The political climate recently erupted again here in the United States when the Supreme Court ruled that, whether it’s right, wrong, beneficial or catastrophic, there is no constitutional right to abortion — which is the only angle the Supreme Court is supposed to be looking at things from.
In its wake, confusion engulfed the public. Some thought the Supreme Court had outlawed abortion and panic over what would be “outlawed” next was left to run free.
But in the Pagan and Polytheist communities, there was another confusing sort of response popping up on social media: it was an anathema to anyone who was “pro-life.”
As I watched this rhetoric grow, I recognized the spirit behind it: hegemony. It wasn’t wearing the same clothes as it usually did in the orthodoxy of monotheism, but I knew that ugly face all the same — the echo chambers, the demonization of anyone outside of them, the cult-like purity, etc.
I started this blog in part to confront this hegemony. Its bark is much worse than its bite, and behind all the bravado, it’s extraordinarily fragile. But my intention is not simply to destroy this cancer; it’s to heal the wound.
I intend to do this by reminding people of the fact of plurality; of the reality of diversity, and of the complexity of life. By forcing the hegemonic positions to defend themselves, instead of treating them like dogmas you should be punished for even wondering about, people will be able to see (perhaps for the first time) just how distorted the narrative has become.
I’ve been through this procedure before. Something to look out for. There is a difference between informing others about something and trying to persuade them of it. The tell between these is whether one is allowing a proposition to speak for itself or instead speaking on its behalf.
There is nothing wrong with persuasion, obviously. But it’s important to ask why the proposition can’t just speak for itself, and why someone feels the need to control how it appears to others. As we delve into different topics, look out for positions that feign self-evidence by forbidding anyone from scrutinizing them.
In the end, I’m not going to conclude whether the hegemonic positions are true or false. But I am going to yeet their insulating rhetoric into oblivion and conclude that disagreement is reasonable, and plurality is precious.