Neoyazychestvo or Rodnoverie?
Reflection, Ethics and the Ideal of Religious Tolerance in the Study of Religion

Aitamurto K.
Aleksanteri Institute / University of Helsinki

Rodnoverie is the name that modern adherents of pre-Christian Slavic spirituality use for their religion. However, among Russian scholars the term used is «neoyazychestvo» (Neopaganism). Rodnoverie does indeed belong to a larger group of religions called Paganisms in international research, and the word «neoyazychestvo» may seem more informative than the less well known «Rodnoverie». Nevertheless, there are solid grounds for preferring believers’ own terminology in scholarly study. The question of the name of the Rodnoverie serves both as the starting point of my article and as an example of my focus, which is on questions of reflection and ethics in research. My argument is that the choice of term reflects both the underlying the theoretical vantage point of the research as well as general commitments to views of religions. These issues of reflexivity and ethics have been a central cause of controversy from the beginning of scholarly study of religion, one reason being that they relate to bigger questions such as what is the proper subject of the study of religion? What are the limits of the questions research can pose? What is the role of the discipline in public discussions of religion?
I will begin by recounting some of the most influential approaches and points of controversy within the study of religion. Religion can be examined from a number of vantage points. Dissemination of understanding and religious tolerance is a goal aspired to by many scholars in their research, but religions can also be approached more critically. However, there are some ethical considerations that should not be ignored. My argument is, that the meta-theoretical discussion is vital within the discipline because it helps to establish some common rules that should be applied in research into religions. Such discussion is also beneficial in revealing underlying assumptions and in evaluating their agendas. At the end of the article I return to the question of the name Rodnoverie. I propose that the word Rodnoverie can be seen as the more ethical choice because the believers themselves view neoyazychestvo as insulting. Second, I argue that Rodnoverie is more accurate because it reveals how believers conceptualize their religion – that it is Rodnoverie, rodnaya vera (Native faith).

Approaches to religion and its study

The scholarly study of religion is an exceptional discipline, because it has no methodology of its own, but instead, depending on the subject and the question proposed, relies on other disciplines. As an independent discipline, it is relatively young and still in search of its place and legitimation. The scholarly study of religion originated from an urge to discuss religions «objectively», from the outside. Most textbooks on the discipline propose that the study of religion is not a normative science. Consequently, scholars of religion do not pass judgment on or even consider the validity of religious truths. This principle partly reflects an urge to distinguish the discipline from traditional theology, but it can also be seen as containing an ethical dimension – to avoid evaluating different religious beliefs. However, separation of ontological questions from interpretation is not always unambiguous. Positioning oneself outside religion and writing explanations for religious experiences and convictions may imply more or less directly that the religion’s own truth is either false or insufficient.
The theories that tend to explain religion, to reduce it to some other areas are called reductionist. The term «reduction» is, from a scientific point of view, quite neutral. Nevertheless, reductionist theories have been criticised for limited or even hostile attitudes towards religions. The purest or most extreme examples of the reductionist approach can be found among such early writers as Freud and his psychological explanation of religion, and Marx and the perception of religion as a reflection of society’s economic and political structure. The approach that has been conceived as representing the clearest anti-reductionism stance within the discipline is the phenomenological study of religion. The phenomenology of religion derives from philosophical phenomenology. It perceives phenomenon as sui generis, a distinct category that cannot be reduced to any other domain and should be studied in these terms. Given that according to phenomenologists, religion cannot be reduced to some other cultural practices, no one should try to explain religion, rather the goal of its study is to understand religion and transmit this understanding. Phenomenology itself does not take a stand on ontological questions. Thus, even though according to phenomenology, for example, the sacred is of understood as a distinct category irreducible to any other category, this does not mean that scholars must confine themselves to claims of its actual existence. However, the approach of some, especially early, phenomenologists was very religious, which later distorted the picture of the tradition somewhat. The key and the precondition for understanding religion was for both Mircea Eliade and Rudolf Otto scholar’s own innate nature as homo religious. Thereby they actually questioned atheist scholars’ capacities to assess religion. Both reductionist and sui generis approaches in their strictest sense have proven to be vulnerable to criticism. Even though the basic divide still dwells in the study of religions, indeed manifesting itself occasionally in heated debates, the majority of scholars nowadays fall somewhere between these poles. Furthermore, it should be noted that such crude sketches as mine above do not do justice to the complex theoretical variances within the approaches or traditions of the study of religion. The controversy between explaining and understanding still persists the study of religion, but in fact these boundaries have been blurred, both in empirical studies and in theoretical discussions. [1]
