Kindir

[Ambervoice]

(tittle of this thread changed because I accidently wrote it in danish)

Greetings,

The concepts of frith and friendship (kinship) is puzzeling me at the moment. I have some preliminary thoughts about this issue and I would really appreciate any feedback you might have since I am to write an article about the matter.
The theme is a comparative analysis of ancient vs. modern heathenn understandings of community.

My thesis is that we, as modern heathenns, have misunderstood the concepts of frith, honor, loyality- the things that constitute the indengaard/community. Simply because we tend to view these personal traits as static, normative values- as absolutes and categorical imperatives ( unconditional comandment/law).

I believe that this way of placing absolute ethical value in persons and actions is forreign to the prechristian nordic worldview, and I think this assumtion is supported by the very lore in which we find contradictoric norms, values and actions interacting- thus creating a multifacceted and very nuanced image of what is right and wrong.
(this is what have been the overall pragmatism within the nordic framework).
The first issue that stands between the modern heathenn concept of community vs. the old thus becomes the very notion of ethic.
(we think ethic differently than they did)

Vilhelm Grønbech writes ("Vor Folkeæt i Oldtiden", 1955 p.297, translated by myself)
quote:
"The facts will continue to contradict themselves and the problem will be untouched by all solutions as long as we-as the new europeans we are- take it for granted that a solidaric unit will be translatable into a given number, and take it for granted that the kin can be understood by a simple count of the individuals within it"


It is no secret that Grønbech is classic representative for the 1800 century romantizised nationalism and it is, furthermore, no secret that Grønbech sees frith as the absolute overall moral institution (allthough he would probably recent the use of the word "moral"- because moral is something consious and verbalized, something that frith is not neccesarily, according to Grønbech).
The reasson why I qoute him here is to illustrate the inherit problem that we face when we read the lore: it is contradictoric.
Honor, loyality, friendship changes - something that these values does not in our modern understanding of them.

To illustrate my point take a look at the 9 noble virtues and hold them up against for example Havamál 42l (which directly encourages lies) or at the sagas where frithbreaking, cowardness, infedelity,doubt and weakness occur nummerous times.

My point is this: as moderns we tend to seek universal truth.
I believe this behaviour in thinking stems from many things- monoteism and science being primary ideahistoric events that has forever changed our outlook on life
(this point will not be further elaborated here, but I will happily do so if needed).

As modern heathenns we tend to encourage loyality and honor (for instance) as CATEGORIES - and in this doing we, in my opinion, oversee the actual depth within these phenomenons.
Loyality is not the same loyality in all situations.
An example:
As modern heathenns we often say that loyality is difficult and demanding, yet still something that we see as praiseworthy traits with an enourmous importance.Loyality then becomes something you must display- not a natural, unquestionable way of thinking and acting.
Loyality becomes a category- a normative value that demands certain, inflexible actions of the individual.

Say you friend acts rudely and insult some of your other friends. The moral dilemma, for the modern heathenn, then becomes: who of these two friends am I suposed to be most loyal to? And the question is answered without haste: the one that you are closest to, the one that is "most" your kin or "most" your friend- something that, as Grønbech illustratetes and argues- is not the original concept of kinsmanship/community!(because community and kinsmanship was much more of an abstract unit- something illustrated in the traditions of namegiving for instance).

Loyality becomes an articifial construct that places the modern heathenn in constant moral dilemmas (because our lore/texts are contradictoric).

Grønbech (1955 p. 29 writes about his- and our- culture:
quote:

"The really godfearing man is the one constantly worried about his own salvation and therefore learns to feel an interest for the souls of other people. In a primitive culture the current goes the other way around (...)
In the old the community it can never be narrowed down to a single soul and the individual needs are pushed forth by the life that he shares with his brothers. The feeling of friendship can in our minds be strong and encouraging but it is too vague to demand certain rules and too unarticulated to create social institutions- with the primitive man the feeling of community is so overwhelming and fundemental that it decides the shape of the community without exeption"


Grønbechs point being, to put it overly simplistic, that if you are loyal for your own sake then you act as a modern. If you are loyal for the community´s sake then you act like the old.
Loyalit is subdued something greater that "loyality" in it self- and I think this is the point we often miss.

