Genetically Transmitted Religion? I Don’t Think So
I picked up a nifty little book at Borders the other day: Bryan Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization(Oxford, 2005). Ward-Perkins, who teaches at Trinity College, Oxford, argues against the recent view that the fall of Rome was not a violent event but more of a peaceful process and that the barbarians were not really barbarians (remember my post on Terry Gilliam?). Ward-Perkins slaps these pesky ideas away with a brilliant foray into the fall of the Roman Empire. The book is only about 230 pages long but this is a case of quality over quantity. Rather than expending 700 pages on the resurrection of Jesus, as one Christian scholar did, only to summarize his arguments by saying it happened because it had to have happened, Ward-Perkins actually demonstrates, through use of ancient literature, epigraphy and archaeological findings, that Rome did fall, and violently, and that civilization collapsed leading to a very real and very depressing Dark Age.
This brief review aside, something else the author said struck a chord.
There is no reason to believe, as people once did, that ethnic behaviour and identity is genetically transmitted, and therefore immutable. But experience suggests that a great deal of an individual’s identity is acquired during childhood and early youth, from parents, the wider family, and companions, and that this identity, once acquired, is not easily forgotten. This being so, individuals have never been entirely free to choose what they wish to be, old identities, even inconvenient ones, die hard. Furthermore, for a change of identity to be successful, this requires, not only mental and cultural adjustments on the part of the person making the shift, but also the acceptance of that person into the group they wish to join. As we know from modern experience, acceptance is by no means always freely given, and often has to be ‘earned’ over time – for instance, as an Englishmen, I am not too sure that, even if I had lived my life in Scotland, I could ever have earned acceptance as a Scot. Individuals and groups can successfully change their identities, even dramatically, but to do so they have to overcome barriers, both in their own minds and in those of the group they wish to join. This takes time, often several generations (p. 77).
Of course, I thought at once of the nationalization of genetics in the Nazi era, and more recently of silly notions current in some parts of modern Heathenry, namely the metagenetics of the AFA. Racial memory indeed. As I’ve said before, there is cultural memory. Cultures do shape their memories and their memories do shape them. And this is true of individuals as well.
I agree with what Ward-Perkins says here. In fact, it fits in very well with what I’ve said myself with regards to ancestry and orlog and starting points and the shaping of our fates. People aren’t so different that they cannot assimilate, cannot share each others’ gods and customs. The Germanic peoples did this in the ruins of the Roman Empire (thus Ward-Perkins’ point) and the Norse did it in Ireland, Scotland, England, and France. Lacking an ideological axe to grind, these “barbarians” (to use a politically loaded term) did not impose their customs and traditions on the people they conquered (obviously, this changed when they became Christian – witness the behavior of the Vandals in North Africa). Take another example: that of Hellenism in the Roman Empire. Hellenism was not associated with Greekdom, that is, Greek blood or genetic material, but with Greek culture. If you lived like a Greek, you were a Hellene, whether you were from the Indus Valley or the Rhine. The Romans understood from a very early time that citizenship could be granted. It was not only the inhabitants of the seven hills who were Romans. Anyone could be a Roman. A piece of paper could accomplish this. Specific genetic material was not required.
But I think the key is that we are shaped, as individuals, by family and society and the prevailing culture in which we find ourselves. We have a starting point established by this ancestry, most recently by our parents. As Ward-Perkins says, we cannot easily break free of this identity. We modern day Pagans are engaging in this process in reverse. We start as part of this society rather than invading it, and we try not to assimilate but to break free. This is probably a more difficult procedure. I make much of being Scandinavian. I am proud of it. My ancestors were Scandinavians who came to this country (Minnesota) in the 19th century. Before that, they lived in Norway and Sweden. But this is a cultural memory, not a racial or genetic. My blood does not sing, but my mind. I yearn for the customs and traditions of my ancestors. But this is a choice, not a requirement. I could, if I so wished, as easily worship the gods of the Hellenes. After all, if some ancient Hellenes were right in their thinking (or Jan Assmann in his) these gods were the same gods anyway, merely with national or cultural trappings associated with them.
