Questioning the Secularization Theleology: Zalmoxianism and the Re-Enchantment of the World

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The theoretical background could be tied more closely to the discussion. Now some concepts raised in the beginning, such as invisible religion”, “sacred cosmos”, “patchwork-religion”, are not sufficiently returned to. The work is contextualized within the framework of history of religion but additional references to the more recent studies of neo-Paganism could be made.

Author presents the research data and methods for collecting the data but the article would benefit from a more structured analyses of the interview data. I understand that presenting the data is not the central part of the article but it would be beneficial for the reader to see a clearer connection between the research questions, data and conclusions. For example, was there a difference in the viewpoints of people from the three different neo-Pagan groups.

This paper has potential to contribute on the academic discussion on neo-Pagans and counter-secularization but it should first be revised to make the content clearer. The author could re-consider which are his/her most central concepts and also highlight the point s/he wants to make. The the data could be presented in a way that would bring it more to the centre of the article instead of just using some references to the interviews. In discussion the central concepts could be used more clearly to discuss the findings from the data.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time, consideration and expertise!

Please see below my replies to your suggestions for improving the article and to your constructive criticism:

1. The theoretical background could be tied more closely to the discussion.

Thank you for this comment; I totally agree that the theoretical background needs to be recalibrated. I think that I gave so much attention to it as a response to the dominant paradigm in my university, in which total societal secularization is seen and presented as both inevitable and unescapable. In the latest version of the manuscript, you will find a shortened and refocused theoretical infrastructure.

2. Now some concepts raised in the beginning, such as “invisible religion”, “sacred cosmos”, “patchwork-religion”, are not sufficiently returned to.

Thank you for this comment! In the first part of the paper, I am focusing more on the structural societal changes that made it possible for particular individuals/spiritual communities to articulate their own religious/spiritual worldview, selecting and recombining religious motifs belonging to various pantheons, spiritual traditions and sometimes opposing religious narratives. Afterwards, I have given ethnographic substance to all these concepts – please see the newly added section in which I outline the way Zalmoxianism is defined and redefined by its members.

3. The work is contextualized within the framework of history of religion but additional references to the more recent studies of neo-Paganism could be made.

Thank you for your comment! Indeed, the literature references I am using are not the most recent ones, but I do have an explanation for this selection: as I am new to the socio-anthropological study of Neo-paganism, I aimed towards learning the ABCs within the field, therefore I went back to some of the first attempts to (1) the way modernity manifests itself in the field of religion and (2) to describe and explain revivals of ancient pagan traditions. But you are completely right, I should have integrated more recent studies on the subject matter. I have consulted and used the following new references; please note that I do not aim to make a cultural comparison between neo-pagan traditions in different geographies):

1. Weidner Maluf, S. (2019). Neo-paganism. In Gooren, H. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Latin American Religions. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-27078-4_48.
2. Resner, B., Tiidenberg, K. (2020). Witches on Facebook: Mediatization of Neo-Paganism. In Social Media + Society, (2020): I-II. DOI: 1177/205630512098514.
3. Berger, H. A. (2019). Solitary Pagans: Contemporary Witches, Wiccans, and Others Who Practice Alone. University of South Carolina Press.
4. Rountree, K. (Ed.). (2017). Cosmopolitanism, Nationalism, and Modern Paganism. Palgrave Macmillan.
5. Magliocco, S. (2015). New Age and Neopagan Magic. In Collins, D. J. The Cambridge History of Magic and Witchcraft in the West from Antiquity to the Present. Cambridge University Press, pp. 665 – 770. Doi: DOI: 0.1017/CHO9781139043021.0286.
6. Redden, G. Religion, Cultural studies and New Age Sacralization of Everyday Life. In European Journal of Cultural Studies, 14(6) 649–663. DOI: 10.1177/13675494114199777.
7. Palaga, C. (2016). The Quest for the Spiritual Self: Anti-Capitalist and Neo-Liberal Forms of Spirituality in Contemporary Romania. In Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Sociologia 61(2), 97-124. DOI: 10.1515/subbs-2016-001.
8. Gog, S. (2016). Alternative Forms of Spirituality and the Socialization of a Self-Enhancing Subjectivity: Features of the Post-Secular Religious Space in Contemporary Romania. In Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Sociologia, 61(2), 97-124. DOI: 10.1515/subbs-2016-001.
9. Gog, S. (2007). The Construction of the Religious Space in Post-Socialist Romania. In Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 5(15):37-53.
10. Rusu, M.S. (2014). (Hi)story-telling the Nation: The Narrative Construction of Romanianism in the Late 19^th Century. In Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology, 5(1): 97-116.
11. Tomiță, A. (2017). O istorie „glorioasă”. Dosarul protocronismului românesc. București: Polirom [trad. RO>EN A “glorious” History. The File of the Romanian Protochronism].
12.  
13. 4. Author presents the research data and methods for collecting the data but the article would benefit from a more structured analyses of the interview data. I understand that presenting the data is not the central part of the article but it would be beneficial for the reader to see a clearer connection between the research questions, data and conclusions. For example, was there a difference in the viewpoints of people from the three different neo-Pagan groups.

