One question that I am frequently asked is, "What's this Reconstructionism thing?" In my dealings with people, Pagan or not, I have found that most people fit into one of three categories: There are those who have no idea what the term means, those who believe that they know what reconstructionism is about but demonstrate a lack of understanding of it, and finally a few that really do know what reconstructionism is. Unfortunately, the later is a minority, and consists mainly of people who know what it means because they actually consider themselves reconstructionists. Add to this the fact that there are a growing number of recons who are concerned about the term being misused, and I believe that it is worth my time to explain it a little here.

Reconstructionism isn't exactly like many of the other "pagan" terms out there. As befits those with a reconstructionist approach, I would argue that the term itself isn't exactly a fluid one open purely to personal interpretation. It could be argued that all one needs to do to be a pagan is to state, "I'm a pagan," and that all those who choose to define themselves as pagans automatically fit the requirements. Although this could be argued against, in general this approach can work with terms as broad as "pagan," since even before the Neopagan movement it had been used as a catch-all phrase referring to anyone who was not properly Christian. Reconstructionism, however, requires a more strict interpretation, or else the entire reason for creating this approach becomes lost. With that in mind, it must be noted that, as with any term, people will argue over it. So while this is hardly the one and only canon explanation of the concept, I will offer a rather moderate definition of what the term means, which in my experience tends to be the way that most recons view the term. As with any group of people, there will be fringe elements that are more or less extreme, but most members will fall somewhere in the middle. Reconstructionism is no exception. With that ramble out of the way, what is it?

The term "reconstructionism" refers to a specific approach to a specific religion, in this case a pagan religion (though there are apparently Christian and Jewish reconstructionists as well, I do not know anything of how they use or view the term). This approach consists of attempting to rebuild and rejuvenate a pre-Christian religion in a form that draws from the original religion itself, rather than outside traditions. As it was first explained to me, it's something like picking up where a religion left off after conversion to Christianity, and finding a way to bring that religion into the now. Reconstructionists believe that older religions remain valid both theologically and ritually, and that these religions do not require mixing with other unrelated beliefs in order to be powerful and fulfilling for their practitioners. Reconstructionists realize that a 500-5,000 year old religion will never be able to be practiced in exactly the same way that it was during its heyday, but that ways can be found to practice such religions now that are true to their original form and function.

The more common non-reconstructionist approach to pre-Christian religion tends to be to take a cultural pantheon of interest and graft this pantheon onto a post-Christian ritual structure and worldview, such as that of Wicca. Reconstructionists tend to avoid this method in favor of studying the original worldview and ritual structure of a religion, then using the knowledge gained to create modern versions of the old rituals (and, in some cases, new rituals where old ones remain lost) that use the same structure and express the same worldview. Recons don't believe that there is anything wrong with the way our religious predecessors worshipped or believed - in many cases, religions died out not because they ceased to fulfill their followers' spiritual needs, but because of outside force. Because of this, we try to figure out how they'd be doing things now if they lived in today's society. We also tend to avoid syncreticism where it was not present in the original religion - for example, if a modern saint may be a cultural deity in disguise, a reconstructionist will try to learn about the cultural deity and worship that deity in the way they had been worshipped before Christian influence. Since most forms of syncreticism with Christianity happened as a response to oppression, or in some cases were even facillitated by the church in hopes of swaying non-Christians to their religion, we see no compelling reason why we should continue this syncreticism now that we are free to worship as we choose. Though it should be noted that most reconstructionists respect the practitioners of syncretic religions and realize that there are many places where these practices have become unique and valid traditions in their own right, ingrained inseperably in their parent cultures, most reconstructionists are simply not interested in worshipping in a Christian way anymore than we are interested in worshipping in a Wiccan way. It is not intended as a criticism or insult to Christians, practitioners of syncretic religions, Wiccans, or anyone else. It's just "not our thing."

Reconstructionists also believe in clearly distinguishing between unsubstantiated personal gnosis, or UPG (a person's unique spiritual experiences), and the known practices of a historical religion. This is not to say that UPG is not valued, but rather that a person's UPG is considered unique to them and not to be relied upon as a replacement for research where facts are available. For example, a Neopagan who felt drawn to Anubis might rely mostly on the "feelings" they had about Anubis' nature, and end up with a very different version of Anubis than the Egyptians had. Someone taking a reconstructionist approach to their interest in Anubis would learn all they could about Anubis and his worship, and see this knowledge as facilitating their personal experiences with that god rather than detracting from it.

