in which new york city votes, sorta
this rather boring election (technocrat vs. CEO? sigh. sob. holds nose; pulls lever.) had its deeply fascinating and odd moments. they still seem to be in my mind a week alter, so here goes.
first the pagans, then the working families party. feel free to skip ahead.
1. in which germanic neoheathenism becomes a campaign issue, and hilarity ensues
so, for those who missed it, bayside now has a city council member who is proudly outside the eastern mediterranean monotheistic tradition. namely dan halloran, a republican ex-cop raised irish catholic and now an adherent of theodism. the basic story is here, at the Paper of Record.
in summary, various folks apparently tried to make an issue of halloran's beliefs, in particular theodism's sacrificial practices. now, one would think that this might not be a major issue in a city where blood sacrifice is practically the only thing the main religious practices can agree on: kosher slaughtering, catholic communion, afro-atlantic lwa/orixa feeding, &c. and in fact, it wasn't: halloran pulled off a narrow election victory over democratic candidate kevin kim, probably based on being a white guy in a white surburban queens district. but it made for a hellofa compelling human-weirdness story that the papers could run instead of serious reporting on bloomberg's time in office.
now, having spent rather a lot of time out in the woods with the fae this year, i've been reading up a bit on wicca (the recent RFD issue on the connections between radical faerie and the reclaiming tradition of wicca is fascinating - if you're in NYC it's probably still on the top magazine shelf at Bluestockings). but not having looked too much into the broader neopagan zone, i found this all rather intriguing, and did a little reading around.
and what i found was fascinating. in my circles, the pagans who're around are mainly from wiccan traditions, and mainly from the feminist-/queer-/environmentalist-oriented, not-too-theist, not-very-initiatory traditions within wicca. i'd guess that most are from traditions and circles that trace back to the reclaiming tradition, of which starhawk is the most prominent figure. halloran, a fairly right-wing republican, is clearly not from that planet. at all. so where's he from, and what's his theodism have to do with wicca?
the below is my understanding, based on some limited research (links throughout, plus wikipedia). i'm writing about it because i think it relates interestingly to some of the thinking about religion i've been doing in other contexts - the relationship between the radical christian movements of medieval/early modern europe and both the protestant right and anarchism in the u.s.; "men's"/textual/hierarchical/border-policed and "women's"/folk practice/egalitarian/fuzzy-edged religious traditions in eastern mediterranean monotheisms (see lailah ahmed's a border passage for a great discussion of this in islam); liberation theologies vs. liberation politics; etc.
within the broad array of folks who get lumped together as neopagans, there's a broad division around notions of authenticity, and the relation of current practices to historical ones. this divide gets talked about in terms of "reconstructionist" vs. "eclectic" approaches; or at times (among germanic-oriented reconstructionists) "heathen" vs. "pagan".
wicca, generally, has a flexible and creative relationship to historical european pagan traditions, absorbing (in some cases through deeply problematic appropriations) aspects of past and present traditions from elsewhere in the world, inventing new practices and traditions, &c. an eclectic approach, and one that's not obsessed with authenticity or fealty to a specific historical model.
theodism (remember theodism?) comes from the other side of that line. its entire basis is an attempt to reconstruct and revive the ways of a specific historical group: one writer, discussing the changes in theodism over its thirty-some-year history, says that "to go beyond saying that 'Theodish Belief holds that one should be true to the beliefs and practices of their chosen ancient Germanic tribe,' is probably a mistake." different groups have adopted different mythic ancestral groups from across northwestern europe; halloran's is "dansk/norman"-identified.
theodism's approach is explicitly a reaction against wicca's eclecticism, and implicitly against the feminism and egalitarianism of the less theistic and initatory traditions within wicca (see here). it's based on a claim to authenticity through historical research* - each theodish group has different practices, according to those of its historical model - and to some extent on a notion of blood-lineage. the former can be seen in the statement i quoted above; the latter is made somewhat explicit here (emphasis mine): "The movement is at once a cultural, religious, and a social system; its purpose is to revive not only the religion of our ancestors, but also the fabric and folkways of the Germanic peoples of Europe - and to do so within a tribal context. [...]at its core it seeks re-tribalization."
[* which clearly needs to be viewed rather critically, given the quantity of fakelore and bullshit out there, from The Golden Bough on down. theodism seems to have as two of its 'scholarly' keystones georges dumézil and mircia eliade, both rather sketchy in their scholarship, perhaps because of their racist and pro-hierarchial politics, which led both of them into pro-fascist positions in the early 20th century.]
now, reconstructionist approaches seem to be a bit more recent than eclectic ones, emerging in their current forms in the 1960s/70s and later - after eclectic traditions like wicca had mostly stopped making active claims to an unbroken lineage back to before the burning time, and had often made clear their openness to absorbing/appropriating non-european traditions. they can, i think, be thought about as part of the same wave of religious movements as the 'fundamentalist' contemporary christian, jewish, muslim, and hindu religious right. they share the same obsession with authenticity, view of their project as a complete social system (cultural, religious, political, &c), commitment to hierarchical structures, ideologies with racial/ethnic/national-supremacist implications; and emergence into prominence in part as a reactionary response to feminism.
which makes dan halloran perfectly sensible. he's a pure product of the u.s. right's racial identity politics and the american dream: why be an mere irish catholic parishioner when you can live on your hefty NYPD pension and be Ætheling of Normanskii Rik? and on top of that, a member of the new york city council.