Thank you for this spot-on suggestion! Again, I agree that in the previous version of the paper I focused obsessively on presenting the “genealogy” of secularization and discussing how religion within high/late modernity is quite different from the way modern sociological thought (Comtean, Weberian, Durkheimian and Marxist) had predicted it would look like.

I also understood that making a comparison between all the three neo-Pagan communities I found and documented in Romania (Zalmoxian, Wicca and Asatru), beyond their evident communalities, is a task I cannot handle at this time. Therefore, I decided to start a series of articles in which I will tackle them individually. For the time being, I redefined the purpose of this paper: bringing forth to the academic community the way Zalmoxian neo-Paganism is constructed and the way this tradition articulates more than spiritual practices for its members, promoting nationalistic and sometimes radical xenophobic politics.

5. This paper has potential to contribute on the academic discussion on neo-Pagans and counter-secularization but it should first be revised to make the content clearer. The author could re-consider which are his/her most central concepts and also highlight the point s/he wants to make. The data could be presented in a way that would bring it more to the centre of the article instead of just using some references to the interviews. In discussion the central concepts could be used more clearly to discuss the findings from the data.

Thank you for the vote of confidence! I do hope that recalibrating the theoretical framework and focusing more on Zalmoxianism rather than doing an incomplete comparison between Zalmoxian neo-Paganism, Wicca and Asatru in Romania will be beneficial to the paper and will bring forth new hues in the study of neo-Paganism and counter-secularization studies. Regardless of your decision, please know that the way you have challenged my ideas has proven very helpful and useful to me in assessing all potential directions for this work. Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I find the subject of the article – to compare different branches of Romanian paganism by deep interviews – very interesting, it has a great potential, and it is certainly very valuable study to the international scholarly audience. However, I also find that the current version of the paper needs clearer focus and this article needs to be rearranged. The overall impression of the article is that it’s a grand introduction into a topic that is actually never reached in the article. This leads also to my first critical point – the article is very focused on theory whereas the claims are not supported by empirical data. Moreover, most of the authors referred to in the theory part are out-of date and rather old-fashioned. I would recommend limiting the theory part to no more than a page and use the rest of the article to describe these in-depth interviews and to give also some wider background to the paganism in Romania. How many members do these organisations have? Does the rest of the population of the country support pagans or do they have rather neutral/negative attitude? This would all be necessary to give readers from abroad better context.

In the current version of the paper it is not clear what exactly was the purpose of this article. In some places it seems that the purpose was to say that paganism appears in the modern and secular world emphasising individual forms of religion. There are some claims that I cannot agree with. It starts already with the terminology – I’m not convinced that all three forms of religion (Zalmoxianism, Asatru and Wicca) can be labelled as (neo)pagan. More suitably Wicca would be contemporary pagan, while Zalmoxianism would be accurate to describe as ethnic pagansim/reconstructionalism and the Asatru as reconstructionalism. In developing this manuscript further, I would recommend the author to reconsider how to understand the concept of “(neo)paganism” and to describe more what is common for all these three religions and what is different. This would lead also to more appropriate academic term and I rather doubt that they fit under one label. In lines 42-43 there is a list on paganisms presented as a full list, although paganism is much more variable, including some more ethnic branches of pagans but also more universal movements

The claim that pagan beliefs appear in modern (or postmodern?) world has been set already before. I find that if this question is important for the author it has to be addressed by wider set of sources and instead of pagan branches, various spiritual and esoteric movements could be better illustrations here. The rise of such private and personal religions is better represented by the “fuzzy spirituality” of not institutionalised organisations rather than pagans.