One common misconception regarding reconstructionists is that we practice something like the religious version of the SCA. A pagan once told me that they viewed any attempt at reconstructionism to be a "quaint anachronism." However, this idea is usually based on the assumption that reconstructionists are trying to do everything exactly as it was done during their chosen religion's heyday. I've never met a reconstructionist that believed that was possible, or saw that as their goal. So, if that's not what we're doing, what are we doing?

Well, perhaps the easiest way to explain what we're doing is to contrast it with many of the more popular approaches to pagan religions. I don't do this with the intention of criticizing Neopagan methods or ways of learning about their religion, only to show how the two approaches differ.

Many pagans learn about their religion through books geared specifically for Neopagans. Someone wanting to learn about Wicca might pick up a Buckland book, for example. While there are a few (very few) books out there actually geared to the more widespread varieties of reconstructionism, for the most part, books on reconstructionist religions are non-existent. If someone wants to take a reconstructionist approach to a pagan religion, chances are they will have to go directly to historical, archaeological, anthropological, and (arguably most importantly) "primary sources". From those sources, they will have to figure out what the heck it is that they're going to do. This means that in order to be a reconstructionist, it's pretty much a requirement to be willing to study, and to like it.

This has lead to another misconception about recons: that we are bookworms who do nothing but study ancient religions and never put them into practice. I believe that this misconception is generated mainly by the fact that most Neopagans have little exposure to recons, and when they are exposed to them, it's usually a case of a recon "correcting" them on some point. Since many pagans are solitary practitioners, and those who practice in groups often have rituals attended only by members of those groups, it's fair to say that the most exposure that any pagan gets to the rituals of an outside group is usually from attending pagan festivals and other such social gatherings. People then go away from these gatherings believing that they have been exposed to an accurate cross-section of pagan belief systems. They may see recons attending such gatherings, but chances are unlikely that they will be seeing a reconstructionist ritual, or even attending a class taught by a recon. This is because these social gatherings tend to be based on what will appeal to the majority of pagans, and I have also found that there is a significant amount of politics involved in who gets to present what at such gatherings. Many times, such events are organized and run by a particular pagan organization, and thus rituals and classes done by members of that association get the majority of time slots. What is left over is usually given to presentations that are safe bets - that is, those that will be of interest to Wiccans, eclectics, and similar practitioners. On the part of the recons, there are often very few of us, and we are often solitary practitioners, or we belong to organizations that have no other local members. This all amounts to it being very difficult to be "ritually visible" as members of the pagan community - instead, our rituals tend to be performed in private and get little or no coverage in the public pagan community. I believe that all this just adds to the idea that we don't actually do anything about our religion.

Another possibility is that this misconception is based on the fact that we don't tend to have "how to" books available on our chosen religious paths. Since many Neopagans get their ritual education from reading books that serve as direct how-to manuals on pagan rituals, I think there is a tendency to assume that if these instruction manuals aren't available, the rituals don't exists. We can't go to the New Age section of the bookstore and see a book called "Hellenic Rituals 101," so it becomes easy to assume that recons just don't do rituals. If not, why don't we have books on it? That's a topic in and of itself, but to stay on target here, reconstructionists do have rituals, we do have spiritual experiences, and we certainly do a lot more than read. Actually, in my experiences with both other reconstructionist practitioners and with Neopagan practitioners, I have found that recons are more likely to perform involved rituals or make time in their life for regular devotional practices. This is not to say that there are no sincere, serious Neopagans who have a rich and complex ritual life, but I simply think that this is a reflection of the fact that it is unfortunately all too easy for a person to be a "playgan" if they claim to be a Neopagan, and not so easy for someone to do this under the pretense of being a recon. After all, even knowing what "recon" means requires more experience than most playgans are willing to put into it.

Lastly, it should be clarified that most reconstructionists do not believe that practices are only valid if they are historically authentic. Recons simply prefer what is authentic to the original culture whenever possible and plausible in most cases (that's part of why many recons decide to be recons rather than something else), and believe in differentiating between what are known facts or very likely theories about a cultural religion, and what stems from another source (whether that source is personal experience, a neighboring culture or anything else). We believe that this differentiation is important because for one, it makes sure that people new to the religion know what the original culture believed versus what X follower believes, and two, just because an individual finds a particular source of knowledge to be valuable doesn't mean that everyone will. In other words, just because the gods talked to you doesn't mean the message you recieved was intended as gospel for everyone. Or, to put it in a non-UPG perspective, just because one person believes that the practice of X culture may have been similar to the practices of another culture doesn't mean that it should be presented as a known fact that the practices were the same, since it is neither known, nor might everyone agree about how relevant that outside culture is to the one they are studying. Instead, a recon prefers to distinguish those practices by saying something such as, "I believe that this practice may be relevant/related to the practices of the culture we are studying," rather than taking the practice of the unrelated culture and presenting it as a known and authentic practice of the reconstructionist's preferred culture.