Now Grønbech would say that frith and community/kin is the greather truth within the framework of prechristian scandinavian thinking.
For the sake of argument, lets go along with this thinking: frith and community/kin are the higher "laws"- the underlying current (as Grønbech calls it).
How can we, as moderns, grasp this and make it relevant in our everyday life?

We have had some very interesting discussion on this very board about the concept of community.
If memory serves me right the overall consensus were that community is the people you agree with and like.
This opinion is very noticable througout the entire asatrucommunity: in denmark for instance, it is the rule more than the exeption that blótmember "trust" eachother in a explicit manner- that they are bound by kinsmandship to eachother (we often say that the very act of sharing a horn creates an explicit "bond" between the participants as well as the very act of standing in a "circle of equals" is something very dominatly accepted, at least here in Denmark).

Three things strike me as odd when we look towards the way modern heathenn seem to think about community:

1. Power.
Modern heathenns have a hard time accepting positions within the community: we are all equals and "thou art not the boss of me" seems to be some rather pervasive understandings of what goes on in a community- we are all of queal worth, we are all right.
This seems odd to me, taking into account the very structure of prechristian society. We know that there where "thuls", certain gode/gydjas (the infamous Frey/Njord wagon with the priestess in it for instance) as well as definite kings/chieftans and elders.
Modern heathenns seem to have a fear for power, anyone who ever stuck their nose out has been confronted with accusations of having "power issues".
We seem to have some unresolved business when it comes to the concept of power within a community.

2. .Social Interaction
Modern heathenns seem to think that a community is/should be homogenous- a gathering of likeminded people who agree.
(we had this discussion when we spoke about how I see myself as bound to all danes by rules of community whereas many opposed to this thinking and said that they are only bound by rules of community to the people that they like)

Now, the societal structures around the viking era seems to have made this way of choosing community rather difficult: one was born into a certain family and one was born into a certain town/community. The free choice was, in my opinion, rather absent when it came to whom you would find yourself bound to.
The free choice stems from the individualisationsprocesses following the industrial revolution, urbanisation etc. Beforehand "free choice" was not an option- one was, litteraly, bound to an kin, an area and community.
Chosings friends was complicated by the fact that there werent a million potential friends (globalisation) and that one had no personal interest in being an "outsider" (due to survivalcauses).

In relation to the ritual practises it becomes even more odd, because we know that the big farm would have a lot of people tied to the "gård". In bishop Páll saga it is mentioned that they have a 100 men working for the farm and then 70-80 people working at the farm.I know this is late vikingera and well into the middleages- but still.
Some of these people may have been thralls and therefore not worthy (I suspect) of participating at the household blóts. Yet I still think the modern notion of only blóting with trusted friends is questionable, also taking into account that repports about ritual practises in horgs/hov (the bloodsprinkeling part of it) implies that there would have been more than 10 people present (the paying of hovtaxes for instance also imply this).

3. Dogma
The dogmatic thinking that we, as moderns, seem to have about the factors that glue a community together is simply a bit illogical, mainly because a community of people acting "loyal" and "with honor" all the time, cannot be a very healthy/wellfunctioning community( take a look at the state of asatrucommunities in general- communities that are, for the most part, very tortured by conflict, backstabbing, gossip and rather violent personal attacks and fragmentation)

I would propose that "social gamerules" (courtesy, hospitality, humility, humour) are just as neccesary- and thus praiseworthy- traits within a community These "social gamerules" can be applied within all areas of life, not only the part we call "asatru".
Suporting the notion that we want to reconstruct the entire worldview and not only the religion, it would seem logical if the norms that shape our actions was applicable in all areas of life- and not only within a small group of likeminded asatru.Loyality and honor are more difficultly applicable than courtesy and hospitality- why is that?
Could it be because we have created a "heathen pride" dogma than enstranges us from normal social behaviour?