We’re free to choose in a way that nobody since the destruction of polytheism has been, what our customs and traditions will be. I think its natural to hearken back to the customs and traditions of your ancestors, and if you have a mixed ancestral bag, as most Americans do, you have a great many choices. But by all means, be cosmopolitan if you wish, be like a denizen of that glorious epoch when you could honor Mithras and then an hour later sacrifice to Herakles or Demeter or Isis or Cernunnos. We have a past to break free from and a choice of futures to move into. Within the limitations imposed by culture and society, we are free to become whatever we wish. No longer does the Church have the power to coerce us into a narrow, fearful, and superstition-laden path. We are not limited by our genetic material. We are limited only by our aspirations and by our ability to break free of point of origin.
It’s a nice picture, isn’t it? It’s not an easy thing but then nothing worth having is easy. But it’s more precious for the struggle. The sense of discovery is something that is beyond description, that I get chills even thinking about. As Ward-Perkins says, the process might take generations, and I have said myself that we, the first generation or modern polytheists, are only paving the way for the next generation. We are laying the foundations by our struggles to find and re-establish ourselves. What we do will have a huge impact on those who come after us and that is both a heady and a weighty responsibility. Some believe that we must earn our place with the gods. After all, it is not they who abandoned us but we who abandoned them, but I believe the genetics work both ways. We are not genetically bound to certain gods (let alone customs and traditions) and we, though we share genetic matter with our ancestors who broke troth, did not ourselves break troth. The gods have no reason to avoid us; we have every reason to seek the gods. They are there; they are real; and they love us. Why would we not love them in return? And in loving them, demonstrate that love?
So back to the beginning: We are all of us children and products of our environment. We all of us come with some general programming that is part of being human (scientists still debate such things) but in many important respects we are all clean slates to begin with and the real programming comes with family, friends, and a wider culture and society. This programming can be overwritten. For we modern Pagans, it must be overwritten and it must be a conscious decision. It is not instantaneous. The fall of Rome may have been an event, as Ward-Perkins argues, but conversion is not an event; it is a process. Our ancestors, through coercion or accommodation, converted to monotheism. We are un-converting. We have discovered that the colossal bait-and-switch of Christianity is a farce. Likely, our ancestors discovered this soon enough but were not free to opt out, given the rather grisly consequences of trying. But in our process of un-converting, we are not bound by genetic paths.
A religious group can, I suppose, argue that genetics play a part but science denies this. In the end, I think any religion that makes such claims is not removing itself far from Christian influences because, after all, the gods haven’t said it is so, science says it is not, which leads to the (for me) inescapable conclusion that genetics have nothing to do with religion. I am a Heathen by blood, yes, if you look at the line of my ancestors far in the past, but I am a Heathen by choice, not by necessity, just as those ancient Germans became Romans, we can become anything we wish and genetics will not dictate otherwise.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson is the author of A Heathen’s Day, which since 2005 has addressed the life and thoughts of a modern day Heathen. He maintains a second blog, Digital Gods (www.digital-gods.com) which focuses on polytheism for the digital age. He is also the founder of the Mos Maiorum Foundation (www.mosmaiorum.org) which is dedicated to the study and support of Paganism as ethnic religion. 
conversion is not an event; it is a process.
Exactly right. Judaism understands this – they require that you live a Jewish life (for whatever value of that concept a particular community deems important) and become part of the community *before* they consider accepting you for formal conversion; and they check in with you make sure you really understand what you're doing.
Contrast that with the many Christians groups that will baptize anyone and then try to turn them into Christians. Not all churches do this, of course… but far too many do.
On a side note – that book sounds very interesting. I was looking at another one that you might like as well, the other day – Martin Goodman's "Rome and Jerusalem: the Clash of Ancient Civilizations". Looks interesting, and at least on paper the author's credentials are impeccable, as a former editor of both the Journal of Roman Studies and the Journal of Jewish Studies.
One additional comment – I've self-identified as some form of pagan since 1990, and specifically as a Hellenist since 2000 – and it's taken most of that time for me to truly start to think and react from what I consider to be a basically unalloyed Pagan perspective.