I think that covers all the popular misconceptions, and gives a basic understanding of what the reconstructionist approach actually is. With that in mind, I will leave you with some definitions of common terms that you may find reconstructionists using.

Cultural Relativism: The ethical idea that there is no universal standard of morality that may be applied to judge all cultural practices, but rather that one must judge a practice within the moral codes of its native culture and time period. Reconstructionists tend to lean towards cultural relativism, and seek to understand the customs of a culture within their own contexts rather than making reactionary judgments based on modern Western values.

Eclecticism: The practice of mixing, matching and blending beliefs from separate cultures, theologies and philosophies. Usually this is based solely on the discretion of the individual practitioner, and as such, eclectics may vary widely in how much they combine and their reasoning behind it. The eclectic approach is very popular in the Neopagan community.

Hard Polytheism: The belief that the gods are separate and unique individuals, rather than archetypes or manifestations of one or a few universal deities. Since most historical cultures leaned towards what would be deemed hard polytheism today, the majority of reconstructionists are also hard polytheists. Note that this does not mean that gods within the same pantheon cannot be seen as having different manifestations or (though the term is often misused) "aspects" based on their particular roles, but that this idea should only be applied within a pantheon when and where this view was shared by the original culture. For example, Tezcatlipoca may be referred to as Telpochtli in regards to His role as a young warrior, and He may also appear as a jaguar god known as Tepeyollotl. However, these "aspects" are based on the actual cultural views of the Aztecs, and are not applied outside the pantheon. Thus, a hard polytheist does not believe that all jaguar gods are the same god as Tezcatlipoca, nor that all young warrior gods are the same god, whom the Aztecs simply referred to as Tezcatlipoca.

Neopaganism: As the name implies, the "new" pagan religions of post-Christian times. While reconstructionists are counted as part of the Neopagan movement by some interpretations (we are, after all, members of a post-Christian pagan religion), others, both recon and non-recon, reject the notion of placing reconstructionists within this category. The most common reason for this is that practitioners of the more popular Neopagan religions often want to add more exclusive definitions to the term that do not apply to many of the more obscure pagan traditions (nature-based, goddess-centered, etc), and that in turn recons do not feel that they resemble what the popular Neopagan culture presents itself as being, and thus do not fit well in that category. Although similar disputes exist over the term "pagan" itself, recons in general do not seem likely to relinquish their place within the broader and well-established definition of the term "pagan." Due to these problems, the term "Neopagan" is often used in conversation by reconstructionists to differentiate practitioners such as Wiccans and Eclectics from practitioners of "other" less common pagan paths, such as recons, Afro-Caribbean religions and applicable indigenous traditions.

Primary Source: A source of information that dates to the time period being studied or shortly thereafter (generally within living memory), usually created by the culture in question. Primary sources are not infallible records, but they are some of the most valuable records available to the reconstructionist and are a starting point in many cases.

Pseudoscience: A theory which has little or no basis in factual reality or accurate knowledge, but which is often presented as being on par with (or perhaps even superior to) accepted scholarly theories and known facts. For example, the belief that Atlantis existed and influenced Mesoamerican (and other) cultures is pseudoscience, because while many people believe this theory, and many books have been written which may appear convincing to the layperson, the theory has no basis on actual archaeological or other evidence.

Revisionist History: The practice of rewriting history in order to better suit modern ideals or support propoganda, often in disregard of known facts and events. An example that everyone should be familiar with would be Holocaust denial, but several specifically pagan examples exist (such as the belief in prehistoric matriarchal goddess worship), as well as Mesoamerican examples (the assertion that sacrifice did not take place or that Mesoamerica was an allied collection of peaceful cultures).

Soft Polytheism: The opposite of hard polytheism. A common belief held in Neopaganism, that all deities are archetypes, or culturally-based manifestations of one or a few universal deities.

Syncretism: A religious practice that blends two or more religions in a coherent way, usually in response to a cultural clash. The most common forms of syncretism are the result of merging encroaching Christian religions with the traditional religions of particular areas. Santeria and Vodun are two examples of well known syncretic religions. Syncretic religions generally have a solidly defined theology and set of practices, in which the blending of the theologies has become its own stable tradition rather than a set of beliefs chosen and mixed by the individual as in the case of eclecticism.

Unsubstantiated Personal Gnosis (UPG): An individual's spiritual experiences and revelations. Considered an important part of a person's religious life, but not seen as a replacement for scholarly study, nor is one individual's UPG considered to trump known cultural or religious history. While recons will use UPG to construct their practices, we also believe that any UPG we share with others must be clearly differentiated as such and may not even be relevant to other practitioners.