In order to clarify questions of criticism and ethics, it is necessary to return to the criticism made against «understanding» as a method and as an aim of the study of religion. To recount the debates around the phenomenology of religion is beyond the scope of this article, so I will focus here on issues relevant to my question. From a societal point of view the phenomenology of religion has been criticised for inhibiting criticism and thus also inevitably for contributing to the maintenance of the cultural and societal status quo. The emphasis on the phenomenological approach has even been claimed to be the reason why the study of religion has a relatively limited role in the general intellectual discussion of religion. Russel T. McCutcheon writes:
«Conceived essentially as an exercise either in nuanced description or reflexive autobiography, the study of religion has rarely amounted to more than a reporter repeating the insider’s unsubstantiated claims (all the while invoking methodological agnosticism as their justification for doing so). Such scholars must inevitably remain silent when it comes to matters of explanation or analysis. When it comes to deciding whether and to what extent religious positions that claim ahistorical authority, wisdom, and direction are useful in charting the course of a public school curriculum, a welfare agency, or even a policy for war, such translators have no voice and little, if anything, to add.». [2, 449]
The point McCutcheon makes is vital for the study of religion. However, the blame cannot be put on the phenomenology of religion per se. Even though many phenomenologists have perceived themselves more as translators of another (religious) language or experience – which of course is not a task that should be scorned – and many have considered criticism of religions to be an enterprise counter to the discipline’s own principles, the phenomenology of religion as such does not necessarily exclude critical reflection. The last part of the hermeneutic circle is to distance oneself, in Réne Gothóni’s terms, from «cultivating discernment». Recently, some forms of hermeneutics have actually come closer to the critical study of religion. One of the most influential modern hermeneutic scholars, Paul Ricoeur, holds views strongly influenced both by Hans-Georg Gadamer and his critic Jürgen Habermas. Ricoeur’s «hermeneutics of suspicion» as a tool for analysing religious language critically, yet without succumbing to superficial reductionism and unethical contempt has further been elaborated, for example, by Morny Joy. [3]
On closer analysis it often becomes evident that when scholars get involved in seemingly purely theoretical discussions of how religion should be conceived or treated, they often have in mind some particular religion or form of religiosity. The same mindset applies as well to Christian scholars opposing atheism in the scholarly study of religion – the reductionists challenging mainstream religions which are seen as reactionary political forces – and to scholars engaged, often on a very personal level, in some marginal or unprivileged religion. Scholars who deal with the same issues on a more abstract theoretical level, or who study more impersonal institutions or religious texts have tended to be less interested in ethical concerns than scholars engaged in actual fieldwork, who thus have direct contact with the people whose religiosity they are analysing. If the earlier discussion can be perceived to be polarised around sociologists and phenomenologists, the most recent contributions to this debate, which have raised the ethical concerns its centre, have come from anthropology.
One of the most prominent features of anthropological discussion after the Second World War has been identification of hidden Eurocentrism in the scholarship. Even though the relationship is between the ethnographer and the people she studies, both in the field and in the process of writing ethnography, itself a subject of versatile theoretical and methodological discussion for the entire second half of the century, the very basis of scientific ontology has proven to be a difficult subject to address. Postmodernism raised questions of rationalism and relativism to the agenda, but in the anthropological study of religion, the issue became acute in a more empirical way. Based on her own extraordinary experiences which she felt to be an important part of her insight, yet impervious to academic dogma, Katherine Ewing published an article «Dreams from a Saint: Anthropological Atheism and the Temptation to Believe» in which she questioned the atheistic epistemology of anthropological ethnography. This methodological atheism is, according to Katherine Ewing «a refusal to acknowledge that the subjects of one’s research might actually know something about human condition that is personally valid for the anthropologist: it is a refusal to believe». [4, p. 571] The study of religion in anthropology has also been characterised as a «curious blend of relativism and ethnocentrism», that is said to be tolerant but ultimately does not take seriously those perceptions that do not coincide with the views of the secular Western academic world. [5, p. 191] These claims do not presuppose a relativism that must accept all ontological claims as valid. Neither do they presuppose that a scholar should have had religious experience in order to render a valid interpretation, but it claims genuine openness in the encounters with another kind of rationale. Post-colonial anthropologists endorse claims of the phenomenology of religion in many points. The research is seen as a dialogue between equals instead of a hierarchic relationship between observer and observed. This view corresponds with Gadamer’s perception that dialogue. In his views the basis of all kinds of understanding, cannot be genuine if either of the participants holds his own views a priori as superior. What Ewing claims is indeed the substitution of «methodological atheism» for Ninian Smart’s «methodological agnosticism». However, if the phenomenology of religion has been criticised for being reactionary in that it sustains the cultural status quo and makes religious authority essential, then postcolonial anthropology with its emancipatory agenda points up the intolerance in Western academic discussion. Therefore, post-colonial anthropology also has much in common with general critical social theory. In the study of religion there is yet another approach called the critical study of religion. This critical approach can be based either outside or inside its position to religion. [6]