I’m also not convinced that the rising importance of paganism is a sign of secularism. Secularism, meaning disassociation or separation from religious spheres, does not mean paganism. If only, then in context where religion equalises institutionalised Christianity. But I believe this was not the intention of the author. Instead of secularisation the concept of glocalisation together with “indigenization of modernity” would be more fruitful keywords to study recent developments of paganism.

As a result, I suggest refocusing this article and not to discuss so much theoretical issues but to address more empirical questions, which would also be of interest to broader audience. Answers from lines 248-289 alone provide very interesting topics. Author should also mention where and how interviews are stored and if anyone else has access to these interviews. But more particular questions should be addressed: why is Asatru in Romania (where it has no ethnic, linguistic or any other link to Balkan culture)? What is similar for Zalmoxianism, Asatru and wicca and what makes them different? What are the motivations for people to join any of these movements? What is the position of nationality? Nature? And I’m sure there are many more interesting and valuable subjects that the international audience is interested in.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time, consideration and expertise!

Please see below my replies to your suggestions for improving the article and to your constructive criticism:

1. I find the subject of the article – to compare different branches of Romanian paganism by deep interviews – very interesting, it has a great potential, and it is certainly very valuable study to the international scholarly audience. However, I also find that the current version of the paper needs clearer focus and this article needs to be rearranged. The overall impression of the article is that it’s a grand introduction into a topic that is actually never reached in the article. This leads also to my first critical point – the article is very focused on theory whereas the claims are not supported by empirical data.

Thank you so much for your vote of confidence! I totally agree that the theoretical background needs to be recalibrated. I think that I gave so much attention to it as a response to the dominant paradigm in my university, in which total societal secularization is seen and presented as both inevitable and unescapable. In the latest version of the manuscript, you will find a shortened and refocused theoretical infrastructure. In the first part of the paper, I am focusing more on the structural societal changes that made it possible for particular individuals/spiritual communities to articulate their own religious/spiritual worldview, selecting and recombining religious motifs belonging to various pantheons, spiritual traditions and sometimes opposing religious narratives. Afterwards, I am giving ethnographic substance to all these concepts – please see the newly added section in which I outline the way Zalmoxianism is defined and redefined by its members.

2. Moreover, most of the authors referred to in the theory part are out-of-date and rather old-fashioned. I would recommend limiting the theory part to no more than a page and use the rest of the article to describe these in-depth interviews and to give also some wider background to the paganism in Romania. How many members do these organisations have? Does the rest of the population of the country support pagans or do they have rather neutral/negative attitude? This would all be necessary to give readers from abroad better context.

AND

3. I suggest refocusing this article and not to discuss so much theoretical issues but to address more empirical questions, which would also be of interest to broader audience. Answers from lines 248-289 alone provide very interesting topics. Author should also mention where and how interviews are stored and if anyone else has access to these interviews. But more particular questions should be addressed: why is Asatru in Romania (where it has no ethnic, linguistic or any other link to Balkan culture)? What is similar for Zalmoxianism, Asatru and wicca and what makes them different? What are the motivations for people to join any of these movements? What is the position of nationality? Nature? And I’m sure there are many more interesting and valuable subjects that the international audience is interested in

Thank you for your comment! Indeed, the literature references I am using are not the most recent ones, but I do have an explanation for this selection: as I am new to the socio-anthropological study of Neo-paganism, I aimed towards learning the ABCs within the field, therefore I went back to some of the first attempts to (1) the way modernity manifests itself in the field of religion and (2) to describe and explain revivals of ancient pagan traditions. But you are completely right, I should have integrated more recent studies on the subject matter. I have consulted and used the following new references; please note that I do not aim to make a cultural comparison between neo-pagan traditions in different geographies):