2. in which the working families party WTF
generally, i like the working families party. friends of mine have worked for them in various ways for a long time; when i was a UNITE shop steward i participated in their screening process for state assembly candidates; i often vote on their ballot line; i think their version of the "ballot fusion" tactic is better done than most.
this year's ballot, though, gave me pause.
first of all, the WFP joined the democratic, republican and conservative parties in giving their ballot line to unopposed brooklyn DA candidate charles hynes. there's something fundamentally wrong when the WFP is willing to endorse the same candidate as a far-right party whose legislative priorities include eliminating the estate tax, lowering corporate tax rates, opposing "any effort to increase welfare benefits. . . [or] mandate health insurance coverage" for anyone, and privatizing any state enterprise that competes with private business - and that's talking only about the economic sphere, not even touching the conservative party's anti-choice, anti-queer and trans, and anti-immigrant stances. an unopposed candidate has nothing to gain from any minor party's endorsement in the first place. and if hynes is willing to accept support from a party whose priorities are diametrically opposed to WFP's, he should never get their support. this would've been a perfect moment to make hynes choose between purveyors of favors and cash.
more interestingly, my city council member, the pretty damn right-on tish james, did not get the WFP's ballot line. you read that right: the only member of the city council ever to be elected solely on the WFP line did not get the party's nod. why? ACORN. tish james has been one of the only council members to actively oppose the massive scam that is the atlantic yards project. ACORN, one of the WFP's main funders/sponsors, is mega-developer ratner's chosen astroturf contractor. i keep meaning to write a "the real trouble with ACORN" post, so i'll spare you a more extensive rant till then, but bear this in mind when thinking about WFP. they're willing to cast aside the person who gave them their most notable electoral success - and only elected official - for taking a position that's wildly popular in her district and throughout central brooklyn, and who exemplifies what the party claims to stand for:
Real estate titans in New York City are used to running the show without interference from pesky tenants and the communities impacted by big development projects. The candidates that rode to victory in this year’s primaries have another vision: development that puts working families and neighborhoods first. Projects that build housing New Yorkers can actually afford, and that fit with the needs of New York’s neighborhoods.
that ain't atlantic yards. but it sure is tish james. and the WFP's willingness to go along with ACORN's astroturf-for-hire relationship with ratner is a sign of bad things to come.
first the pagans, then the working families party. feel free to skip ahead.
1. in which germanic neoheathenism becomes a campaign issue, and hilarity ensues
so, for those who missed it, bayside now has a city council member who is proudly outside the eastern mediterranean monotheistic tradition. namely dan halloran, a republican ex-cop raised irish catholic and now an adherent of theodism. the basic story is here, at the Paper of Record.
in summary, various folks apparently tried to make an issue of halloran's beliefs, in particular theodism's sacrificial practices. now, one would think that this might not be a major issue in a city where blood sacrifice is practically the only thing the main religious practices can agree on: kosher slaughtering, catholic communion, afro-atlantic lwa/orixa feeding, &c. and in fact, it wasn't: halloran pulled off a narrow election victory over democratic candidate kevin kim, probably based on being a white guy in a white surburban queens district. but it made for a hellofa compelling human-weirdness story that the papers could run instead of serious reporting on bloomberg's time in office.
now, having spent rather a lot of time out in the woods with the fae this year, i've been reading up a bit on wicca (the recent RFD issue on the connections between radical faerie and the reclaiming tradition of wicca is fascinating - if you're in NYC it's probably still on the top magazine shelf at Bluestockings). but not having looked too much into the broader neopagan zone, i found this all rather intriguing, and did a little reading around.
and what i found was fascinating. in my circles, the pagans who're around are mainly from wiccan traditions, and mainly from the feminist-/queer-/environmentalist-oriented, not-too-theist, not-very-initiatory traditions within wicca. i'd guess that most are from traditions and circles that trace back to the reclaiming tradition, of which starhawk is the most prominent figure. halloran, a fairly right-wing republican, is clearly not from that planet. at all. so where's he from, and what's his theodism have to do with wicca?
the below is my understanding, based on some limited research (links throughout, plus wikipedia). i'm writing about it because i think it relates interestingly to some of the thinking about religion i've been doing in other contexts - the relationship between the radical christian movements of medieval/early modern europe and both the protestant right and anarchism in the u.s.; "men's"/textual/hierarchical/border-policed and "women's"/folk practice/egalitarian/fuzzy-edged religious traditions in eastern mediterranean monotheisms (see lailah ahmed's a border passage for a great discussion of this in islam); liberation theologies vs. liberation politics; etc.
within the broad array of folks who get lumped together as neopagans, there's a broad division around notions of authenticity, and the relation of current practices to historical ones. this divide gets talked about in terms of "reconstructionist" vs. "eclectic" approaches; or at times (among germanic-oriented reconstructionists) "heathen" vs. "pagan".
