To Be the Plastic Shaman or a Fluffy Pagan

[greensh]

I've recently seen reference to something called the plastic shaman. While this is a new term to me, the concept is not new. In the neopagan world there is something called the "fluffy pagan". The plastic shaman and the fluffy pagan seem to share something in common. Both seem to be less than the 'real thing', whatever that is. While I don't

Comments

[phoenixprime]

I'm afraid I rather disagree. What is gained by using a derogatory name for another person? Why not just say that you don't agree with their version or their practice, and let it go?

[greensh]

*Why not just say that you don't agree with their version or their practice, and let it go?*

Some people can't "just let go". They are held to roles of guardianship.

*What is gained by using a derogatory name for another person?*

Everything or nothing... Please allow me to attempt to explain. There are two cases here:

Case 1) Calling a person a plastic shaman or a fluffy pagan is not wrong.
Case 2) It is also OK to be called such by others.

This is the very important sentence to understanding why I make this statement:

The true measure for both is having integrity in each case.

In case #1:
The name caller must have integrity that they are truly protecting, affirming and nurturing their religious path, without extending the scope of that attention to arrogant lengths. Being snide or snarky is not the same as being a guardian. The person applied with the name 'plastic' or 'fluffy' should consider if they have misappropriated something that may not belong to them.

In case #2:However, if the 'fluffy' and 'plastic' have

[phoenixprime]

Being a guardian does not give you either the right or the responsibility to insult others. To say "what that person practices is not what I practice or what my tradition practices" is one thing. To choose to apply derogatory terms to those others is something else. It is definitely NOT living with integrity.

I do not need to cut others down or insult them to protect my own integrity or the integrity of the paths I walk. In fact, doing so smacks of insecurity in my own abilities. This is where the underlying premise of your argument falls apart.

[greensh]

*I do not need to cut others down or insult them to protect my own integrity or the integrity of the paths I walk.*

Heck... I agree with you on this point. The challenge is the way people use language. A word can used in chastisement but then interpreted as a punch in the guts. I am not saying this is right, but it is how humans communicate, or should I say, don't communicate (well).

My "argument" is more of an introspection on human communication and spiritual dynamics, with due credence given to each side. If I fail to connect with all readers, well, that's life. That said, your points are excellent. I hope others can hear your voice.

plastic shamans

[urthlvr]

i know that NA religious leaders and scholars use the term for people like Ed McGa and Lynn Andrews. that is where i first heard the term-in a graduate level class on NA religious issues. for them, it is a very serious issue. i see plastic shamans as similar to, but different from fluffy pagans.

http://www.geocities.com/ourredearth/plastic.html

http://www.legendarysurfers.com/naw/blog/2004/10/plastic-shamans.html

and then finaly-wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_shaman

Re: plastic shamans

[greensh]

Thank you. These are good references.

On April 3rd I wrote another blog titled "The Plastic Shaman - The Challenge of the Non-Native Shamanist" that referenced the Our Red Earth Organization website page on plastic shamans. I got a lot of excellent feedback both. By itself, the plastic shaman discussion creates strident remarks from all sides. This is rightly so, as the ripples affect many people.

Different Definition

[woolysw]

there is nothing inherently wrong with using words like "plastic shaman" or "fluffy pagan". These words can be used with integrity.
And I disagree, although there may be a problem of definitions here. I am familiar with the usage of the pejorative "fluff bunny" to be that of a person who is willfully ignorant. They have no integrity.

The best definition I've found (and the one that I and most of the people I know accept and use) is:
My definition of "fluffy" is "willfully ignorant." This excludes the newbies who just don't have much information; inexperienced seekers are not automatically "fluffy." Nor are eclectics

Re: Different Definition

[greensh]

It believe there is a challenge regarding definitions. Some are broad, others are narrow. Even the word use of the word 'integrity' can be seen in different ways.