Its a fine line to walk when considering the spiritual importance of genetics (if any) in regards to being heathen. My take on it is that since the heathen conception of the gods themselves is as distant familial ancestors (many references to this in the lore and early histories, especially for Woden, Fro Ing, and Heimdall), that to fully embrace that worldview you have to put some importance on your heritage and ancestry.
The big distinction though is that just because you are [insert your ethnic or racial term here] does not necessarily make you heathen. For the vast majority of us, we have been by default acculturated as secular christians. Being Heathen is something you have to consciously choose and cultivate within yourself as you buck the status quo around you. Beyond that there is also historical context for a person of other tribes or foreign lands being adopted into a community and thus also being accultrated. So even if you have next to no [again insert ethnic or racial term of choice] heritage, but you put full effort into acculturating and are accepted by your immediate community/tribe/kindred/etc.. You are Heathen. Period.
Does genetics transmit the religion? No. Can it be important along with what stray tendrals of heathen culture may have still been past down with family lore and traditions? Yes. Is it the absolute criteria on inclusion as a heathen? Absolutely not, and to think so is to deny the wholeness of our cultural history.
Erik, I got Goodman's "Rome and Jerusalem" last year and you're right, it's an excellent read. I thought he treated the subject fairly and it was very informative. I really had few bones to pick with his conclusions and I was very happy that he did not try to paint Rome as some sort of "evil empire".
Sena, thanks for commenting. I agree with what you say about our view that the gods are the founders of our line, so to speak, our ancestors.
Even our ancestors openly welcomed non-Scandinavians into their culture and religion. And other Pagans in the ancient world understood that you could worship the gods of other peoples and they could worship yours. They all exist, after all. And if they all exist, by worshiping a new god you don't stop honoring the old. You just add another god to the list of gods you wish to honor.
I think this is a difficulty for Christians who cannot accept the idea (for obvious reasons) of adding a god without removing one. I think some Pagans carry this luggage with them as well.
In the end, I think it is a curious way to honor our ancestors to take a point of view so at variance with their own, that all people can worship all gods without worrying about what blood flows in their veins.
Great post, Hrafnkell. I agree completely that genetics should not be the single most important factor in the choice of religion. I know it's paranoid and simplistic of me, but that line of thinking has a very ominous feeling to me.
Sena, good point – ancient Scandinavians would have welcomed non-Scandinavians into their ranks in many different ways, and many of them did as we know migrate to foreing climes themselves. More or less peacefully
Also, it's important to remember that terms such as "Danish" or "Swedish" did not exist back then in the same way that we know them today. The concept of a nation, where a single people share a clearly defined geographical area as well as a common language, history and culture, is a later invention introduced with the advent of Christianity and feudalism. To people in ancient Scandinavia, you were first and foremost a member of a tribe, not a citizen of a state. Tellingly, the single worst thing that could happen to you was to be outlawed, excluded by your tribe. Membership of a tribe does not seem to have been based solely on country of origin – foreign wives, craftsmen and sadly also slaves were not uncommon.
For the Vikings in Ireland, for instance, it was common to marry into the local Irish families and to form political and mercantile alliances with them. It was simply good sense to do so. Even though the indigenous Irish were Christians, and the Vikings weren't. It was a very complicated and long process of gradual assimilation that is fairly well-documented in the archaeological record. The result of that assimilation was a new and distinct "brand" of artistic and cultural tradition, and the "Hiberno-Norse" came into existence. Much later, in high medieval times, the Christian "Ostmen" of Dublin were the heirs of those traditions. It was a process of give and take – the indiginous Irish adopted many Viking fashions, such as trading in silver coins and settling into cities, and the Vikings gradually stopped cremating their dead, a taboo in Christian tradition. Bit by bit, the Vikings in Ireland converted. But it seems to have been a political, pragmatic decision, and it's hard to tell how religious they were about it, so to speak.
