Valley Wands

Wiccan, or wiccan, or witch, or whatever?

There is huge diversity amongst pagans. There are Druids of a hundred different flavours, hedge witches, shamans, British Traditional Witches, thousands of different solitaries of one sort or another, Heathens (various), love and light Fluffies, and thousands of assorted others. Perhaps, though the greatest amount of bickering happens between Wiccans and wiccans, (note the use of upper and lower case ‘W’)

I do not subscribe to the idea that Wicca grew out of some long established religious tradition that has its roots in some far off pre Christian time and therefore is common currency that may be claimed by any. As far as I’m concerned it grew out of the Victorian resurgence in all things occult and was eventually codified by Gerald Gardner in the mid 1940s. Gardner established a mystery initiatory tradition that drew on a number of sources to create what he saw as a cohesive and workable religion (I’ll get onto the problems associated with Gardner and his ‘history’ of the craft in a later blog). Yes Wicca has grown and changed since Gardner died in 1964, it has branched out in a number of directions and much has changed within it, yet one thing has remained, the notion that it is an initiatory tradition with a lineage that can be traced back to Gardner. All Wiccan covens have maintained that one tradition regardless of anything else that may have been abandoned or adopted be they Gardnerian, Alexandrian or whatever.

Wherein then lies the discrepancy between Wicca and wicca? Many groups and individuals have sprung up declaring themselves to be Wiccan when they are in fact nothing of the sort. It seems to have become a popular bandwagon for all and sundry to have jumped on. Everyone from teeny witches to the fluffy love and light brigade seems happy to claim “I’m a Wiccan” with absolutely no consideration or appreciation of what the term means. I see it as being a little like someone claiming “I’m a fireman” without ever having been trained as such, and having no knowledge or experience of what it means to be a fireman. Sure they can call themselves whatever they like I suppose, but that doesn’t make it so.

So, in my opinion what makes a Wiccan? One answer, a person who has been initiated into a tradition that can trace its lineage back to Gardner and holds as certain beliefs to be unalienable. That lineage may be somewhat tenuous and convoluted in some cases, and it may be contested by Wiccans of other traditions, but that is the sole qualification.

So then, what about those who just adopt the title? They can of course call themselves anything they wish, but why Wiccan? What is it about that word that draws so many people like bees to honey? I tend to put the blame on the likes of those authors beloved of such companies as Llewellyn Publishing who have jumped on the pagan pound (or dollar) and have churned out some complete and utter tripe that purports to be authentic Wiccan knowledge and have in the process devalued both the name Wicca and its teaching. Authors like Silver Ravenwolf and Scott Cunningham, amongst others, who have churned out such appalling drivel over the past few years that it has become almost accepted without question by the young and the gullible. This combined with a plethora of half witted pagan web site builders that have taken a few Wiccan thoughts and ideas and cobbled together something they claim is Wiccan has convinced many that they can be ‘self initiated’ into Wicca. Sorry boys and girls but it just ‘aint so, you have been duped.

Sometimes Wiccans get accused of being elitist, but is that accusation entirely fair? I don’t believe it is. Just as being a Roman Catholic, or a Shiite Muslim, or a Sikh means to conform to specific codes and expectations, so too does being a Wiccan. I see Wicca as a specific set of codes, beliefs and practices that identify that religion, and if you are not able, or not willing, to subscribe to those things then no matter how much you want it you cannot be a Wiccan.

Does this mean that I see other pagan paths as being inferior to Wicca? Not in the least, they may be equally valid, they may even subscribe to remarkably similar beliefs and practices, they just happen to be different and I am happy for them to use the generic term wiccan. (lower case ‘W’ non proper noun). The only thing that puzzles me is why so many seek to claim the title of Wiccan in the first place.

Perhaps it’s all down to the tendency of some people to transpose the words wiccan and witch. Whilst it is true that a Wiccan is by definition a witch, and proudly embraces the fact, it is also true that not every witch is a Wiccan. A witch may be of any pagan hue, indeed a witch may even by a non pagan, so I wonder if the transposing of the words is a desperate attempt by some to get away from the historically distasteful connotations that are associated with the word? If that be so then perhaps it is an understandable, if mistaken, step to take.

BB for now. Hywel