In explaining the differences between the sociological and anthropological study of religion, James Spickard makes an important contribution. Spickard distinguishes three basic divisions among these disciplines and their history that still affect their interpretations, even though the domains of the disciplines have nowadays become blurred. The distinctions are based on whether scholars are interested in generalising theories or particular distinctions, whether they are interested in structures or actors and finally, whether their historic roles as scholars function as vehicles for social development or as preservers of distant authentic traditions. Spickards observes that especially nowadays, when disciplines overlap substantially and skilful scholars are not restricted to such dichotomies as structure-actor, the division between the approaches can be found not so much in what the analyses lack, but in what they cannot leave aside. Sociologists cannot conduct their studies without considering the role of society and its the structure; anthropologists cannot bypass people’s personal interpretations. The reflective turn in anthropology in the second half of the twentieth century compelled these scholars to reconsider their relationship and responsibilities to those whom they studied. Spickard considers the leading principles of postcolonial anthropological study to be «truth» and «equality», the «truth» implying that the description must be faithful to the object of the description. Spickard claims:
«[Post-colonial] ethnographers can no longer take the role of educated outsiders, come to help natives sort out their conceptual affairs. No more can they speak with imperial voice. «You think you are testing your faith with snakes, but actually you are displaying your manhood», «You think you are honouring your ancestors, but actually you are reaffirming your kin ties». These statements may work for certain disciplines, but not for those that embrace «equality» as an ideal. Post-colonial ethnography bans the missionary position and its presumption of native ignorance. More precisely, equality demands that native interpretations on our belief be given as much weight as our interpretations of theirs». [7, p. 161]

Researching Paganisms

One of the crucial turning points in the study of Paganisms was Tanya Luhrmann’s study of British magic subculture, Persuasions of the Witch’s Craft, published in 1989. Despite the fact that Luhrmann was much more sensitive than some earlier writers such as, for example, Gini Graham Scott in her thoroughly prejudice Cult and Countercult, Luhrmann drew severe methodological criticism. In her fieldwork she did not made clear enough her status as a scholar, and after the book was published many of the people she had studied felt deceived. In fact, several scholars have reported that entrance in to the field was still difficult ten years later because of the suspicions of scholars Luhrmann’s behavior had aroused. Luhrmann violated the ethical rules of anthropological fieldwork, even though perhaps not intentionally. But her analysis and the basic approach she adopted also contain some ethically questionable features. Luhrmann’s main question was, why do people start to believe in magic? Luhrmann posed the question and researched the answer in a way that indicated that she regarded these beliefs as a priori irrational and false. Furthermore, because many people she had studied did not feel her interpretation and conclusions were valid descriptions of their experiences, it has also been argued that her theory of ‘interpretive drift’ tells more about Luhrmann herself than about the magicians she studied. [8, p. 75–76]
Since Luhrmann’s book was published, the study of Paganisms has increased exponentially. Today ethical concerns of researche are today actually very central to the methodological discussions of the study of Paganism. This can be explained by Paganism’s special role in a modern society that actually compels every honest scholar to be sensitive to the questions of criticism and ethics. Even though various forms of Paganism have increased the numbers of adherents considerably in recent years, Paganism still represent a marginal form of religiosity that, in the mainstream of Western society, is often considered as deviant. The pressures on scholars of Paganisms to be objective and ethical actually come from two different, even contradictory directions. Because Paganism represents non-conventional religiosity it is often treated not only in public, but also in academic discussions in a manner different from conventional religions. Occasionally, the anthropological taboo against «going native» still seems to apply to Paganisms, whereas insider status in more conventional religions is usually not viewed as being problematic. It can be noted, for example, that in her study Luhrmann felt it necessary to announce that at no point during her study did she believe in magic. Luhrmann actually describes the dual pressures of scholars of Paganism very well. She tells how during the writing process her professor blamed her for lack of objectivity, whereas some informants who read her text considered them to be too «clinical». [9, p. 139] Yet it must be remembered that there are a number of instances when Pagans have been harassed for their religion, have lost their jobs or even custody of their children. [10] Scholars may feel a responsibility to rectify the misunderstandings of Paganism. Such a mission can, however, so infect the study it starts to resemble an apology. Jone Salomonsen divides the study of Paganism into two streams that correspond to the dual outside expectations, calling these «reductionist sociology» and «legitimate anthropology». [11, p. 47] Even though many studies of Paganisms have managed to avoid these pitfalls, all writing about Paganism is still often conceived as polemical in one way or another.