Anyway, sorry for rambling. My point is that these cultural exhcanges took part in the ancient past, so I see no reason why today we should have to limit ourselves to the culture we come from. It was probably a healthy thing, and necessary for survival in a new country. These guys who came over to Ireland didn't immediately sever all ties with their roots, of course – they explored their new surroundings, interacted with their new neighbors and eventually mixed and became something entirely new, yet based in tradition. Of course these days, we don't necessarily explore different cultural and religious tradition because we've migrated to a new country in any physichal sense. But an open attitude and a willingness to exchange things with "the other", while still being rooted in their own tradition, seems to have been common enough among pre-Christian Scandinavians. It's a nice example to follow if one is thus inclined, I think.
I totally agree with the statement that we are free to choose what/who to worship as we will. I know of a Finnish band that quotes Havamal in their lyrics, but they still thank Ukko when it's raining at their concerts. Would I criticize them for that? Never. Neither would I criticize the black man that was wearing his Mjolnir pendant and singing along with the songs at last year's Paganfest concert. In fact, surprisingly, I don't believe he was given any grief, but was welcomed as a brother to all. Forgive my little rant, I just wanted to share a couple small stories.
I had a big thought about culture recently in reflecting on my own path. I realized that no matter what culture I *wanted* to identify with, it could never make me a part *that* culture. No matter how I slice it, I'm an mid-Western American and *this* is my culture.
Now to me that doesn't mean I just roll along with whatever the status quo is because that would mean I'd still be Christian! However…
The cultures of our ancestors are dead and gone. It stinks in many ways but that's the truth of it. And the totality of many cultures would be at odds with modernity if we tried to bring them back. Things like, the subjugation of women, animal or human sacrifice, slavery etc…Every modern Pagan that I know of leaves these aspects of the old ways out. And yet these beliefs were often *central* to the old cultures. Animal sacrifice being such an example. Or the sprinkling of blood on the faithful.
So while I can see respecting the ways of old and even being inspired by them, I cannot see re-creating them. What I think is a better solution..in my very humble opinion, is to walk into the future being just who we are and not worrying about what our ancestors did or why. Times change. The gods change. Custom changes. Right? Progress is good. Sure yes, learn from the past but don't yearn for it because it wasn't all flowers and some golden age.
I firmly believe that if our ancestors were given a Bic lighter they'd have used it. They wouldn't have griped about doing it the time honored way when lack of heat and light could mean death.
In the face of no non-Abrahamic culture we should come together as people of our gods and create one. *two cents*
Danielle — do not be so quick to discount the ways of our ancestors as of no relevance in our modern era. I have known many good folk who blot live animals and when properly done is far better than the factory process that puts a piece of flesh in a plastic wrapper in a supermarket. We have much to learn about how we treat the land and animals that feed us.
Nor have all our heathen ways been lost. In my own family, who otherwise has been at least nominally Lutheran for generations now, we still appeal to great-grandma for weather as the respected family disir she is, exchange socks at x-mas even if not everyone knows it comes out of having the spinning and knitting done at Yule for Frigg, set an extra place at holiday meals for the dead, and though its reduced to a game now about elves, we know that the Hunt rides the winter wind.
Look to the lore, to holiday traditions, folk-tales and such. Even though it is impossible to truly recreate the ways of ages past, making the attempt informs us of what wisdom is behind them. That is what we take into our modern ways. Of course if they had a bic lighter in ages past, they'd make practical use of it, but do you know how to make practical use of a spindle for your own yarn or how to butcher a pig? All knowledge is worth knowing — just because its old does not make it less valuable.
There is a vast gulf between our way of looking at the world and how our ancestors viewed it. For example, old vs. new. New was something not to be trusted. What was tried and true – old and ancestral – tradition – that was to be trusted. Traditions were important. Certainly they changed, but there was continuity – at least until Christianity turned the world on its head. And we all know that Christianity was new. Of course, now some denominations of Christianity are saying we must trust what is old and distrust what is new…
I agree with Sena. I have said before that I am not a reconstructionist. I am not. Religion is not static. We cannot slice off a piece of religion from the past and import it whole into the future. It would be a dead thing. But we can take from the past what is relevant. The only other option is personal gnosis and flying by the seat of our pants – making it up as we go along, or doing what feels good. For me, that is to insult my ancestors, to insult the gods, and to ignore some very salient facts.
