Reconstructionist Paganism
I've mentioned reconstructionist paganism various times throughout the pages of my website and I figured I'd take the time to explain it. I feel like reconstructionists sometimes have a bit of a negative reputation and I honestly think it's entirely undeserved. Usually I can empathize with the other side and understand their perspective, but it really does feel like the issue is that reconstructionists have a different approach and people are mad about it.
I think Morgan Daimler wrote a good summary in their Pagan Portals book "Irish Paganism: Reconstructing Irish Polytheism", so I'm going to be using that as a reference.
What is Reconstructionism?
Reconstructionism, in this context, is an approach to paganism where the practitioner uses (typically) academic sources covering topics like archaeology, folklore, history, et cetera to reconstruct ancient beliefs and religious practices to resemble what they most likely would have looked like in the past. These ancient practices would then be adapted for modern life. I'll directly quote Daimler here, "reconstruction is understanding the old pagan religion so that we can envision what it would have been like if it had never been interrupted by foreign influences and had continued to exist until today".
I don't love the part about foreign influence, since many ancient cultures came into contact with their neighbors and foreign influence isn't always a bad thing (unless you're xenophobic or those outsiders are actively colonizing you and taking your stuff, I suppose) and I don’t generally agree with reconstruction trying to predict what these ancient religions would have been like had they existed into the modern day -- because Christianity (et al) would have still existed, even if it didn't replace these religions and it is impossible to predict what endless outcomes could have resulted otherwise. But it's a good way to understand it if you're new to the concept.
Reconstructionism can also be applied to witchcraft and other spiritual practices as well, I'm just focusing on paganism since that's usually the context I'm bringing it up in.
Common Misconceptions
I will be referencing Morgan Daimler's list of myths about reconstructionism/reconstructionists for this section as well, but the explanations will be my own. These are ordered by which ones I find the most annoying.
Myth #1: "Reconstructionists are mean bullies"
Reconstructionists are about as mean as the average person. I agree with Daimler's perspective on the cause of this being a difference in communication styles. Reconstructionists, in my experience (and Daimler's, apparently) tend to be more straightforward and more open to discussing the validity/accuracy of claims and ideas made by other people. Non-reconstructionists tend to prefer being friendly and indirect with criticisms. I'll give an example, loosely based on experiences I've had with both groups.
Let's say there's a post going around about Aphrodite, aimed at a general audience with information that should be considered broadly applicable. The post lists her holidays and epithets, but also includes color correspondences and a claim of her historically being associated with bees. A Hellenic reconstructionist would see this and say "color associations aren't something that was done in ancient Greece and Aphrodite was never historically associated with bees". A reconstructionist would understand this to mean exactly what it says. The colors and bee association are not historical, they're personal to the person posting it.
A non-reconstructionist pagan might see this post and the addition from the Hellenic reconstructionist and assume that the reconstructionist is being mean or rude, rather than just stating "that isn't historically attested". In a lot of non-reconstructionist spaces, in my experience, telling people something isn't accurate is often misunderstood by people to basically be "you are practicing incorrectly and you are a bad person and should change what you're doing". At the very least, I am met with that response a lot, even if I share their UPG or perspective. I can imagine if you're used to just saying stuff and having people say "Oh, that's a valid thing to associate with her! Thank you so much for your post, it's always nice to see more people talking about Aphrodite!", it probably does come off as hostility when somebody says something like "that information is not correctly attributed, it isn't historically accurate, it is a matter of personal opinion".
Myth #2: "Reconstructionists hate UPG!"
Reconstructionists have unverified personal gnosis just like every other pagan. The difference, I think, is just the relationship recons have to UPG. Basically, I think most information on deities you'll find online is pieced together with old information that was unattributed UPG with the author's UPG added to it and maybe a few historical tidbits thrown in. Reconstructionists will either not share UPG in informational posts, or will clearly label it. Reconstructionists would put more focus on the historical information, since that is broadly applicable, then the UPG will be secondary to that.
This does not, however, mean that UPG is secondary to historically attested information in personal practice. Personal experiences tend to dictate how people honor their deities more than historical information does. The historical information is a starting point, not an ending one. UPG is necessary for filling in the gaps. But it is, first and foremost, personal.
Myth #3: "Reconstructionists are just trying to pretend like they're ancient people, it's LARPing"
A common thing that is said about reconstructionists is that we're reactionary conservatives who want to go back to some time we percieve as being better by rejecting modernity and embracing doing human sacrifice and subjugating women. "Some things are better left in the past!" is what they say as an argument, like that is not something reconstructionists would agree with. When we say we want to reconstruct ancient practices, we mean something like celebrating modified versions of historical festivals at approximately the right time of the year, not sacrificing prisoners of war to the tribal warrior god.
Myth #4: "Reconstructionists are armchair pagans!"
I, again, share Daimler's experiences here: reconstructionist pagans tend to be hesitant to share their actual practices when discussing paganism, but it's not because we aren't doing anything. I know, personally, I don't discuss my practice in detail because I don't want what I do to have unnecessary influence on what other people do (if somebody asks, that's a whole other thing) and because it's...well, it's personal. There's something that feels very vulnerable about sharing something as intimate as spiritual practices. But I think the influence thing is why most reconstructionists are a bit tight lipped about their actual practice. If you keep sharing both historical information and UPG, people might start getting the two mixed up. It happens anyway, I'm often asking my partner if something I remembered was historical or just common misinfo or common UPG (or SPG, shared personal gnosis). I, and many other reconstructionists, don't share much (if any) of our practice online, but...I mean, I also don't talk about every meal I've eaten online either, but it's probably safe to assume I eat, right? It's hard to be a pagan if you don't "do" paganism, reconstructionist or otherwise.
How & Why are People Reconstructionists?
Contrary to popular belief, there's actually a lot of ways to be a reconstructionist and lots of reasons why people are reconstructionists.
To address the "how", the best starting point would be to read an encyclopedia article on your chosen culture/pantheon and see what other concepts and topics come up. Then, look into the topics you find. Kind of like researching in general. I think the most spoiled pagans on the planet, aside from eclectic pagans and Wiccans (since they can essentially do whatever they want), are Hellenic (Greek), Roman and Kemetic (Egyptian) pagans. There's plenty out there to build off of. I might want to go more in depth on this at a later date, because I think there's some key information that reconstructionist pagans need to know to even begin to build a practice, but it isn't really relevant to a "what is this?" type page. Y'know what I mean?
Basically, read. I recommend making note of anything interesting or useful you come across. The "armchair pagan" stereotype did come from somewhere, and it's because reconstructionists are always reading.
For the why, I can only really speak from my perspective here. I might update this section after getting more opinions. The reason why I, personally, am a reconstructionist is because we can learn a lot from history. It's reassuring to know that other people already honored the same deities and knew how to connect with them and that, in some cases at least, that information is available for us to adapt in the modern age. It also shows, in my experience, that you are making an effort to truly know your deities and understand their cultural background. Giving a historically attested offering feels like giving a gift you already knew somebody wanted, but of course you can infer other interests from that (more modern ones, perhaps). It feels more meaningful to me.
Further Comments
Reconstructionism is just one of many approaches out there. Just because I speak highly of reconstructionism as a methodology does not mean that I think everybody who doesn't do reconstructionism is an idiot with a disrespectful practice that is inferior, or however else people discuss reconstructionists. Reconstructionism is right for me (and many others), but is not right for everyone. And that's okay! It doesn't need to be!