The study of Rodnoverie

Besides the problems attached to the study of Paganisms worldwide, there are some additional features about Rodnoverie that further complicate the study. Within Rodnoverie, there are prominent nationalist tendencies and even extreme right-wing racist views that have coloured the movement and its study from the beginning. This is one of the main reasons why many scholars have taken a rather critical stance towards research into Rodnoverie. In its scholarly study the sociological reductionist approach has been dominant. Two of the most prominent specialists in the field, Victor Shnirelman and Vladimir Pribilovsky, have made long careers as scholars of nationalism and racism. Shnirelman is an archaeologist whose expertise covers nationalism in Soviet and Russian archaeology; Pribylovsky is the president of the researchcentre «Panorama», which has specialised in racist and political extremist movements. This wide knowledge has enabled each man to place the i racist and nationalist tendencies within Rodnoverie in a larger cultural and societal context, and both have made sharp analytical insights. However, here I will look at their interpretations critically from the perspective of the study of religion. Since both Shnirelman and Pribilovsky have analysed Rodnoverie as a nationalist or racist movement, they have often neglected non- or less-nationalistic groups as well as the movement’s religious side. Pribilovsky considers Rodnoverie to be thoroughly nationalistic. This interpretation, however, has been questioned, for example, by Anastasia Koskello, a scholar of religion. On the basis of an interviews conducted with believers Koskello came to the conclusion that within the movement, there are actually two opposing attitudes: «globalistic» and «anti-globalistic». [12] For Pribilovsky, spirituality within Rodnoverie actually is an effective reserve of symbols for nationalistic ends or psychological compensation. The title of one of his articles is very telling «Русское неоязычество – квазирелигия национализма и ксенофобии» («Russian neopaganism – quasireligion of xenophobia and nationalism»). While there are prominent nationalist tendencies within the movement, there are also Pagans throughout Eurasia who do not subscribe to nationalist views; in fact, in the West the majority of Pagans are distinctly liberal. Attending Rodnoverie rituals where believers seek to make contact with the sacred and with the nature of explaining Rodnoverie as sheer nationalism does not seem very appropriate to the reality. Shnirelman and Pribilovsky operate solely on etic concepts and explain the religion by reducing it to social and psychological causes. Since from the outset they have hostile attitudes towards Rodnoverie, they have not considered it appropriate to discuss their interpretations with Rodnovers. The refusal of dialogue has somewhat weakened their descriptions and occasionally led outright mistakes in their writings, even in crucial evidence for arguments. [13]
Vitali Kobets gives a good illustration of the study of Rodnoverie. He divides the approaches into «negative», «confessional» and «objective-scientific». [14, p. 4–5, 9–14] The special feature in the Russian study of religion as compared to the Western academic world is that within religious studies, religious (Christian) and non-confessional study are not so sharply divided. Iin Kobets’s account, what is a confessional approach to Rodnoverie has come both from theologists as well as from scholars of religion with a confessional outlook. The «objective» study has mostly been mostly done within the discipline of the study of religion. Although Kobets’ classification is enlightening, the term «objective» could be questioned on the grounds that I am trying to make in this article – that research is always situated in a wider context and in that sense is never completely impartial or objective. Nonetheless, «objective» is a an apt term here, for it has clearly been the aim of many studies on Rodnoverie. It is difficult to place various studies with different approaches and methodological and theoretical tools a single category, and a more detailed analysis of these differences is beyond the scope of this article. However, by looking at some research that most clearly follow the ideal of «objectivity», we may observe certain general features that are relevant to my question. [15] In most of these studies scholars do not take any stand on ontological questions concerning the beliefs of the Rodnoveries. It could even be said that on an explicit level the scholars profess «methodological agnosticism». Their studies contain analyses and critical remarks, but they could still be seen as following the ideal of understanding as the aim of the study of religion. The ideal of objectivity in these studies includes the notion of impartiality, distance and critical reflection as qualification for being science. Therefore, most of the studies investigate the religion from outside. Usage of such interpretative outside concepts as «neoyazychestvo» highlights the fact.
Compared to the Western study of Paganism there are some significant differences, especially in the focus of approaches. While the majority of Western studies of Paganism have taken either a hermeneutic or a post-colonial anthropological approach, the Russian (secular) study of religion has, for the most part, adopted a more traditional anthropologic or critical outside approach. In the Russian study of Rodnoverie there are influences of or similarities to hermeneutic studies, but none that explicitly profess the classical hermeneutic ideal that Smart illustrates with the native American proverb, «never judge a person without walking a mile in his moccasins», or pose such questions as, «What would it be like to be a Rodnover?» [16, p. 41] There is virtually no reflective discussion on scholars’ relationship to the religion or accounts of how encounters with the religion have altered the scholars themselves. These lacunae indicate certain thin points in the Russian meta-discussion within the study of religion. As mentioned earlier, the divide within the discipline has been mainly between Christian and secular scholars, and the co-existence of confessional and non-confessional studies of religion under the umbrella of the same discipline has coloured Russian discussion on the subject.
