe me, those do exist).

The running narrative is that Paganism in general, by the very nature of the faith, is a singular, homogeneous, Earth Goddess and nature worshiping, ecocentric faith regardless of the individual tradition; dissent or pushback against this narrative (in my personal experience) is often met with varying degrees of vitriol depending on how devoted the individual is to the mainstream Neopagan pseudo-history, its influences, and the prominent resulting ideologies- even among Reconstructionists and Revivalists who should rationally know better with all their research.

But I think it’s safe to say, at this point, that I’m not an Animist. And in this day and age, I’m an incredibly small minority among Pagans- especially when one steps into anything related to the “Celtic” faiths. So much so that, to the best of my knowledge, I’ve only ever met one other non-Animist Pagan. And while there are hundreds of articles by Pagans talking about why they are Animists? The internet seems to be full of crickets where it concerns the opposite; you don’t find article after article by Pagans listing the reasons they’re not.

But what is Animism? Ironically it’s difficult to find any definitive, in depth explanation of what it actually means. But for starters, according to the good old (rarely actually trusty) source that is Wikipedia, Animism is:

The belief that objects, places and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence. Potentially, animism perceives all things—animals, plants, rocks, rivers, weather systems, human handiwork and perhaps even words—as animated and alive.

Animism encompasses the beliefs that all material phenomena have agency, that there exists no hard and fast distinction between the spiritual and physical (or material) world and that soul or spirit or sentience exists not only in humans, but also in other animals, plants, rocks, geographic features such as mountains or rivers or other entities of the natural environment: water sprites, vegetation deities, tree sprites […] Animism may further attribute a life force to abstract concepts such as words, true names or metaphors in mythology.

Slightly related is the definition by Learn Religions:

The modern definition of animism is the idea that all things—including people, animals, geographic features, natural phenomenon, and inanimate objects—possess a spirit that connects them to one another.

Encyclopedia Britannica gets ridiculously oversimplistic by defining it as:

[The] belief in innumerable spiritual beings concerned with human affairs and capable of helping or harming human interests.

Compelling Truth, a Christian publication, combines all of the above with a surprisingly decent definition despite the site’s nature… Though it later (incorrectly) conflates acts of appeasement with acts of worship– and mistakes all animistic spirits for Deities:

The belief that all things have a spirit or soul, including animals, plants, rivers, mountains, stars, the moon, and the sun. Each being is considered a spirit that can offer help or harm to humans. As such, spirits must either be worshiped or appeased; Animists offer sacrifices, prayers, dances, or other forms of devotions to these spirits in hopes of blessing upon areas of life (crops, health, fertility, etc.) or for protection from harm.

And then there’s the explanation by u/graidan, self proclaimed founder of an “Animist Tradition” called To’An, in an AMA they held 6 years ago now on the /r/religion subreddit:

Animism has been described as the belief that everything has a soul. In reality, it’s quite a bit more complicated than that […] The term “soul” is itself rather misleading; the animist view usually has nothing in common with a modern understanding of “soul”, and is mostly irrelevant to Animist practice.

That particular definition of Animism is heavily biased (and old), and most Animists don’t use it. Modern Animists tend to gravitate to Graham Harvey’s definition: “The World is full of People, the majority of which are other-than-human People” (see his book “Animism: Respecting the Living World”).

Animism-as-religion includes animism and ancestor veneration, and possibly shamanism-as-component […] Animism also tends to include a strong element of ancestor veneration.

No matter how we attempt to define or redefine Animism- or who it is trying to do it... At the center of Animism is the idea that all things have an innate energy to them. This is an idea I don't disagree with in an inherent sense. But it seems that Animism goes further to assert that this simple energy is equivalent to the soul, and that it is spiritual simply because it exists and we can perceive and conceive of it through one sense or another; that every aspect of nature- from the tiniest rock, to the rolling river, the sea, to the trees, and the mountains, etc- is therefore alive in every sense and definition of the word, and in every way that we are; and that it’s all sacred (and perhaps to be worshiped). And this idea seems to lay at its very central core.

There lies the crux of my problem.

Containing a distinct essence or energy, sure. I can agree with that. There’s definitely an innate energy to each individual flower; certain locations have different inherent “feels” or energies to them; rocks certainly each have a unique feel- not only from one rock to the next, but also one type from another; and even without the cultural conditioning that “water is calm” and “fire is destructive”, there’s a very different energy to one element when compared to the other. However, I wouldn’t call any of that energy a soul, though. Nor would I claim that it was innately spiritual.

