A Case Against Closed Animals
On why limiting people's spiritual access to animals might not help keep them safe after all.
Cultural appropriation remains, rightfully, a hot button topic in the pagan and magical community. For many, doing no harm to minority cultures is perhaps the single most important factor they orient their research around, and I believe it should be. With the desire to prevent cultural appropriation and eradication comes the desire to completely revoke certain majority groups' access to things - including animal spirits. But could it be that closing access to animals and their spirits is based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of closed practices? Or worse: could it be unintentionally putting those animals at risk of further harm?
What is cultural appropriation?
Cultural appropriation, often just referred to as 'appropriation' in the community, is the phenomenon of members of a dominant culture adopting elements of a minority culture without understanding or acknowledgment of the original context. This can be done intentionally, to water down a culture, exploit it, make fun of it, etc; or it can be done unintentionally. Regardless of how the appropriation is committed, it is almost unilaterally harmful. Just a few ways in which cultural appropriation harms the cultures which it affects include:
Stripping culturally significant expressions and heritage from its original meaning, thus taking away awareness of it, tokenizing or trivializing it, and suppressing it.
Exploiting cultural heritage for personal benefit, be it social, economical, or otherwise, which can give feelings of exploitation and loss.
Perpetuating stereotypes and misunderstandings about the culture of origin.
Reinforcing preexisting power imbalances between the dominant culture and the minority culture, for example by symbolically stripping the minority culture of its autonomy, mocking it, or forcing assimilation through adopting their culture into the majority culture.
Cultural appropriation is next to impossible to concisely cover in a few paragraphs, so I implore the reader to do their reading of indigenous and other minority voices speaking on cultural appropriation and the associated harm. Nevertheless I wanted to lay this out for the sake of background context, to build the rest of this post off of.
What are closed practices?
Following our newfound understanding of what appropriation is, we can understand what closed practices are. Closed practices refer to any kind of cultural heritage that members of that culture completely close off to outsiders, and restrict the access of. This can be, and often is, to prevent cultural appropriation, but it can also be done for other kinds of cultural preservation, or based on initiatory custom. Closed practices are not limited to indigenous or other minority cultures. Dominant cultural practices can also be closed, like Catholicism, which requires catechism and baptism to enter.
In the case of minority cultures, practices are generally closed to conserve them and keep them safe from various forms of colonization or eradication. The most famous example in the community, I would argue, is smudging. Smudging is a practice among select Indigenous American communities that involves the burning of herbs and resins to generate smoke with them, which is used for spiritual purposes within their cosmological paradigm. Most notably, they use white sage (salvia apiana), an herb that grows only in Southwestern North America. 'Smudging' has been appropriated into various New Age and neopagan practices in recent decades, and has been the subject of much controversy. Rightfully, the Native Americans whose heritage smudging belongs to call this appropriation - smudging is something that only makes sense in their own religious behavior, and it's being misrepresented as a universal smoke cleansing practice that has a fundamental place in these predominantly Euro-Western spiritualities - most of which have their own smoke cleansing practices completely unrelated to smudging, which was never meant to be cleansing in the first place, according to most. Moreover, neopagans and New Agers using white sage are using an herb that has no roots in their beliefs, and is now being illegally poached from its natural habitat for commercial use. Not only is this restricting Natives access to the herb, it's also rapidly causing its populations to decline, and causing it to enter endangerment.
So why not close animals?
So far, I've made it seem like I am a huge proponent of limiting the access members of dominant cultures have to endangered cultural heritage (because I am), so why am I making this post against doing the same thing by closing animals? And to explain that, I'd like to return to the white sage example as a medium to make this make sense. We have to ask ourselves: why are smudging and white sage closed? What are the differences and commonalities between the two? White sage and smudging are, after all, not the same thing - even if they are often conflated.
Smudging is a practice. It is cultural heritage that originated with and belongs to the Native Americans whose land white sage grows on. They developed it alongside all their other beliefs and practices, it's theirs by right. Smudging is closed because, as a general rule, Native American spirituality at large is closed to outsiders for the sake of its preservation, and smudging is part of that belief system. White sage is a material. It is unique to the land that Native Americans are indigenous to. Plants can be cultural heritage, for example in the case of individual plants with cultural significance, heritage crops developed by a specific culture, and, indeed, practices that involve the usage of said plant, like smudging with white sage. For that reason, the use of white sage as a smoking agent - especially when called 'smudging' is closed, like we established. But why is the entire plant closed? I and many others would argue that white sage as a material was closed for its preservation - to try to limit the poaching being done on wild plants, and prevent it from going extinct, as well as to preserve the access to it that Native Americans should have, given it is them whose cultural practices actually revolve around it.