An additional flavour in this discussion comes from the fact that the scholarly study of religion in Russia originates in large part from the scientific study of atheism. Therefore, the discussion has usually been positioned between methodological atheism and an outlook that has conflated strongly with Christianity. In general, approaches to new religious movements have been distinctly more critical than in the West. [17] Methodological agnosticism, although professed in the discipline, has not received much attention in the meta-discussions of the discipline. In the West a substantial part of anthropological reflection derives from the re-evaluation of its own colonial past. However, the Western «white man’s burden» has in the long run actually benefited Western scholarship, for it has forced scholars to reconsider their relationship to the ex-colonial world and its people. The discussion of encountering the «other» has enhanced more critical self-reflection and made scholars more conscious of themselves. In this sense Kobets’s concept «objective» is actually very informative, for it reveals a point of weakness in reflection in the meta-discussions of Russian study of religion.

Neoyazychestvo – or Rodnoverie?

As mentioned at the beginning of this article, there are virtually no Rodnovers who would apply the word neoyazychestvo to their religion. Some approve the term yazychestvo, (paganism) [18] but since others have strong objections, I have chosen to employ Rodnoverie, which is widely accepted as valid term for the religion. Some scholars utilize the term yazychestvo, but in most research on the subject, the religion is labeled neoyazychestvo. One of the few exceptions is made by Canadian scholar Adrian Ivakhiv who uses «Native faith» for his Ukrainian material. [19] I am not saying that scholars should restrict themselves to believers’ own concepts. That kind of demand would indeed disadvantage the study considerably and make scholarly study exactly what it has been accused of being by its the harshest critics: advocates or even «cheerleaders» for a religion. [20, 227] We use analytic concepts such as ritual, myth or conversion that the believers do not always approve. Still, in applying interpretative concepts scholars should consider carefully what insights they bring to the subject and of what perceptions they deprive by the terms they choose.
In anthropology there is a well-known qualification for a good study: the people studied should be able to recognize themselves from the description. Another principle is articulated by Gerd Baumann: «The golden rule of every empirical social scientist: Informants are never wrong; they have reasons to think what they think. In practice this means that we need to study their views until we comprehend the context of what they are saying». [21, p. 90] Perhaps it is in order to ask again why the neoyazychnyki do not accept the name assigned by the scholar as correct. Solid grounds for preferring emic terms are that they describe people’s perceptions more faithfully, without loosing any connotations in during the «translation». Rodnoverie is a word that includes one of the central concepts of the faith, Rod. On connotations of Rod in Russian culture, there are several accounts and interpretations. In Rodnoverie Rod can refer to God, to a religious or ethnic community or to the bond to ancestors or even to a general life force. The word «Rodnoverie» is a shortening of rodnaya vera. Rodnaya is a concept that can denote both the «nearest and dearest» and such impersonal communities as one’s native home, town or country, even combining these. A separate article could be written on all the connotations that rodnaya is invests in Rodnoverie. To squander such an expressive term that opens up rich possibilities for analysis and interpretation does indeed seem like a great loss.
As mentioned earlier, all Rodnovers do not reject the word yazychestvo (paganism), but virtually none accepts the prefix neo. It was also noted earlier that the attitude towards new religious movements in Russia is rather negative. Indeed, the difference between «traditional» and «non-traditional» religions can be found even in the legislature of the Russian Federation. The prefix neo gets thus has added social importance, because it confines Rodnoverie with new religious movements, most of which are actually not so new, only new to Russia. Should Rodnoverie in Russia then be perceived as a «new religious movement» or «native faith»? Arguments for both positions can be made. There are native religions in Russia whose religion has been proven to been practiced continuously from prehistoric times, and the prefix neo can be justified as illustrating the division. However, the definition of the «continuation» of tradition is not all that clear. Paganism, as with all other religions, was not allowed to be practice openly in the Soviet Union, but practicing Paganism was neither approved in Tsarist Russia. Although there is a die-hard perception that a substantial number of Russians, especially peasants, were not in fact Christian, the legendary «dual faith» may not be exactly the same as contemporary Rodnoverie. In fact, as an educated guess it could be claimed that a substantial number of the Russians who nourished or still nourishes «pagan» beliefs and practices would actually be quick to cross themselves if brought to a contemporary Rodnoverie ritual in front of the statue of Perun. Nonetheless, the semi-pagan folk tradition is the one Rodnovers see themselves as continuing. Folkloric habits and ethnographic descriptions are at least as important to them as archaeological evidence of pre-Christian religion. What I find decisive here is the perception of religion and tradition that has been adopted. It has been noted that the study of religion as a European phenomenon conceptualises «religion» in Christian terms. Suffice it to say, the existence of God was perceived to be a necessary feature of religion until some atheist forms of Buddhism forced scholars to reconsider the definition. Many Pagans reject the word «religion» talking instead about tradition, spirituality, philosophy or a world-view, or even of a basic attitude towards the world. Rodnoverie is not necessarily dependent on some specific God or ritual practice. Rodnoverie, as in most contemporary Paganisms, has hardly any dogmas but its adherents uphold the freedom of consciousness as one of its central ideals. Many Pagans, for example, would not describe the process of becoming Pagan a conversion, finding