wicca, generally, has a flexible and creative relationship to historical european pagan traditions, absorbing (in some cases through deeply problematic appropriations) aspects of past and present traditions from elsewhere in the world, inventing new practices and traditions, &c. an eclectic approach, and one that's not obsessed with authenticity or fealty to a specific historical model.
theodism (remember theodism?) comes from the other side of that line. its entire basis is an attempt to reconstruct and revive the ways of a specific historical group: one writer, discussing the changes in theodism over its thirty-some-year history, says that "to go beyond saying that 'Theodish Belief holds that one should be true to the beliefs and practices of their chosen ancient Germanic tribe,' is probably a mistake." different groups have adopted different mythic ancestral groups from across northwestern europe; halloran's is "dansk/norman"-identified.
theodism's approach is explicitly a reaction against wicca's eclecticism, and implicitly against the feminism and egalitarianism of the less theistic and initatory traditions within wicca (see here). it's based on a claim to authenticity through historical research* - each theodish group has different practices, according to those of its historical model - and to some extent on a notion of blood-lineage. the former can be seen in the statement i quoted above; the latter is made somewhat explicit here (emphasis mine): "The movement is at once a cultural, religious, and a social system; its purpose is to revive not only the religion of our ancestors, but also the fabric and folkways of the Germanic peoples of Europe - and to do so within a tribal context. [...]at its core it seeks re-tribalization."
[* which clearly needs to be viewed rather critically, given the quantity of fakelore and bullshit out there, from The Golden Bough on down. theodism seems to have as two of its 'scholarly' keystones georges dumézil and mircia eliade, both rather sketchy in their scholarship, perhaps because of their racist and pro-hierarchial politics, which led both of them into pro-fascist positions in the early 20th century.]
now, reconstructionist approaches seem to be a bit more recent than eclectic ones, emerging in their current forms in the 1960s/70s and later - after eclectic traditions like wicca had mostly stopped making active claims to an unbroken lineage back to before the burning time, and had often made clear their openness to absorbing/appropriating non-european traditions. they can, i think, be thought about as part of the same wave of religious movements as the 'fundamentalist' contemporary christian, jewish, muslim, and hindu religious right. they share the same obsession with authenticity, view of their project as a complete social system (cultural, religious, political, &c), commitment to hierarchical structures, ideologies with racial/ethnic/national-supremacist implications; and emergence into prominence in part as a reactionary response to feminism.
which makes dan halloran perfectly sensible. he's a pure product of the u.s. right's racial identity politics and the american dream: why be an mere irish catholic parishioner when you can live on your hefty NYPD pension and be Ætheling of Normanskii Rik? and on top of that, a member of the new york city council.
2. in which the working families party WTF
generally, i like the working families party. friends of mine have worked for them in various ways for a long time; when i was a UNITE shop steward i participated in their screening process for state assembly candidates; i often vote on their ballot line; i think their version of the "ballot fusion" tactic is better done than most.
this year's ballot, though, gave me pause.
first of all, the WFP joined the democratic, republican and conservative parties in giving their ballot line to unopposed brooklyn DA candidate charles hynes. there's something fundamentally wrong when the WFP is willing to endorse the same candidate as a far-right party whose legislative priorities include eliminating the estate tax, lowering corporate tax rates, opposing "any effort to increase welfare benefits. . . [or] mandate health insurance coverage" for anyone, and privatizing any state enterprise that competes with private business - and that's talking only about the economic sphere, not even touching the conservative party's anti-choice, anti-queer and trans, and anti-immigrant stances. an unopposed candidate has nothing to gain from any minor party's endorsement in the first place. and if hynes is willing to accept support from a party whose priorities are diametrically opposed to WFP's, he should never get their support. this would've been a perfect moment to make hynes choose between purveyors of favors and cash.
more interestingly, my city council member, the pretty damn right-on tish james, did not get the WFP's ballot line. you read that right: the only member of the city council ever to be elected solely on the WFP line did not get the party's nod. why? ACORN. tish james has been one of the only council members to actively oppose the massive scam that is the atlantic yards project. ACORN, one of the WFP's main funders/sponsors, is mega-developer ratner's chosen astroturf contractor. i keep meaning to write a "the real trouble with ACORN" post, so i'll spare you a more extensive rant till then, but bear this in mind when thinking about WFP. they're willing to cast aside the person who gave them their most notable electoral success - and only elected official - for taking a position that's wildly popular in her district and throughout central brooklyn, and who exemplifies what the party claims to stand for:
Real estate titans in New York City are used to running the show without interference from pesky tenants and the communities impacted by big development projects. The candidates that rode to victory in this year’s primaries have another vision: development that puts working families and neighborhoods first. Projects that build housing New Yorkers can actually afford, and that fit with the needs of New York’s neighborhoods.
that ain't atlantic yards. but it sure is tish james. and the WFP's willingness to go along with ACORN's astroturf-for-hire relationship with ratner is a sign of bad things to come.