Our ancestors believed very strongly in sacrifice. It was the central part of Paganism. Without it, there was, in effect, no Paganism. So when scholars try to pretend that when an emperor banned sacrifice he was still being tolerant of Paganism, they are talking out of their asses. And blood sacrifice is the highest form of sacrifice. Yes, we can use incense, we can use cakes, we can use mead or wine or any number of other objects edible and otherwise. But blood sacrifice is special.
I realize that some people are vegetarians – and I am not going to get into an argument about the pros and cons of vegetarianism here, I am simply stating facts. But vegetarianism was not part of ancient religion. I don't know of any ancient religion that banned meat altogether, or an ancient society that believed animal products were evil. Most people had to live on vegetables except when there was a blood sacrifice and there would be meat to eat. The feast which followed the sacrifice was as sacred as the sacrifice itself.
From my point of view, if we abandon everything our ancestors did and believed, we might as well make up a religion. Oh, I don't know, say…Wicca. Wicca is a new religion. It abandons most everything the ancients did and believed. It synthesizes and "cleans up" ancient religion, promotes the goddess myth, etc, and basically, and in the opinion of many, is simply a new form of Catholicism.
I'm not saying I agree with all these complaints about Wicca, but Wicca is a NEW religion. It is not the Old Religion (as it claims). It is new. As such, it is opposed to reconstructed or revived religion. I don't care what people believe or who they worship, but let's call a spade a spade and not pretend what we're doing is 100% genuine old time religion. It's not. It can't be. But too many Wiccans think they are following genuine Pagan tradition and they're not. I've known those who do, those who are members of or leaders of Wiccan groups. Yet they've never read one single book on ancient Paganism. Not one. No clue. How can this be?
The past is relevant. No, we don't throw bodies into bogs anymore, but how is firebombing a city morally superior to human sacrifice? And even if some ancient practices are no longer relevant, that does not mean none of them are. Discount the past in its entirety and we might as well take some pantheon from a fantasy novel and turn that into our religion.
Instead, let us take what we can from the past and make it relevant for now. Revive, not reconstruct the customs and traditions of our ancestors and when we have to "invent" to fill in the blanks, let us at least make our attempts fit in the mold of the past. For example, I simply ask myself, "does this make sense in light of what I know of my ancestral customs and traditions?"
By the way, Selkie, Talgrimm, I did not mean to ignore your comments. I woke up early this morning and started reading and not being fully awake starting responding to the last post first.
I think your points are excellent ones, Selkie, and far too many modern Pagans (of all types) remain ignorant of their Pagan past. A little historical fact can be an antidote to all kinds of unusual misconceptions.
Talgrimm, I think your experience from Paganfest is a good one and I thank you for sharing it here. It's hard to imagine a Catholic with a cross with a crucified Jesus not getting some odd looks from protestants at a Pentecostal revival! Diversity is what polytheism is about. It is our strength and we should embrace it rather than dividing ourselves into little groups at odds with one another.
Granamyr, I certainly don't think anyone here has suggested that we all move out to a remote island and pretend it's the 9th century again. I think it's rather obvious that such an approach would be completely pointless.
Sena, well said. I agree that the ancient world is long gone, but that some traditions survive. In my family, we bring green branches into the house and decorate them with painted egg shells at easter. Christmas is still all about feasting, giving gifts and being with family and friends, despite a thousand years of Christianity in Denmark. My grandmmother told me the stories about elves in earthen mounds and enchanted rings. If the echoes of ancient tradition meant nothing, I suppose we should stop doing that?
The past is just that, past, but that does not mean that we grew out of nowhere. The world of our grandparents' youth is dead and gone too, but I still feel that I have something of them, that I'm part of that story. And maybe it's the same, on a much larger and more abstract scale, with ancient ancestors and history.
"But we can take from the past what is relevant."
Exactly. My argument is if a mindset, cultural or religious, isn't relevant it should be relegated to the tomb of time.