But would the entire material of white sage be closed if it wasn't being aggressively poached? I would say not. There are plenty of plants and materials that have a very significant role in Native American spirituality as well, that aren't closed altogether like white sage is - in fact, most plants on the American continent have uses in Native American spirituality and medicine, and they are just as open to everyone else on the continent to use, as long as they do not use their access to these materials to infringe upon the specific practices the Indigenous have that use these plants.
Ultimately, all, yes all, precolonial cultures on the planet earth have a rich tapestry of engagement with all the various materials their environment had to offer. Just as Native Americans have and had an immediate familiarity with the plants, animals, mushrooms, and natural features of their land, so did the various European cultures with their own land before (and to a degree after) Christian imperialism took over the continent. Once upon a time, awareness of one's environment and an understanding of how to use and steward it was crucial to every human's survival. In fact, I would argue that closeness with one's natural environment, wherever it may be, is a fundamental human trait and human right.
So how does this relate back to animals? Well, really, I just want the same logic as applies to white sage to be applied to animals. Just as any person of non-Indigenous descent on the American continent wouldn't be barred from going out and picking berries from the native plants, I think they shouldn't be barred from engaging with the animals on the land they live on - including spiritually. And I have a few reasons for that, which I will cover shortly. But first:
Where should the line be drawn?
I feel like nuance and critical thinking are at an all-time low in the current community of practitioners, which is no surprise given the political climate we live in. Divisiveness is a big problem among ourselves, and in my experience it happens a lot that people take any argument that so much as looks like something that backs them up in order to get out of not doing whatever the hell they want. For that reason I would like to make the following abundantly clear: practices surrounding animal spirits can and should still be closed if necessary. Just because I stand here arguing for animals at large to not be closed, doesn't mean that I don't think closed practices can center animals in any way. After all, animals are still a part of practices and other kinds of intangible heritage - things that can still be harmed through appropriation.
Cultural practices that center animal spirits, folklore about animal spirits, culturally specific animal spirits, cultural expressions surrounding animals, all of these things have the right to be closed, and I will defend those boundaries with fervor. Similarly, animals that are endangered and culturally significant to minority cultures should be able to be closed, just like white sage is - to keep them in the caring hands of those who know them best and protect them from ecological disaster.
Especially for the following section, as it centers religion and spirituality, I would also like to make a sharp distinction between culturally specific animal spirits, and animal species at large. For example, there is a big difference between the Coyote (capital C) that exists in Native American spirituality as a culturally specific literary motif and mythological figure, and the coyote as a regular animal with its own individual spirit, that anyone who lives in coyote territory could theoretically encounter. Coyote (capital C) can and should be closed if the culture of origin deems it so. That said, I do not think that coyote (no capital) should be closed altogether.
Environmental Awareness and Protection
For me personally, the biggest reason to not limit people's access to the animals around them is the ecological danger associated with it. It has long been demonstrated that a lack of understanding about how ecosystems work, the importance of wildlife, et cetera creates large scale ecological problems over time. People who have no sense of connection with their environment don't understand how the things they do harm their environment, nor why the harm being done is even of any consequence.
Whether we like it or not, European settlers have indeed colonized the Americas, and done irreparable ecological damage. But they're here now. Revoking people's access to the environment they happen to find themselves in, in an attempt to shield it from them, has been proven to not work, as people who have no care or sense of connection with the environment end up littering, exploiting it, overhunting, and cultivating deeply problematic and dysfunctional relationships with the land they're on.
The very first step towards creating a society wherein everyone understands the importance of the environment, and all of the balances, connections, and mechanisms that underpin it, is fostering a cultural climate where people feel an interest in their environment. In order to motivate people to be willing to steward the landscape, they need to feel as though they are part of it. Encouraging people to learn about the animals around them, and indeed forming bonds with them through various means, helps them to create attachments to those animals and feel appreciation and a sense of responsibility towards them, which I would argue is more important now than ever.
The Inevitability of Engagement
Barring those who are working with animal spirits they have no geographical proximity to (something we'll cover later), I think it is inevitable that people will run into the animals they share a territory with. For those who live rurally that is a much bigger theme than those who live in highly urbanized areas, but even there, nature persists and animals prove relevant to the collective culture and lifestyle.
Not only is it important in the case of engagement and interaction that the person encountering the animal has a sense of respect for it, as cultivated by awareness and the like as covered earlier. But there's also another important argument to be made that I think deserves the spotlight.