"heathenn pride" stems from absolute, dogmatic thinking, placing traits within an ethical framework forreign to the old norse worldview.
I believe that the IS a certain heathenn ethics. But I dont think we have found yet and I dont think we can, unless we are willing to deconstruct our own thinking about community- and therefore also the factors that we seem to think constitutes community (loyality, honor etc).

These are my unfinished thoughts. As previously mentioned I would greatly appreciate any feedback.

Courage and strenght,
Andrea

[Elin]

We could go over all the points we've already discussed at AsatruLore, Andre, but that would be tedious.

Sufficed to say it is my opinion, that any heathen, actually any true reconstructionist heathen, has already recognized within themselves the modern worldview, and the stumbling block that provides in interpreting and living the Lore, and taken steps to move back into the Elder Weltenschauung. That requires changing the way one thinks about community and one's ethics.

By one's change in philosophy of life in cultural context, all the topics Andrea brings up become moot. There remains no need to percieve ethics and community through modern views, as one has reconstructed the perceptions of the Ancestors.

Now whether it can be accomplished in a single generation is an Entirely different Topic.

[Ambervoice]

Oh, but you know I beg to differ

Dealing with how we NOW interact among ourselves is, in my opinion, of the greatest imprtance to reconstructionism. If we have "false" concepts (and I suspect our modern concept of inneryard may be influenced a lot by modern thinking)- then we need to actively and consiously discuss this, because we read the lore through the glasses of our own reconstructionism. I dont believe in objectivity, I think all scientific examination is theory-laden (I could come up with some references but I havnt even had my morning cofee yet so that will have to wait ).
- and therefore we need to take a real deep and close look at the ways we act today, as modern heathenns.


The heatet discussion by the way can be found here:
http://www.asatrulore.org/thread.php?threadid=5386

I´m gonna write on this today or tomorrow. Couldnt really sleep because i woke up all the time and took notes (oh man I need a life!).

Good morning to all!
Andrea

[Elin]

Lol. You know I am the one who is right here.

Actually, I have the feeling, again, we are discussing from two separate ends of the spear, so to speak. I think we fundementally agree, we're just quibbling over the little bits. I would never admit that at AL, though.

[Ambervoice]

LOL
Well my blood is still boiling from your remarks on universalism in there! , but I too think that we agree on the basics.


Anyway do any of you know of any examples, exept from Lokasenna where frithbreaking occurs. I got the sagas pretty much covered regarding frithbreaking (lots and lots of it in there), but it´d like to back it up if I can?

[Elin]

To be fair, I still think you are coming from an essentially universalist standpoint. (Now pause for a second, I'm not denigrating, I'm just pointing out the slant I see.) The incessant use of the word "we" and general terms are symptomatic, but I think assuming all Asatru have the same faith, or kind of faith is one of the major points. What applies to you and most danish heathens, does not apply to me, or for the most part american/canadian heathens. You worry about everyone else, even those you do not share common ground with.

It is vaguely reminiscent of the church, and that whole "brotherhood of man" and also "Love thy brother" crap that annoys me so much.

Let's face it. You are going to see it from the danish viewpoint, as well as whatever personal experiences you have had that tinge your view, as I am going to see from the sum of my experiences. That your view is more uni than mine is not surprising, considering my experiences and other things.

I don't keep Lore on hand, nor do I store much of it in my brain, that is what my husband is for, with 22 years of heathenry under his belt, he's a walking Lore Trove.

anyways, don't get too upset about me or shane razzing you, sometimes a bee only stings to see how far you'll run for water.

[Jannik]

Elin wrote:

[Elin]

You could have asked a *hard* question, Jannik.