Animal sacrifice is senseless as animals do not care about our religious rites and beliefs and we have no right to force our religious beliefs onto them by killing them in ritual sacrifice.
And I think some hard recon folks *do* want to pack up and move to a remote island. In some places they're as bad as Christian fundies lamenting about the "evils" of the modern age. Yet, these same people use the products of modernity every day. It's well, sort of hypocritical in some ways.
"Animal sacrifice is senseless…"
I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point. At best, if you are vegan, then it may be senseless to you personally. To Heathendom as a whole it potentionally has significant value. It is well documented to have been relevent historically and I believe anyone who is attempting to understand that worldview needs to make an attempt to understand the meaning behind animal sacrifice in that context, whether or not they choose to add it to their praxis.
If you have never raised, cared for and then slaughtered your own livestock for your consumption, let alone with religious intent, then you do not have the experience to make a value judgement on the practice. If it is the case that you have done so and then determined it had no value, I would be very interested to hear what informed your decision.
Granamyr, of course there are people out there who actually do want to move out to some remote wilderness and try time-travel on for size. Let them. My point is that I don't think anyone presently commenting on this thread feels that urge.
"My argument is if a mindset, cultural or religious, isn't relevant it should be relegated to the tomb of time."
Well, of course. What I'm saying is that to some of us, these traditions are neither dead nor irrelevant. They've been changed through the ages and handed down to us, and we cherish them.
Well said, Sena. Blood sacrifice is quite relevant and very powerful. As Sallustius put it, prayer divorced from sacrifice is only words.
Granamyr, sacrificing animals is not forcing our religion on them. That's a rather silly notion. Refusing to sacrifice them, by the same logic, would also be forcing our religion on them. And you'd have to consider the extent to which we then force our religion on plants and insects and I have to wonder if we are living in the same universe.
Selkie, well put.
I personally think neither reconstructing the past in its entirety or inventing a new religion out of old cloth is the answer. Some things are relevant, some are not, and what fits into what category will be up to the individual. The last thing any modern Pagan should be doing is condemning other Pagans because they have a different interpretation of what's relevant today. All any person can do is avoid participation in groups whose activities are distasteful to them. There is not and cannot be any absolute judgment made as to which is the better way since the gods themselves have not addressed the matter.
That said, I would probably be more comfortable with a bunch of strict reconstructionists than a bunch of people relying entirely on personal gnosis, because the reconstructionists would have at least embraced the customs and traditions of our ancestors, even if they thought a few more were relevant than I did.
People have used religion to butcher individuals and offer them up as "worthy sacrifices" to their gods for centuries. Religion is no excuse for murder or the enslavement of others. I don't need to murder a human to understand it's wrong. Nor do I need to slaughter animals to know that they want to live and don't care how much Yahweh or Odin is pleased by the scent of their burning flesh.
Since when is *not* doing something…doing something, H? And do you really think plants are the same as a sentient animal? Please. You don't and I don't either so knock off the ridiculous comparisons.
And I want to clarify something, I'm not judging the people of old and what they did for various reasons that I'm not aware of. What I'm saying is, it's not excuse for what *we* choose to do. Whether it's animal sacrifice, human sacrifice or painting your house green because your ancestors liked it…I really think what we do should be because we too think it's a good idea and worthy and not get stuck doing things just because. And if we don't agree with the ancestors and don't like it…hey, personal gnosis works just fine for this woman. Hope that makes sense. (:
Granamyr, you said something utterly ridiculous and I'm just showing you how ridiculous it is – forcing our religion on animals. All nature is sacred. ALL. Plants, animals, all of it. We treat it all with regard. Pagans would perform a ritual before cutting down trees. They would ask forgiveness of an animal before killing it, or thanking it for its sacrifice. You, on the other hand, are putting animals on a ranking with humans while entirely discounting the rest of nature, or so it seems.
You are working from the assumption that meat and blood are evil. You won't find any sympathy here for that position. They're not. I don't need "excuses" to endorse blood sacrifice. You're making value judgments, Gran. Even though you say you're not condemning, your language says otherwise. If you don't like it, don't do it, but this is not the forum for you to lecture me or others on its supposed evils.