Animated, I could also agree with. But only if we’re discussing animated as the concept of being “in a state of kinetic motion”. The world isn’t static and unmoving, after all; much of nature is animated- either of its own volition and responses, or as a byproduct of some other animated force.

And yes, everything on this Earth is also connected to everything else… At least in the sense that all things on the planet are a part of the natural cycle of birth, life, death, and decay (or its various equivalents); nothing is exempt from or divorced from that, no matter how long some stages of the cycle are in comparison to the others for some things.

But alive- specifically in the sense of being living, breathing, thinking, and feeling; capable of understanding, being fully aware of, and capable of actively interacting with (and actively responding to), its environment; of experiencing emotion, or perceiving various sensations; of critical thinking and evaluation, or self actualization, and of having a sense of agency that’s distinctly separate from biological function; capable of understanding your actions, and reciprocating or otherwise responding to them- especially in such a way as to intentionally “help or harm”? No.

There are certainly different analogs to this in many things that are technically living. But being alive is, to me at least, something which is another matter from living entirely. And in that regard, a plant and rock may both thrum with an innate energy contained just beneath the surface, certainly. But a plant isn’t alive in the same sense as a bird- nor is a rock living at all; I fully believe that there is an intangible and unquantifiable something that separates "us" (the alive) from "them" (the inanimate).

Since late 2020 this post is slightly out of date. I've since discovered the concept of Vitalism and found that it not only correctly describes my non-animist views, but also explains them more accurately than I've been capable of doing for the last 20 years of practice. I've also begun working with Plant Spirits as practical Allies and while I still don't consider them of the same intelligence, I do believe that Plants, Bugs, Animals, and Humans are at least within the same realm of "alive" I'm attempting to describe here in this article. Rocks, rivers, and the like, however, still remain firmly in the realm of inanimate.

And quite frankly, I dislike peoples’ repeated attempts to connect Animism with Goddess Worship (particularly the worship of some vague “Earth Mother” figure), and the Sacred Femme; I think it’s an absolutely absurd and completely ridiculous stretch when someone like David Abram, a popular Animist source, says something (as quoted by John Halstead from an interview with Derrick Jensen) like:

Often when discussing these notions, people will say, ‘Okay, well, sure, humans are alive. Other animals, okay, I can get that — critters have their own lives, sure. And even plants, I get that they’re alive. But stones? Rocks? Matter? No way! The matter of which this table or that chair is made? You’re going to tell me that it’s alive? I can’t go there — forget it! — that’s just inanimate matter.’

People always want to draw the line somewhere. But you see, it’s drawing the line at all that’s the problem: the idea that at bottom matter is ultimately inert, or inanimate. The word ‘matter,’ if you listen with your animal ears, is basically the word ‘mater,’ or mother. It comes from the same indo-european root as the word “matrix,” which is Latin for ‘womb.’

We all carry within us an ancient, ancestral awareness of matter as the womb of all things, a sense that matter is alive through and through. But to speak of matter as inanimate is to think of mother as inanimate, to imply that the female, earthly side of things is inert, is just an object. If we want to really throw a monkey wrench into the workings of the patriarchy, then we should stop speaking as though matter is in any way, at any depth, inanimate or inert […]

If we speak of matter as essentially inanimate, or inert, we establish the need for a graded hierarchy of beings: stones have no agency or experience whatsoever; bacteria have a minimal degree of life; plants have a bit more life, with a rudimentary degree of sensitivity; ‘lower’ animals are more sentient, yet still stuck in their instincts; ‘higher’ animals are more aware; while humans alone are really awake and intelligent. In this manner we continually isolate human awareness above, and apart from, the sensuous world. It takes us out of relationship with the things around us. If, however, we assume that matter is alive and self-organizing from the get-go, then hierarchies vanish, and we are left with a wildly differentiated field of animate beings, each of which has its gifts relative to the others. And we find ourselves not above, but in the very midst of this web, our own sentience part and parcel of the sensuous landscape.

I’m very happy with drawing the line in the sand that Abram speaks of. The line feels rational, and realistic to me. And I don’t feel that drawing it inherently means that I’m calling the Feminine “inanimate or inert” by proxy.