Functional Animist Theology
One thing that pre-Christian Europe had in common with Native American spiritualities, is that both continents' religions were all animistic - at least as far as I know. Animistic religions (or animism) are religions that believe that the universe (and thus all of its inhabitants) are permeated by one or several spiritual forces. They often share themes of deep interconnectedness, and believe that the spiritual forces that connect the universe affect the course of life. They often also share beliefs that things that science doesn't consider to be 'alive' still consider a kind of spiritual essence or 'soul'.
An important aspect of animistic religion, dare I say a defining characteristic, is that because all things by definition are affected by spiritual forces, means that nothing can ever be 'mundane' in the sense that modern witchcraft might create a false dichotomy between 'magic' and 'mundane'. Animistic religions believe that all things affect one another by definition, all things are connected, and all things have spirit in some sense or another - and by extension, this means that even things as innocuous as sharing land with an animal or encountering it somewhere are inherently spiritual phenomena. In much the same way as making tea with foraged herbs cannot be made a nonspiritual act in an animistic religion (because you are engaging with the spirit of the plant by engaging with the plant itself), engaging with an animal is a spiritual act, because an animal is a spirit, and you, the engager, are a spirit.
Factually, realistically, from both an Indigenous animism perspective, and a European pagan perspective, there is no way to engage with an animal that is not spiritual. Thusly, closing an animal would, if that were even possible, completely limit someone's ability to interact with that animal in any way. But in reality, it is not possible to not interact with an animal you share land with. Even if you never encountered it face to face, your presence on the land, the changes you bring about to the land, the smell you leave, the sounds you make, they all affect the animals you share territory with. If you are a pagan, you cannot live life nonspiritually, not if you truly believe in your own religion.
Would it not be so much better if we all shared a kind of respect for the natural world that makes us want to do right by it on our own, no shame nor guilt nor monetary incentive necessary? And moreover, do you not believe that creating a society in which we all respect our environment thusly, and we see all things that we coexist with as equal to us, wouldn't also make us want to respect one another and our cultures of origin?
Respectful Engagement and Intention
Lastly, it needs to be said: intention matters, and all those interested in working with animal spirits should do their due diligence. This is especially the case for working with animal spirits you bear no geographical proximity to. It's important to question your own motivations. Why do I want to work with this spirit? What about this spirit appeals to me? Can I find those same traits in an animal that is more relevant and local to me?
It happens frequently that people seek to spiritually engage themselves with animals they have no real relationship with, just because they think they're cool or mystical, and there is a real precedent here for racism and fetishization. It has happened far more often than I can count that Norse polytheists living in a city on the East Coast inquire as to whether their fylgja could be a coyote, or an English Hellenist seeking to work with a bald eagle spirit. More often than not these animals are exoticised and subconsciously associated with Native American spirituality, which retains a stereotype as being highly mystical and spiritually superior, or more powerful through its exoticism.
It is always, forever, important to question why you believe something to be relevant to you, and if there isn't a more local alternative that is actually part of your own native culture. Just as I will always advocate for practitioners of magic across the world to prioritize looking into their local traditions and local plants, you should prioritize those things actually relevant to your daily life and your environment when engaging yourself with animal spirits. Not only does it protect your local environment and traditions which are undoubtedly in significant danger, it prevents needless appropriation, fetishization, and tokenization.
Conclusion
The definition of cultural appropriation, as well as the functionality of closing practices and materials to outsiders, is something that the modern community of pagans and practitioners has not yet fully ironed out. We should call into question the difference between cultural heritage and endangered natural phenomena, and worldly features that no one should get to own. And, further, we should let our conclusions on this inform our conduct with regard to cultural preservation. Closing entire categories of animals, as opposed to just practices and heritage surrounding them, is not a productive way to attempt to protect them, and it may just end up doing more harm to the animals in question. It exposes them to ignorance and indifference from outsiders, and sets unrealistic expectations of spiritual avoidance. Ideally, all those on the planet earth would be encouraged to cultivate intentional, invested relationships with the land they live on, and use that as a foundation for functional, respectful spirituality.
----
Further reading:
"From Cultural Exchange to Transculturation: A Review and Reconceptualisation of Cultural Appropriation". Communication Theory. Richard A. Rogers.
Why Cultural Appropriation is Disrespectful
How the Rage for Sage Threatens Native American Traditions and Recipes
"Plastic Shamans and Astroturf Sun Dances: New Age Commercialization of Native American Spirituality" Lisa Aldred.
"Understanding and attributing cultural heritage values to individual plants" Pamela Smith.
âSeeds Have Storiesâ: Connecting Cultural Diversity and Biodiversity
Understanding the Importance of Environmental Awareness
Coyote in Navajo Religion and Cosmology
Sweetgrass and White Sagebrush: Native Plants with Medicinal Uses
Plant of the Month: White Sage
White Sage: A Closer Look
Great addition from moot @nikolayta