I don't reconstruct from the Lore. I reconstruct from family, primarily. I'm not saying that we were heathen all the way through to today, cause that's Bull. But papa Joseph was a man who would have fit right into the Sagas. (The bits of them that aren't christianized.) I have some excellent non-familial examples such as the hutterites, and Bil Linzie. I was also raised in a community where Inngard/Utgard was defined by a barbwire fence and the ethics of Inngard were necessary to everyday continued existence.

How do I reason that a true reconstructionist must recognize the modern worldview? It's the one that we are socialized into birth. It's only through understanding a starting point that one can move forwards. It's only by understanding that there is a big difference in modern judeo-christian ethics and the old Welanschauung, that one can even realize one is just "heathen coated" whether that is pagan with a heathen pantheon or christian with an Odin fixation.

I'm fully aware of the detrimental effect of the church's exhortation to "Love thy fellow man" and to "turn the other cheek." I've studied judeo-christian ethics once already. The Renaissance can go and politely fuck itself, I have no wish to reconstruct those moneygrubbing womenbeating political animals. The only thing good that came out of that period was Machiavelli, who said, "I do not care if people fear me, so long as they obey." To paraphrase.

As for the Sagas, they do show some good examples of kinship mechanics, and they are nice to read, but I don't reconstruct primarily from them. I do, however, think we *can* get a sense of ethics, or morals and of right and wrong actions from them.

I know how my ancestors viewed every day life. I know how my father, and my grandfather, and his father and his father viewed every day life. I grew up being drilled over and over again that the family, the Inngard is the all, the sacred. That the Sagas corroborate that is nice, but not necessary.

I don't compare myself to Christians. I compare myself to what was necessary to survive, and to what papa Joseph or my father would think, what action my ancestors would have thought acceptable.
You cannot live defining against something, as so we should not live defining ourselves as everything christians are not.

I hardly compare it to how I think today. I merely pointed out it was necessary for those who are entering serious reconstructionism to acknowledge they have been enculturated differently than the Ancestors, and in a way that is modern. You can't change something if you don't know what you are changing or even a little where you want it to go.

" You've already got the proper notions and ideas
... no need to examine the past for moral standards. "

The modern child is socialized into the modern worldview. That means modern philosophy of life, modern morals. As I reject those and say, that is not good enough for me, and prevents me from understanding and appreciating the culture of my ancestors.......reconstruction of the older weltanschauung, and it's morals becomes necessary. A worldview must necessarily be a functioning whole, an intergrated system, or it is non-functional. You cannot recon the worldview with reconning the ethical system, of which inngard, utgard is a huge piece.

As for labels, the longer I am reconning, the less I like even the word Heathen, as I see it used everyday by those who use asatru primarily as a religion, as a coating for some other belief system or as the flavour of the day. I believe calling a thing a thing, as it is the path to truth.

I think we can agree that I am different from the neopagans and from the christians, and therefore those like me must be quantified and labelled. (And there are many more like me.) I'm sorry if you have a problem with that.

Nueves? feh. You don't like the word, don't use it. No skin off my nose.

[Jannik]

Brilliant! I was afraid that my previous post was too provocative,
but I see that you deal with it in a pleasant and proper manner.

First a couple of things that need defining:

Weltanschauung ... besides meaning "I'm a pretentious git" it
also means 'worldview' ... why not use that word?
The word also means 'ideology' .... think about that next time
you use it.

Another thing is your perspective. I know you North Americans
revel in Anglo-Saxon theory and its assumption of a prerogative
before searching the clues, so you'll have to bear with me if I don't
find all your arguments complete ... that was also a slight attempt
of humour.

Let's see:

[Gemyndig]

[Gemyndig]

Please don't anyone get the impression from the above sentiments that i feel the lore and study of history etc is totally irrelevant or unnecessary - far from it. Our myths are perennially relevant and we can always learn something of value from historical study IMO. I just don't think we need to do and think about everyhting in exactly the same way as our ancestors supposedly did - it just seems rather contrived and regressive to my mind.

