The question of “hard” versus “soft” polytheism is simply put, a question of to what degree the gods are individual beings. Properly fleshed out, the question opens up into a fascinating and complex theological inquiry that can potentially have major impact on how polytheists believe and worship.
However, reducing the question to a yes/no two-category designation obscures the nuances and falsely forces how we conceptualize the gods into one of two rigid schemas, and how “everyone else” thinks of the gods into the other. Forcing the question into the hard/soft dichotomy puts an artificial end to the discussion and transforms the conversation from a theological inquiry into a question of personal identity. Instead of a conversation about the gods, we’re having a conversation about how we self-identify in relation to the gods, and it invariably slips into shades of “us versus them.”
In reality, there is a huge spectrum of possibility–at the very least there is a question of degree–with plenty of room for an evolving understanding. Especially since, when push comes to shove, the nature of the gods is something we can never really know.
I agree that this is a false dichotomy. But.
Hard polytheism can be taken too far, but even when it is taken too far, it is still polytheistic. The big problem with soft polytheism is that when it is taken too far it is no longer polytheistic. If there are not really multiple Deities then there is no basis for polytheism.
As I see it, the problem in hard vs. soft polytheism is the problem of where one posits The One. The One is not meant to be “above us,” up there where the Gods are, while we below get to be distinct, individual beings. To think this way is to regard the Gods as little more than a single Godhead, with each God as a phase, or facet of that common Godhead. This, to my mind, isn’t really polytheism, it’s a sort of structurally tolerant monotheism. The key difference between our Mono-God and Abraham’s Mono-God is that ours consents to being a shape-shifter.
To see The One properly means understanding that it embraces all: not just the Gods, but ourselves, and Nonbeing along with Being. The One is not a statement about the Gods so much as it is a statement about the Cosmos. Since The One alone is entirely real, and the Gods are each synonymous to The One, not only is each God real, each God is more real than each of us. So “soft polytheism” only works where we ourselves are softer still!
@apuleius platonicus: That’s a matter of opinion, actually, and depends on what, exactly, one thinks that the gods are. One approach to polytheism would hold that the variety of approaches to the gods is the true denominator of polytheism.
In any case, I am uncomfortable in setting absolute parameters of belief that disallow particular approaches uncritically (similarly, I am uncomfortable with allowing such approaches uncritically). It is best to limit oneself to practical issues, rather than theoretical ones. That is, if a person participates in ritual practices which are compatible with my own, then I don’t care whether he believes that all gods are figments of the imagination, that they are universal archetypes, that they are aspects of a universal divinity, or that they are naturalistically real. Belief is not a helpful determinant to me.
A few ponderings…
How much of polytheism can be subjected to Xenophanes critique that we make gods in our own image?
“Ethiopians say that their gods are snub-nosed and black, and Thracians that theirs have blue eyes and red hair etc.” “But if cattle or lions had hands, so as to paint with their hands and produce works of art as men do, they would paint their gods and give them bodies in form like their own-horses like horses, cattle like cattle.”
Would a “soft” polytheism reflect the analogical nature of “gods”, that at least some part of how they are portrayed is our creation?
Could we then see “hard” and “soft” as a scale on a spectrum, with “extreme soft” being like Feurbach, and taking it that polytheism is wholly a reflection and creation of human beings, and “extreme hard” taking it that polytheism is a “given” and a “natural revelation” not of our own making, with various shades in between?
I would argue that those entities existing between us and the source of creation that we identify as deities are dynamic, especially in appearance. They are not the “physical” thing that we see them as or ascribe them to. The physical “thing” is a way for us to identify with it in the limited capacity of our conscious mind which needs such elements as geometry, location, and color for comprehension. Therefore, they are manifested, or if you wish created, in our image because we would not be able to apprehend or fathom their existence in any other way.
An example: I very much identify spiritually on an internal basis with the deities of the Euro-Mediterranean region, and this makes sense considering my ancestry. However, when I am out in the wilderness of Florida, where I live, my experiences with such things as springs and forests often take on a Native American flavor even though I have no real “knowledge” of those practices beyond a very superficial level. It is as if the deities I am used to working with internally have put a pair of moccasins on, a feather in their hair, and built a teepee for the day. They are dynamic in this sense; it is part my internal understanding and perception, part the physical vessel I am experiencing them through, and part their deep, abiding, yet amorphous nature.
The whole experience deepens our understanding, which is exactly the purpose.
The point isn’t the nature of the gods; the point is the meta-discourse about the nature of the gods. I’m talking about how we talk about the gods.