a name for their spirituality and a relationship with nature that they have always innately held. For many Rodnovers, «religion» is a flexible spiritual tradition that can take several forms, whereas neoyazychestvo implies that there is a certain ancient yazychestvo that after centuries is taken by neoyazychnyki and revived. This misconception becomes evident, for example, in accounts that make a special note that «despite their ancient religion neoyazychnyki» may have computers at home. Rodnoverie has no explicit commands or spiritual principles that would prohibit use of such modern technology as computers, at least so long as the modern technology is not worshiped uncritically or consumed without consideration of ecological questions. In fact, many Rodnovers stress that they do not seek to turn back progress but to redirect it. Within contemporary Paganisms, there is actually a statistically significant number of people who work with computers. The Internet is a very powerful device enabling marginal people to connect with other believers around the world, but some Pagans have even found philosophical similarities between the World Wide Web and the Pagan primordial forest Greenwood that is beyond time and place, yet simultaneously connects these concepts. [22] Therefore, the precondition for religion to continue reveals a rather Christian interpretation, both in understanding religion and in understanding yazychestvo.
In international literature the religion that pays reverence to the pre-Christian Scandinavian pantheon is called Ásatrú, (allegiance to the deities), and the Celtic tradition druidism. The choice of the term «Rodnoverie» can still be defended on the grounds that it explains what Pagan religion are we talking about, that is «rodnoi», the Slavs’ own tradition. Yazychestvo derives from the word yazyk (language). The Rodnovers who approve the name yazychestvo for their religion understand it according to Dahl’s dictionary, to mean people talking the same language, that is, people of the same kin or of the same culture. According to this interpretation yazychestvo was the pre-Christian Slavs’ self-interpretation. However, other Rodnovers claim that the term yazychestvo referred to people from other tribes and of other languages. Yazychestvo has been used in an utterly negative sense during history, as one influential Rodnoverie leader, Vadim Kazakov has quite rightly pointed out. [23, p. 145] During the Christian era, paganism has inaccurately been employed to refer not just to European pre-Christian people’s faith, but also to all people who were not Christian, Jews or Islamic, and even as a synonym for atheist. A word with such obscure meaning and loaded with such negative connotations should not be used against the adherents’ own will.
The terms «inaccuracy» and «negative connotations» can be illustrated by the following story. In a public speech in October 1994, the patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, Aleksii II, announced that the major threats in the twenty-first century are neopaganism and terrorism – a statement that was twisted in some media to «neopagan terrorism». Pagans wrote an open letter to the ROC and received an answer clarifying the statement. According to the reply the ROC does indeed see «neopagan cults» as erroneous, but it explains in more detail the sense in which the term «neopaganism» was used by Aleksii II:
«Под неоязычеством понимается сегодня православными не столько культовая практика идолопоклонства, сколько преклонение перед новыми фетишами, ложными богами, которыми для многих наших современников стали власть, деньги и наслаждение». [24]
(«By neopaganism, the Orthodox believers conceive nowadays not so much cultic worship of idols, but more a worship of new fetishes, false gods, which for many of our contemporaries has become power, money and pleasure»).
The polemics of the study of religion

The reason for writing an article on the concepts «Rodnoverie» and «Neopaganism» aroused out of the difficulties I encountered in considering the most appropriate term to use. I chose the concept «Rodnoverie» because I found it ethically questionable to use a name for a religion that the believers themselves. I have also found that the term Rodnoverie is more informative and accurate. However, I have further become acutely aware that the choice of the label is perceived by many as taking a stand. In 1999 distinguished English historian Ronald Hutton published a history of Wicca. The reviews of his book were mainly positive, but some alleged that Hutton had not distanced himself sufficiently from his subject; there were insinuations of «going native». These accusations seem especially odd, since Hutton, neither Wiccan nor Pagan himself, actually questioned many of the «inside» interpretations. A few years later Hutton reflected on the criticism with rare honesty and reflexivity:
«There was an evangelical ideology embedded in my book, which extended, by implication, to proselytization. It was an assumption that the best condition of future Britain would be as a formally secular state in which members are free to follow an effectively infinite range of religious traditions, or none, according to their own spiritual inclinations and needs.»… «My book was not intended to be a propaganda piece for witchcraft, but it embodied a sociopolitical ideal of religious tolerance and equality that itself could be regarded as polemic». [25, p. 183]
At the beginning of his article, McCutcheon cites Edward Said: «The moment you publish essays in a society you have entered political life; so if you want not to be political do not write essays or speak out». I agree with McCutcheon that scholars of religion cannot remain mere mouth pieces of religions. However, I do not completely agree that phenomenological study and the emphasis on understanding has to be reactionary or that it automatically enables the study of religion enable to be reflective. Phenomenological study and the ideal of understanding can be seen as conflating with the ideal of religious tolerance, which is not necessarily the same as being uncritical. Furthermore, phenomenological tradition and post-colonial anthropology both make an important point that we should not forget: As scholars of religion, we have a responsibility to the people we study. Part of this responsibility is to describe them as truthfully as possible. Phenomenological study does not rule out the possibility of criticism. It can even strengthen criticism by providing a more balanced view of the subject. 