The core of the article, the thing I spent paragraphs and paragraphs talking about, was the role of mystery schools and guardianship. The often discussion, and literally beat-to-death, personal definitions of 'fluffy bunny' are thought provoking, but I am not interested in walking that well trodden path. Instead, I am more interested in the larger picture of judger, judgment, and judged - valid and less-valid. My central ending thought is that personal integrity becomes the key to determining one’s place in this dynamic.

Re: Different Definition

[woolysw]

Except that your definition of "Fluffy Pagan" as "what is... the Fluffy Pagan? Those who seek to take the ways of a mystery religion or a tribal religion, and then practice it in ways profane to the original meaning, are rightly called plastic and fluffy" does not agree with the commonly accepted definitions.

If you want to take a commonly used term and redefine it for your own personal use, that's fine. If you want to redefine an apple as an orange, go ahead. But don't be surprised when other people continue to use the commonly accepted definition and disagree with your conclusions.

So you can go on all you want about the role of mystery schools and guardianship, but it doesn't change that a "fluff bunny" is one who is willfully ignorant, nor does it mean they have any integrity. Even your own redefinition shows they have no integrity - anyone who would deliberately "practice it in ways profane to the original meaning" shows they have no integrity.

[snapes_angel]

           Using the term "fluffy Pagan", combined with a cat icon... *snicker*
           These levels sound a lot like the levels of becoming a writer, too. In the beginning, anything you write is great. You're writing. Then, when levels progress, you begin to see things more in terms of plot, grammar, and mechanics. At some point, you actually begin to distinguish between Genres (or Deities), unitl you find your Calling.
           A lot of folks never make it past that first level, either.
           Speaking of ducks... *quack*

[greensh]

I use cat icons because I love cats. I have five of them now, with more on the way. The "Cat - Black" graphic is my default icon for this community because of (to me!) its magical look.

I would like to think of myself as a swan, but if this is so, I am an ugly duckling for now. *quack* (smile)

[snapes_angel]

Aeris is my daughter's cat, but has "adopted" me. (Cute cats, btw. Too bad I don't have one of Aeris to post in return).

The Big Duck is my default icon. It's a shorthand for my geographical location (Long Island), since it's in Flanders. It was a poultry farm in the 1930s, when it was built, and no one really expected it ot stand for as long as it did. That's usually the thing about landmarks, sometimes they get so darn popular. No poultrygeists, though, that I have heard of--yet.

[ravendreamer]

The terms are much different though. Fluffy pagan refers to a willful ignorance most often with sparkles. Plastic Shaman is a term coined by native american groups to describe those on a shamanic path that are not native american. This is fine, of course, but a little ironic, considering that the term shaman is *not* a native american term. Shamanism is a global thing. To me, unless a person is claiming specifically to be a cherokee shaman or a cree shaman, etc calling them a 'plastic shaman' smacks of spiritual elitism.

[greensh]

The well of discussion about the plastic shaman is deep. Check out the commenter provided links to see its breadth.

In my mind, some of the commonality between the plastic bunny and the fluffy bunny are that of cultural borrowing, maintaining the integrity of tradition, lack of integrity by interlopers, commercialism, and 'mystery school' guardianship. The "willful ignorance" mentioned by other comments would probably (loosely) fit into the first three characterizations.

[ravendreamer]

To me if someone is borrowing actual things, rituals, objects, claiming teaching, etc....thats wrong.....but no one owns spiritual concepts. Those are free for any to use.

[greensh]

In the past I've believed the same. Part of me still does. What you say does make sense to the Western mind. The Native American spiritual model differs from the Western model. Consider the following that I posted in a blog today:

I've been reading the excellent book, "The Spiritual Legacy of the American Indian", by Joseph Epes Brown. I will speak more of this book in other blogs. For now, I will only say that Joseph's text affirms that the life of the Native American (NA) is a living combination of the sacred and the profane, of the divine and the secular. In the NA life there is no separation between these two. According to Joseph, 'religion' is not a concept embraced by the NA because to do so would be to create a dualism between the divine and secular. I now have a better understanding for why the NA community, or at least segments of it, react as they do. To borrow or use any part of their culture is to also borrow or use their sacred life.