Contents
Reconstructionism and Revivalism are two different ways of formatting a Heathen practice. Reconstructionism tries to recreate the religious practices of the Norse as accurately as possible given what we know of the past, while Revivalism seeks to adapt fragmented Norse practices in a modern setting with modern approaches.
Both are essential to the integrity and functionality of modern-day Heathenry. How much a Heathen leans into reconstructionism or revivalism depends on their personal preference and how they’re looking to connect with the religion. Both methods have their benefits. Reconstructionism informs direction and provides historical precedent, while revivalism fills in the gaps. Revivalism also makes Heathen practice accessible for many people.
Both can have unhealthy appearances, particularly when taken to extremes. Unhealthy Reconstructionism gives an inappropriate amount of authority to “how things were done back then” at the expense of modern-day precedent, turns Heathenry into academic olympics, and treats the past as a gospel in lieu of the existence of a Heathen “bible.”
Unhealthy Revivalism is deceptive or misappropriative, passing off new or stolen practices as “ancient.” It takes Norse Heathenry out of its important cultural contexts and misrepresents it entirely.
Healthy Reconstructionism accounts for the needs of modern people and ethics of our modern times, while healthy Revivalism is honest about new material. Neither way is an incorrect approach to Norse Pagan Heathenry, and a well-tempered practice will know how and when to use both.