Now it is time to return to my original question: what can the study of religions contribute to discussions of religion in general and to Rodnoverie in particular? Even though the study of religion as a discipline does not have its own methodology in a strict sense, it does have its own history, which includes various traditions and the dialogue between them. Its interdisciplinary nature can help provide a more balanced view of such challenging subject as religion. A skillful scholar is aware of the limitations of the approach as well as of the criticism posed the method or theory chosen. Furthermore, as religion is a very personal and sensitive matter for many people, the discussion of ethical questions within the discipline is something that no scholar writing on religion should ignore. An honest and deep meta-discussion helps or even compels us to make explicit our own engagements and values.

1. Gothóni, R. Principles of Studying Religion / R. Gothóni. Temenos, 1995. – Pp. 37–54; Segal, R. A. Explaining and Interpreting Religion. Essays on the Issue. Peter Lang. – New York, 1992.
2. McCutcheon, R. T. A. Default of Critical Intelligence? The Scholar of Religion as public Intellectual // Journal of the American Academy of Religion – 1997. – № 65 : 2. – Pp. 443–468.
3. Morny, J. Beyond Essence and Intuition: A Reconsideration of understanding in Religious Studies // Secular Theories on Religion. Current perspectives (Eds.) Jensen T. & Rothstein. – M.: Museum Tusculanum Press; University of Copenhagen, 2000. – Pp. 69–86.
4. Ewing, K. P. Dreams from a Saint: Anthropological Atheism and the Temptation to Believe // American Anthropologist. – 1994. – №. 96 (3). – Pp. 571–583.
5. Young, D. E. Visitors in the Night: a creative energy model of spontaneous views // Being Changed. The Anthropology of Extraordinary Experience (Eds.) Young D. E. & Goulet J.-G. Broadview Press. – Peterborough, 1994. – Pp. 166–194.
6. Sakaranaho, T. Introduction // How to do Comparative Religion? Three ways, many Goals (Eds.) Gothóni R. Walter de Gruyter. – Berlin & New York, 2005. – Pp. 143–147; Flood, G. Beyond Phenomenology. Rethinking the Study of Religion. – Cassell, London & New York, 1999. – Pp. 221–237.
7. Spickard, J. V. Disciplinary Conflict in the Study of Religion: Anthropologiy, Sociology and «Lines in the Sand» // Method & Theory in the Study of Religion. – 2002. – № 14. – Pp. 141–169. To emphasise further that the post-colonial anthropology does not concern just non-Europen cultures it should be noted that the snake-handlers in Spickard’s quotation refers to an American Christian sect.
8. See e. g. Harrington, M. Psychology of Religion and the Study of Paganism // Researching Paganisms (Eds.) Blain, J. Ezzy D. & Harvey G. AltaMira Press. – Walnut Creek, 2004. – Pp. 71–84.
9. Luhrmann, T. M. Persuasions of the Witch’s Craft. Ritual Magic in Contemporary England. Harvard University Press. – Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1989.
10. Harvey, G. Ritual Abuse Allegations, Incitement to Religious Hatred: Pagans and Christians in Court // New Religions and the New Europe (Eds.) Towler R. Aarhus University Press. – Aarhus, 1995. – Pp. 154–170.
11. Salomonsen, J. «I am a Witch – a Healer and a Bender.» An Expression of Women´s Religiosity in Contemporary USA: Thesis presented for Doctor Theologiae. – University of Oslo, 1996.
12. Шнирельман, В. А. Неоязычество и национализм. Восточно-европейский ареал / В. А. Шнирельман // Россииская академия наук, Институт этнологии и антропологии: Исследования по прикладной и неотложной этнологии. – М., 1998; Прибыловский В. В. Русское неоязычество – квазирелигия национализма и ксенофобии / В. В. Прибыловский // Политическая ксенофобия. Радикальные группы, представления лидеров, роль Церкви. – 1999 (http://www.religio.ru/relisoc/27_print.html); Коскелло, A. Современные языческие религии Евразии: крайности глобализма и антиглобализма / A. Коскелло // Религия и глобализация на просторах Евразии: под ред. А. Малашенко, C. Филатов – М.: Неостром, 2005.
