Why I am Non-Reconstructionist

Instead of arguing about what reconstructionism is or isn't, I am posting about my own personal definitions of it, as it is something that is on my mind. Like the word heathen, the term reconstructionist is one that is quite ambiguously defined within the heathen and pagan communities. I have gotten flack in some corners of the webz for calling myself a non-reconstructionist. So I feel that the best way for me to address this is by simply explaining my views on reconstructionism and why I do not consider myself a recon.

Reconstructionism has been defined and redefined and discussed to death by many in the heathen and pagan world. There are any number of articles, posts, and other such personal definitions out there that I won't bother addressing them. The point is that there simply isn't one true definition that everyone agrees is universally accepted for the term reconstructionist.

So for me personally, I go with the bare bones approach. Reconstructionism, for me, is defined by the purpose of reconstructing a pagan religion, bringing old beliefs and practices back to life. To me this imples a strict adherance to academic knowledge and primary sources which reside within a particular historical context. It is the academic side of heathenry, which bases practice primarily on verified or atleast agreed upon evidence from primary literary sources, archeological evidence, material culture, and eyewitness accounts such as those found in Roman and Early Christian historical sources concerned specifically with the Germanic people.

This "verified" evidence tends to come primarily from a particular period in time, from the Viking Age itself through the early Medieval period. Before this time period, the majority of Germanic culture was transmitted orally, and any student of the Humanities knows that the transition from orality to written culture had a massive transformative effect on the style and content of the culture as it was transmitted between them. For me, having studied this effect in earnest via a variety of cultures, it impacts my own opinions about the validity of literary sources and causes me to question much of the content within them.

This is one reason I cannot call myself a reconstructionist. Or atleast not a reconstructionist in terms of those who rely on the Eddas and Sagas as the primary means of reconstructing the Norse worldview and religion itself. For me the Lore is but a pale shadow of the depth of the original oral tradition which we have no way to recover. It is a lost tradition in my eyes, so for me the idea of reconstructing it is impossible.

So what role does the literature play for me? It is one of subjectivity. Using the knowledge I have about the effects of writing on oral tradition to reform the myths in a way that is nonlinear in form, and making my best effort to understand how these stories might have accrued symbolic rather than literalist meaning for the original tellers of the tales. As it is subjective, so the value of my efforts is subjective. I am ever lost in the dreaded "upg" which it seems most reconstructionists fail to understand is perhaps the only way to glean meaning from a collection of linearized tales which lost their original meaning in translation. For anyone wishing to learn more about this effect, I highly recommend "An Introduction to Book History" as a jumping off point for understanding the effect of text on storytelling and the way we derive meaning from textual sources as opposed to oral stories.

Another reason that I cannot call myself a reconstructionist, is my conflict with the values many recons present as valid to the efforts of reconstruction. These specifically are social ideals and values. For one, we have many who emphasize the hyper masculine idealized Viking persona as the entirety of the Norse value system. Ideas such as honor, frith, discipline so often are touted as the cornerstone of the reconstructionist movement, yet are admittedly specific to but one class of individuals within a complex social hierarchy and from a specific Viking Age historical period. It seems to me that the modern Asatru movement focuses too much attention on the warrior classes and the uppermost social strata of the time period. This can simply be seen as a reflection from the sources themselves, which survive primarily because these particular classes of people were those who were educated and had the means to cement them in history by writing them down. It is the common classes which are underrepresented, and this can be seen no more plainly than in relation the the Vanir. Their association with abundance, agriculture, and the common classes caused their history and importance to be diminished within the Lore, as these classes of people were much less likely to have the means of writing down their histories and stories, much less being able to read and write at all!

As a follower of the Vanir gods, I can't help but feel this lack of literary evidence is detrimental to my standing among those who adhere to strict academic standards which are all too common within the more hardcore reconstructionist circles. Yet again, much of what we have is upg pieced together with a few bare eyewitness accounts and an odd bit of material evidence, perhaps a boars head on a aged helmet, or some cat motiffs left in the remains of the Oseberg ship burial. In many ways I envy those who follow the Aesir, as they have much more evidence and literary sources to go on in their efforts to recreate a viable religious paradigm.

In regards to the Aesir focused social values so often transmitted within reconstructionist movements, I also am at odds with this. The warrior classes of the Norse were male dominated and in some sense militaristic. Such codes of honor and social hierarchy are almost always vastly different than those held by the common folk. Even in the sparse Vanic sources, this is clearly reflected. They are focused primarily on domestic rather than community concerns, their rules of behavior are lax, and their is a blending of gender roles which does not exist within the Aesir driven warrior culture. In this, I cannot be called a reconstructionist, because I have little vested interest in recreating a warrior cult of which I personally find little value in. I wish to recreate a religion in which I can relate to my gods as a common person, living my life close to the land and my family, attempting to survive.

Lastly, I cannot call myself a reconstructionist because reconstructing the warrior cult of the Germanic people does little for me on a spiritual level. It seems odd to me that upg is so derided in the reconstructionist community when upg is a natural and important component of religion itself. I want to feel the gods, and speak to them, and know them. That is what I feel enriches my life. Not the recreation of age old social hierarches and customs which have little value in the postmodern world I live in. I came to the Vanir because I felt called by them. I came to Freyja because at a time when I had lost my faith in ALL gods, it was she who followed me everywhere until I finally gave in and paid attention. And my life changed for the better in everyway as soon as I began to listen. I am a Vanatru because for the first time in my life, my beliefs actually manifested change in my physical reality. I had evidence of the reality of the gods that I never knew in all those years as a Christian when my listening resulted only in the dead silence of nothingness. The Vanir enriched my life and character in ways I never imagined before I knew of them, and for this I am eternally grateful, and non-reconstructionist. I am non-reconstructionist because I feel that for me personally, to be such is to be untrue to their essence, which is for the most part absent from the modern reconstructionist paradigm.