Assuming you actually care to continue operating on such an outdated gender binary? Clearly, as a woman (and especially as one that could reasonably be considered hyperfeminine), I know that “the feminine” is just as active and animated as “the Masculine”. I don’t need Animism to tell me as much, or prove that I believe it. More importantly, though? I don't need a cis man telling about the "sacred divine femme" and its power, role, or general importance. And frankly, if any cis man thinks they're the one to teach a woman (any kind of woman) about that? Then they need a good backhand upside the head.

Furthermore, however... I’m perfectly fine with not centering any element of my religion about modern Feminism- specifically about the idea of “sticking it to the Patriarchy” (or “sticking it to Monotheism”, as some Pagans seem to); a strong faith with strong values should influence your politics, certainly. Especially if you claim to live by them. But the idea of centering your entire faith around a singular hyperfocused political idea (which is what it is, when you boil it down and look at its history), has never sat right with me for a number of reasons.

And I’m also especially fine with not anthropomorphizing the Earth as some great Female mother, and attributing weird, hopped up Radical Feminist sacredness and divinity to it- and largely to its feminine reproductive capabilities, no less; regardless of who does it, I find it gross, and reductionist, especially as an infertile woman.

On a spiritual level, none of it jives with me or makes any real sense. But in general, the entire Pagan and Neopagan insistence in some circles on “the sacred femme” outright makes my skin crawl; it's creepy to me, and incredibly off-putting for numerous reasons. So frankly, I’m fine without it- and even if I were an Animist, I’d definitely fine without any of it it being attached to Animism in particular.

And the near obsessive connection of Animism to Ancestor Worship and Veneration that some others make, too (because the reddit user is by far the first I’ve seen mention it)? Likewise makes no sense to me; if I see the Blessed Dead, the Heroic Dead, the Beloved Dead, or even the Wandering Dead- all of whom arguably constitute groups of Ancestors in one way or another, in the collective lineage of humanity- as anything, it’s a wellspring of wisdom about things such as survival and tradition. After all, we’re all here because our ancestors survived- and our traditions help connect us to the past in an unbroken (though not unchanged) line.

I can’t conceptualize how Animism fits into that when we’re talking about the Human soul itself; in my mind the Ancestors’ only connection to nature is that same innate connection we all share by way each having our part of the cycle of it all. That concerns the natural law and order of the universe, and the ebb and flow of creation itself on a cosmic level. And that’s something different entirely from Animism; it that has nothing to do with whether or not a rock is alive and has a soul– or whether or not the Earth is some sacred force (energetic, anthropomorphized, or otherwise) to be worshiped.

But as for the assertion by Abram that drawing that line somehow removes me from the cycle, and isolates me from the natural world; that it somehow renders me incapable of developing an awareness and understanding of the world around me and recognizing its gifts? I find the idea even more ridiculous- especially spiritually.

It’s important to understand and be aware of the universe, our connection to it, and our place within it, yes. But you can, in fact, recognize everything’s place in, and important contribution to, the natural cycle (including your own) while also recognizing that some things in that cycle just aren’t alive, let alone living; even a rock has value- and you don’t need to view it as being alive for that value to be recognized… And you shouldn’t have to view it as alive before it can be perceived as having value.

And while developing that awareness and understanding might inspire intense respect, and wonder, and amazement, and awe of the complexity of life, and nature, and the universe in general (because I certainly know it does me)? It certainly doesn’t inherently make every element of it a person (and some people certainly use that language)… Nor does that sense of awe and respect automatically render something sacred or spiritual– or mean it’s worthy of some form or worship, especially in an anthropomorphized state.

Someone once asserted, however, that all of this is me anthropomorphizing things like rocks, and that Animism is really only "acknowledging that everything has energy and potential"... Something which, as exhibited above, blatantly goes against everything I've ever read on the topic- and which, I would argue, isn't a form of Animism at all. If it is, it's an incredibly watered down version of it that makes very little sense to me.

Don’t take any of this as me having a problem with Animist itself, however. I may have some problems with certain ideologies frequently combined with it, and certain prominent individuals frequently associated with it, but I have nothing against Animism itself as a conceptual worldview; I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with believing things have souls- whether that’s something like a plant or a rock, or something as complex as a modern machine.

But Animism's simply not for me.

So no. I’m not an Animist; I may have been one, once upon a time, way back in my baby Neo-Wiccan days, maybe. But that time has long since passed- and it passed well before I even became Agnostic. And I don’t think that somehow invalidates my religion, or makes me any less Pagan, or any less of an Irish Reconstructionist, however, like I’ve seen some say.  It’s just another path- and a different one than most seem to take.