Wicca was originally meant to be a term that applied only to people who were initiated into a specific tradition of Witchcraft. There was no way to become a “Wiccan” (or become one of “the Wicca”) without an initiation. This was the system of Gerald Gardner (or perhaps his initiators), his initiates, and later his imitators and admirers. Almost every “Wiccan Tradition” owes a tip of the hat to Gardner, his system became the dominant one (even in traditions that might have predated Gardner, this is called the “Gardnerian Magnet” by scholars), and most groups that use the word “Wicca” can trace their origins to Gardner, one of his followers, or his Book of Shadows.
Please note, even though the author of that piece identifies as an initiated witch (within the concept of Wicca as discussed in the excerpt) he also suggests that the genie is out of the bottle on the prescriptivist/descriptivist use of the word "Wicca", and also suggests that calling what isn't initiatory Wicca (but uses some of its visible framework) watered down or bastardized is both a value judgment and incorrect.
He says that in response to this article: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/sermonsfromthemound/2013/04/the-pagan-umbrella-is-leaking/
wherein another initiate says Many of the people who don’t want to identify as Pagan complain about the dominance of watered-down Wicca style rituals and ideas. They also assume that the simplistic version of Wicca presented by many 101 books is what initiated Wiccans practice. [...]
As a polytheist, initiated, Gardnerian Wiccan, I would really like it if eclectic Paganism was not “watered-down Wicca”. Create your own rituals; don’t bastardize ours. And please don’t assume that I am a duotheist, or a “soft” polytheist. I once spent some months on a polytheist mailing list, and was amazed by the hostility to Wicca. Just because some Wiccans have misrepresented your tradition, don’t assume that we’re all going to do so.
I will comment on my thoughts about this in another comment.
no subject
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/panmankey/2013/05/wicca-and-the-fork-in-the-road/
Relevant quote:
Wicca was originally meant to be a term that applied only to people who were initiated into a specific tradition of Witchcraft. There was no way to become a “Wiccan” (or become one of “the Wicca”) without an initiation. This was the system of Gerald Gardner (or perhaps his initiators), his initiates, and later his imitators and admirers. Almost every “Wiccan Tradition” owes a tip of the hat to Gardner, his system became the dominant one (even in traditions that might have predated Gardner, this is called the “Gardnerian Magnet” by scholars), and most groups that use the word “Wicca” can trace their origins to Gardner, one of his followers, or his Book of Shadows.
Please note, even though the author of that piece identifies as an initiated witch (within the concept of Wicca as discussed in the excerpt) he also suggests that the genie is out of the bottle on the prescriptivist/descriptivist use of the word "Wicca", and also suggests that calling what isn't initiatory Wicca (but uses some of its visible framework) watered down or bastardized is both a value judgment and incorrect.
He says that in response to this article:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/sermonsfromthemound/2013/04/the-pagan-umbrella-is-leaking/
wherein another initiate says
Many of the people who don’t want to identify as Pagan complain about the dominance of watered-down Wicca style rituals and ideas. They also assume that the simplistic version of Wicca presented by many 101 books is what initiated Wiccans practice. [...]
As a polytheist, initiated, Gardnerian Wiccan, I would really like it if eclectic Paganism was not “watered-down Wicca”. Create your own rituals; don’t bastardize ours. And please don’t assume that I am a duotheist, or a “soft” polytheist. I once spent some months on a polytheist mailing list, and was amazed by the hostility to Wicca. Just because some Wiccans have misrepresented your tradition, don’t assume that we’re all going to do so.
I will comment on my thoughts about this in another comment.