[Ambervoice]

Well, lately the subject of reconstrutionism has had a large amount of space and energy in my brains... up until the point where everything broke down, like dreamcastles do, and I remembered how and why I am asatru. I have been trapped in reconstructionistic dogma for a while- its relieving and liberating to be back to the basic... friends in a circle, the knowing, the sense of community that arises out of pleassure and not out of negativity towards something or someone else.
There is such a joy, such a life-force in the faith in me that cannot be held down, compromised or watered out.
I am left with that feeling of awe that it all began with.

Reconstructionism does not speak to me anymore. I think it has become yet another religion, the flavor of the week, much in the same way as wicca has become a religion. I think this is the biggest challenge for modern reconstructionism: fighting the need for dogma and religion from within.

I had a talk with one of my best friends, that was when I was still active on asatrulore. He said "why have you changed your vocabulary? You used to speak about the whisper of the land and now you say nothing but words like "worldview" and such. Where are you" he asked me "where is the Andrea that can be so holy, where is the Andrea that makes me believe?"
Being asked that kind of questions makes you think about where you´re heading...

There was a debate about the sense of being "called" to heathenry- to asatru.
I feel called, I feel it must definetly in my bones but saying that just dont fly within the reconstructionist community... why?
Because people dont feel it or because its too much hippietalk?

Kuhn has some very nice thoughs about paradigmes: a framework that "defines which data are legitimate, what methods may be used, what vocabulary is to be used in stating the results, and what kinds of interpretation are allowed. Furthermore a paradigme also comprehends the social organization of research, including the perceptual training, the socializing of apprentices in the labratory and the scientific community at large" (bem and Dejong 1997, p. 56)


I got caught up in a paradigme.

Reconstructionism appeals, IMO, to the more educated asatru and thats all fine and dandy- the problem is just though, that I am not asatru due to my level of scholary thought- actually my level of scholary thoughts is higly irelevant when it comes to my pure religious experiences.
I just dont have any other tribe within asatru to identify with and THAT is the challenge for reconstructionism: walking the thin red line between religion and science, experience and intellectuality.

Reconstructionism, as an approach to asatru has made a huge efford and a collosal difference- but when we begin reproducing paradigmes instead of being curiusly exspanding our horizons, then reconstructionism becomes just as irelevant as any other theory.
Reconstructionism is a METHOD and it should stay that way. IMO.

anyway... just my morning thoughts...

[Gemyndig]

Oh what a joy to read your post and have my own feelings yet again reflected by the words of another! Couldn't help but nod my head all the way through it!

[Ambervoice]

Well you know, I think you are very correct in seeing reconstructionism as a phase modern heathenry is going through (a VERY important, relevant and neccesary phase!). As I see it, reconstructionism moved from being a method and a conceptual tool- into being a religion and a paradigme all of it self. This is natural and what could be expected (particulary in an american culture because it seems that religious thinking has a better hold on people there than here.. reconstructionism never really cought on here, not as seriously as it did in america and I suspect that most danish heathen still consider it to be "too fanatical"... not to mention the take on theodism).

And as you say yourself both the community at large and the individual as such has much to learn from reconstructionism... I really couldnt imagine where we´d be if reconstructionism hadnt been around. So... its not that I´m "all against reconstructionism"- to some degree and for some reasson I cant help but think myself to still be a little bit of a "recon lorewhore". I just think the framework has lost its curriosity, its drive and openmindness.. and has become mainstream dogma.
The tribe of the intellectuals.. who never really learnt how to sew their own vikingauthentic clothes or blacksmithing or farming.
It has become and IDENTITY more than a framework.. .and I must oppose against that.
I must oppose against that IN MY SELF... because I´m not happy and I´m not strong when my faith becomes just another coat of identity to wear.
My faith SUPPORTS my identity- it dosnt, and it shouldnt, give it to me.
Thats for the weaklings, methinks.... and I´m talking about the weakling in me.

[Joan]