1. Weidner Maluf, S. (2019). Neo-paganism. In Gooren, H. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Latin American Religions. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-27078-4_48.
2. Resner, B., Tiidenberg, K. (2020). Witches on Facebook: Mediatization of Neo-Paganism. In Social media + Society, (2020): I-II. DOI: 1177/205630512098514.
3. Berger, H. A. (2019). Solitary Pagans: Contemporary Witches, Wiccans, and Others Who Practice Alone. University of South Carolina Press.
4. Rountree, K. (Ed.). (2017). Cosmopolitanism, Nationalism, and Modern Paganism. Palgrave Macmillan.
5. Magliocco, S. (2015). New Age and Neopagan Magic. In Collins, D. J. The Cambridge History of Magic and Witchcraft in the West from Antiquity to the Present. Cambridge University Press, pp. 665 – 770. Doi: DOI: 0.1017/CHO9781139043021.0286.
6. Redden, G. Religion, Cultural studies and New Age Sacralization of Everyday Life. In European Journal of Cultural Studies, 14(6) 649–663. DOI: 10.1177/13675494114199777.
7. Palaga, C. (2016). The Quest for the Spiritual Self: Anti-Capitalist and Neo-Liberal Forms of Spirituality in Contemporary Romania. In Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Sociologia 61(2), 97-124. DOI: 10.1515/subbs-2016-001.
8. Gog, S. (2016). Alternative Forms of Spirituality and the Socialization of a Self-Enhancing Subjectivity: Features of the Post-Secular Religious Space in Contemporary Romania. In Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Sociologia, 61(2), 97-124. DOI: 10.1515/subbs-2016-001.
9. Gog, S. (2007). The Construction of the Religious Space in Post-Socialist Romania. In Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 5(15):37-53.
10. Rusu, M.S. (2014). (Hi)story-telling the Nation: The Narrative Construction of Romanianism in the Late 19^th Century. In Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology, 5(1): 97-116.
11. Tomiță, A. (2017). O istorie „glorioasă”. Dosarul protocronismului românesc. București: Polirom [trad. RO>EN A “glorious” History. The File of the Romanian Protochronism].

Again, I agree that in the previous version of the paper I focused obsessively on presenting the “genealogy” of secularization and discussing how religion within high/late modernity is quite different from the way modern sociological thought (Comtean, Weberian, Durkheimian and Marxist) had predicted it would look like. I also understood that making a comparison between all the three neo-Pagan communities I found and documented in Romania (Zalmoxian, Wicca and Asatru), beyond their evident communalities, is a task I cannot handle at this time. Therefore, I decided to start a series of articles in which I will tackle them individually. For the time being, I redefined the purpose of this paper: bringing forth to the academic community the way Zalmoxian neo-Paganism is constructed and the way this tradition articulates more than spiritual practices for its members, promoting nationalistic and sometimes radical xenophobic politics. I do hope that recalibrating the theoretical framework and focusing more on Zalmoxianism rather than doing an incomplete comparison between Zalmoxian neo-Paganism, Wicca and Asatru in Romania will be beneficial to the paper and will bring forth new hues in the study of neo-Paganism and counter-secularization studies.

4. In the current version of the paper it is not clear what exactly was the purpose of this article. In some places it seems that the purpose was to say that paganism appears in the modern and secular world emphasising individual forms of religion.
5. I’m also not convinced that the rising importance of paganism is a sign of secularism. Secularism, meaning disassociation or separation from religious spheres, does not mean paganism. If only, then in context where religion equalises institutionalised Christianity. But I believe this was not the intention of the author. Instead of secularisation the concept of glocalisation together with “indigenization of modernity” would be more fruitful keywords to study recent developments of paganism.

            The purpose of the article is two-folded: first, to debunk the teleology of the societal secularization process, according to which not only that religion will lose its social relevance, but individuals themselves would not need to create or negotiate transcendent/spiritual/religious worldviews, as they will be completely disenchanted, to use Weber’s metaphor, relying solely on rationality and evidence-based behavioural strategies. Individuals, even more than before, as society becomes highly individualistic and alienating, need to give some sort of significance to their lives, feeling that they are part of something more than the contingent order of things. But to understand these new dynamics, of “fuzzy spirituality”, “patchwork religion”, “cafeteria religion” or “invisible religion”, one needs to first question what changed in society at large, allowing the advent of such individualised spiritual narratives. Before modern times, i.e., before societal secularization, people needed to stick to the unique truth proposed and (sometimes cruelly) reinforced by the institutionalized Christian religion. I just remembered of a splendid book written by Carlo Ginzburg, called “The Cheese and the Worms”, presenting the microhistory of Menochio, a peasant that had his own naturalistic view on how God created and presided over the world. Due to his outspoken beliefs, he was declared a heretic, he was tried and burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Inquisition. So, what changed in society meanwhile? Why are we now allowed to create our own universes of signification nowadays? Well, I think this is possible because of secularization – the process through which the one, correct, religious narrative loses credibility. Also, I think that neo-Paganism is fundamentally different from other forms of New-Age, universalistic “fuzzy” spiritualities, as its members make real efforts to institutionalize or “officialise” their religion, to legitimize their religious practices in the eyes of mainstream society.