13. Зобнина, С. В. Анализ современного мифоторчества в новейших исследованиях по язычеству / С. В. Зобнина. – http://www.slavya.ru/docs/shnir06.htm (accessed 18. 9. 2006).
14. Кобец, В. В. Российское и украинское неоязычество как социально-религиозный феномен: дисс. ... канд. филос. наук / В. В. Кобец. – М., 2003.
15. I have made a subjective selection. The writings that I refer to are: Ящин, В. Церковь православных староверов-инглингов как пример неоязыческого культа / В. Ящин // Неоязычество на просторах Евразии: Библейско-богословский институт. – M., 2001. – Pp. 39–55; Гайдуков, А. Идеология и практика славянского неоязычества: дисс. ... канд. филос. наук / А. Гайдуков. – СПб., 2000; Коскелло, А. Современные языческие религии Евразии: крайности глобализма и антиглобализма / А. Коскелло // Религия и глобализация на просторах Евразии / под ред. А. Малашенко, С. Филатова – М.: Неостром, 2005; Мильков, В. Неоязычество / В. Мильков // Религии народов современной России: словарь / под ред. М. П. Мчедлова. – М., 2001. – С. 294–299. In addition there are studies somewhere in between the categories. For example, Aseev’s dissertation examines the subject from various perspectives and gives an air of impartial analysis. Nevertheless, at the beginning he gives an account of his understanding Paganism as polytheism, which for him is an infantile way to perceive the world. This kind of highly evaluative vantage point makes the study more «confessional», even if the form of religiosity conceived as «mature» is not explicated; Асеев, О. В. Язычество в современной России: социальный и этнополитический аспект / О. В. Асеев. – М., 1999.
16. The question is a revised version of Smarts’ «What it would be like to be a Christian – say a Catholic attending Mass». and Gothóni’s «What is it like to be a Greek Orthodox pilgrim heading for Mount Athos.’ Gothóni, R. Attitudes and Interpretations in Comparative Religion. Academia Scientarum Fennica. – Helsinki, 2000.
17. See e. g.: Shterin, M. New Religions in the New Russia // New Religious Movements in the 21st Century (Eds.) Phillip Charles Lucas & Thomas Robbins. Routledge. – New York – London. On meta-discussions within the Russian study of religion; see e. g.: Проблемы преподавания и современное состояние религиоведения в России: материалы конференции. Москва, 2–3 декабря 1999 года / ВГБИЛ им. М. И. Рудомино, Ин-т «Открытое о-во» (Фонд Сороса); под ред. M. Генишева – М., 2000: On similarities in Ukrainian discussions, see Filipovych, L. & Kolodny A. Theology and religious studies in the Postcommunist Ukraine // Numen. – 2004. Vol. 51. – Pp. 78–93.
18. See e. g.: Krug Yazicheskoi traditsii: Tsaritsinskoe obraschenie. O «neoyazichestve» i sovremennom yazhichestve. Protiv klerikalizatsii gumanitarnikh nauk. – http://www.slavya.ru/delo/krug/05/neo.htm 20.2.2005 (accessed 12. 9. 2006).
19. Ivakhiv, A. Nature and Ethnicity in East European Paganism: An Environmental Ethic of the Religious Right? // The Pomegranate. The International Journal of Pagan Studies. – 2005. – Vol. 7.2.
20. Lincoln, B. Theses of Method // Method and Theory in the Study of Religion. – 1996. – Vol. 8.3 – Pp. 225–227.
21. Baumann, G. The Multicultural Riddle. Rethinking National, Ethnic, and Religious Identities. Routledge. – New York – London, 1999.
22. My point here follows a comment made by the Rodnovers themselves in: Зобнина, С. Анализ современного мифоторчества в новейших исследованиях по язычеству / С. Зобнина. – http://www.slavya.ru/docs/shnir06.htm (accessed 18.9.2006); Shawn, A. Technophilia and Nature Religion: the Growth of a Paradox // Religion. 2002, 32, Pp. 303–314.
23. Kazakov, V. Mir slavyanskikh bogov / Russkaya Pravda. – Moscow – Kaluga, 2005.
24. http://religion.sova-center.ru/events/13B7442/1449451/4830EEA?print=on.
25. Hutton, R. 2004: Living with Witchcraft (Eds.) Blain J. & Ezzy D.; Harvey, G. Researching Paganisms. AltaMira Press. – Walnut Creek, 2004 – Pp. 171–187.