words matter. they serve as identifiers and carry with them a host of associations and dependencies that make communication possible. stretch their meaning too far too quickly, and they become useless as linguistic tools, since the common associations to which we can all identify are broken and are no longer common. words should be chosen carefully, with an eye toward being as specific as possible while still being appropriate for the particular audience.

the flip-side of being too broad and watered-down with terminology is just as problematic. words evolve in common usage over time. new layers of meaning and new associations become part of the connotation of a word as that word ages and gains a broader user base. denying that a word can change over time and insisting upon very strict or outdated meaning is self-defeating – just as with an overly broad usage, insisting on strict, archaic usage that is no longer commonly recognized also breaks the usefulness of the word.

and so you’ve got the argument over the word ‘wicca’. originally it meant something very specific. over time, with a broadening usage base, the meaning has evolved to include more then what it originally meant. some rail against the evolution of the word and fight tooth and nail to keep its ‘purity’… (those folks are destined for irrelevancy). others take it so far that, to them, everything and the kitchen sink is now wicca… (those folks are destined for perpetual incoherence).

the way i see it, the best path for avoiding either extreme (perhaps the ‘middle way’…)  is to be specific where appropriate. if addressing an audience of wiccans, it is more effective to identify oneself as trad wiccan or eclectic wiccan as opposed to just wiccan. if addressing a group of plumbers, on the other hand, well, maybe using ‘wiccan’ without any clarification is sufficient.

in the states, the early way of looking at things was to consider the terms ‘wicca’ and ‘witchcraft’ as synonymous. so back in the ’70′s groups like the american council of ‘witches’ put out documents like the thirteen principles of ‘wiccan’ belief. that has changed – the terms are no longer used interchangeably. secondly, the idea of btw (british traditional wicca) as used in a contemporary manner serves to provide distinction between the eclectic flavor of wicca and the original forms that were imported across the pond and trace their lines right back to gardner. this makes more sense looking at it from an american point of view… english folk wouldn’t really need this kind of distinction anyway, they would have the cultural reference to distinguish pre- and post- gardnerian witchcraft, where ‘murkans wouldn’t.

so the idea of ‘wicca’ vs. ‘witchcraft’ still rages on, along with the notion that RealWicca™ is limited to the lineaged brit trads.  which can cause a bit of pushback where us eclectics try to dismiss the very idea of lineage within the framework of wicca… to that, i shout ‘SILLINESS!’  lineage is an element of our faith… even if its not an element that we personally incorporate into our practice. for an eclectic wiccan to deny that it bears any relevance to the wiccan experience is just factually incorrect. your history is your history, and like it or not, it is what it is. trying to ‘spin’ your roots more to your liking is one thing… but outright rejecting the very people who created what you are trying to embrace and its earliest forms is counterproductive and dishonest.

(photos are of gerald gardner, doreen valiente, and alex sanders – and them folks are important for every wiccan to know… btw or not.)

-justin