6. There are some claims that I cannot agree with. It starts already with the terminology – I’m not convinced that all three forms of religion (Zalmoxianism, Asatru and Wicca) can be labelled as (neo)pagan. More suitably Wicca would be contemporary pagan, while Zalmoxianism would be accurate to describe as ethnic paganism/reconstructionalism and the Asatru as reconstructionalism. In developing this manuscript further, I would recommend the author to reconsider how to understand the concept of “(neo)paganism” and to describe more what is common for all these three religions and what is different. This would lead also to more appropriate academic term and I rather doubt that they fit under one label. In lines 42-43 there is a list on paganisms presented as a full list, although paganism is much more variable, including some more ethnic branches of pagans but also more universal movements.

Thank you so much for bringing this into discussion! I added a new section discussing the “neo-Pagan” etiquette and when it could be used, according to the subjects I interviewed. For example, Zalmoxians could not bare the “neo-” prefix, as they will that is nothing new to their beliefs, which were always there, slightly disguised in popular Christian beliefs. They also deny the reconstructionist side of their practises. „Neo-Zalmoxianism, as a spiritual imaginary, doesn’t need to be founded or induced, but should rather be conceptualized and structured through hermeneutics applied to popular tradition. Any person that is aware of the value of the Romanian spiritual ethos can contribute to such a project.”, states Octavian Sărbătoare,the main theoretician and promoter of the movement, in an ample interview titled „The Romanian was born Zalmoxian”. Opposed to the Zalmoxians, the Asatru members I talked to take pride in the “Neo-pagan” label; The pride of being a pagan is similar to that of belonging to certain ancient and primal cultural traditions. The pagan (neo-pagan) reevaluates a shameful label, bestowing power and pride onto it.

Regardless of your decision, please know that the way you have challenged my ideas has proven very helpful and useful to me in assessing all potential directions for this work. Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has benefited from tying it to a specific pagan movement - Zalmoxianism. This makes the theoretical discussion more concrete and gives it credibility. The background of the data is now presented in a more nuanced way. I would still be interested to hear why did all the interviewees hold a university degree? Is this usual among the practitioners or due to the way how the data was collected? At the end, the findings of the study could be tied more inclusively to the discussion. No the data and discussion are somewhat separate.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time, consideration and expertise!

Please see below my replies:

1. I would still be interested to hear why did all the interviewees hold a university degree? Is this usual among the practitioners or due to the way how the data was collected?

I was also intrigued about the fact that all the Zalmoxians I met / interviewed during the fieldwork had this socio-demographic commonality: higher education. This would make me think that maybe we can establish some sort of correlation between the need of de-constructing the mainstream religious status quo and a certain level of education/class habitus. But at this point, this remains just a hunch. To prove it, I would need to construct a statistically representative sample of subjects. One thing is certain though: (re)interpretating existing religious or secular traditions requires analytical skills, as it involves both a re-evaluation and a reconciliation of competing worldviews in an already fragmented, individualistic, non-cohesive and unjust society.

2. At the end, the findings of the study could be tied more inclusively to the discussion. Now the data and discussion are somewhat separate.

Thank you for this suggestion. However, due to the fact that I restrained the theoretical infrastructure so much compared to the previous version of the paper, I find it important to give some textual space to a phenomenological interpretation of this re-emergence/reconstruction of ancient beliefs.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Your amended version of article made your claims much more clear and reliable. Looking forward to read the final version of this paper!

Author Response

Thank you for the vote of confidence! I do hope that recalibrating the theoretical framework and focusing more on Zalmoxianism rather than doing an incomplete comparison between Zalmoxian neo-Paganism, Wicca and Asatru in Romania was beneficial to the paper and will bring forth new hues in the study of neo-Paganism and counter-secularization studies. Once more, please know that the way you have challenged my ideas has proven very helpful and useful to me in assessing all potential directions for this work. Thank you!