25 minute read

The (Dis)Continuities of

The (Dis)Continuities of American Hegemonic Masculinity

by Elizabeth Cleveland

Advertisement

For every era of American history there seems to be a select few who embody hegemonic masculinity. Defined by famed masculinities scholar Raewyn Connell as “the pattern of practice…that allowed men’s dominance over women to continue,” hegemonic masculinity is not upheld by all men, rather it “embodie[s] the currently most honored way of being a man.”1 Michael Kimmel wrote, “Manhood means different things at different times to different people.”2 Be they individuals or a certain group, these men epitomize the ideals of hegemonic masculinity through their possession of power and status. For the colonial and post-Independence era, we look to the Founding Fathers and heroes of the Revolution. During the Industrial Revolution and subsequent Gilded Age, the captains of industry and robber barons were the primary aspirations of man. In the Jazz Age, financiers and business moguls, with their immense fortunes, were at the top of the masculinity hierarchy. In the post-World War II years, a white, cisgender, heterosexual married father living in the suburbs became the ideal construct. While there are a couple distinct differences between these disparate hegemonic masculinities, they remain grossly the same. Where we start to see significant change is in the early 2000s and 2010s. As noted in Eric Anderson’s 2013 observations of a Southern Californian high school track team, inclusivity, tolerance, and acceptance are on the rise, especially with boys and young men. For many, the most unexpected aspect of what Anderson has coined “inclusive masculinity” is the lack of homophobia. Under Raewyn Connell’s hegemonic masculinity theory, homophobia is vital in maintaining the illusion of this aspired-to hegemonic masculinity. Most would argue that this new “inclusive masculinity” is a step in the right direction, but is it a sustainable and permanent change? Is “inclusive masculinity” becoming America’s new hegemonic masculinity? Through the Founding Fathers and heroes of the Revolutionary War, we find countless examples of the two hegemonic masculinities of the 18th and early 19th century United States: the Genteel Patriarch and the Heroic

Is “inclusive masculinity” becoming America’s new hegemonic masculinity?

Artisan. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were prime models of the Genteel Patriarch; they “derived [their] identity from landownership,”3 were refined and elegant, a doting and devoted father, and highly valued the virtue of liberty. The counterparts of these rural gentlemen were found in more urban settings, often owning shops. The Heroic Artisan embodied “physical strength and republican virtue”4 and was a devoted father who passed down the craft to his son. He cherished his democratic community and participatory democracy and was economically autonomous. The silversmith, Paul Revere, whose Midnight Ride became one of the most famous tales of the American Revolution, exemplifies the Heroic Artisan. Kimmel writes, “the coexistence of the Genteel Patriarch and the Heroic Artisan embodied the fusion of liberty and equality.”5 These two masculinities complemented each other not only in their locales, but also in their mutual interest in participatory democracy and individual autonomy. Cohesion and complementarity were disrupted with the advent of the Marketplace Man in the 1830s. The Marketplace Man “derived his identity from his success in the capitalist marketplace as he accumulated wealth, power, status.”6 Unlike the Genteel Patriarch and Heroic Artisan, the Marketplace Man was an absentee landlord and father, his work replacing his children as his main focus and source of pride. In another break from the two preceding hegemonic masculinities, the Marketplace Man was a capit alist who “made both freedom and equality problematic.”7 Aggression, competition, other “manly” values, and, perhaps most importantly, the domination and exclusion of women and lesser men were central to his identity. The description of the Marketplace Man may sound familiar, and many would argue

1 Connell, R. W., and James W. Messerschmidt. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept.” Gender and Society 19, no. 6 (2005): 829-59. Accessed March 19, 2021. http://www.jstor. org/stable/27640853. 2 Kimmel, Michael. Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, Shame and Silence in the Construction of Gender Identity. St. Augustine: Centre for Gender & Development Studies, University of the West Indies, 1996. P. 73. 3 Kimmel. Masculinity as Homophobia. Note: these men also often owned plantations which enslaved people. 4 Kimmel. Masculinity as Homophobia. P. 75. 5 Kimmel. Masculinity as Homophobia. P. 75.6 Kimmel. Masculinity as Homophobia. P. 75. 7 Kimmel. Masculinity as Homophobia. P. 75.8 Kimmel. Masculinity as Homophobia. P. 75.

that the Marketplace Man is the longest lasting of the American hegemonic masculinities. Exemplars of this type of hegemonic masculinity exist in every era until the present day and include men such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Jordan Belfort, and Jeff Bezos as well as their fictional counterparts

including as Mad Men’s Don Draper, Suits’ Harvey Specter, and Gossip Girl’s Chuck Bass. All of these men are “men in power, men with power, and men of power”8 who gain and

maintain power—be it financial, institutional, political, etc.—through the subjugation of others, particularly women and minority men.9 Thus, homophobia and anti-femininity are central to this identity. Carrying over the core ideology and “traits” from Marketplace Manhood, Raewyn Connell’s hegemonic masculinity theory of the 1980s makes anti-femininity and the exclusion of women, homophobia, and the dominance over “lesser” men prerequisites to climb to the top of the hierarchy of masculinity. Connell’s definition of hegemonic masculinity from “The Social Organization of Masculinity” is as follows:“the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of legitimacy of patriarchy which guarantees the dominant position of men and the subordination of women.” The three-fold model of the structure of gender that Connell uses explains how men have maintained dominance over women via power relations, production relations, and cathexis (emotional attachment).10 Within power-relations, the patriarchy oppresses women to a subordinate position. The gendered division of labor in production relations is purposeful, as the vast majority of capital and means of production remain in the hands of men, and emotion-relations (cathexis) are cast aside as the patriarchy prohibits men from showing any emotional vulnerability. In order for the patriarchy—and thus hegemonic masculinity—to be effective, there needs to be a cooperation between institutional power and the cultural ideal. The

Homophobia keeps men striving to “prove” their manhood for not only the irrational fear of gay men, but also the fear of being perceived as gay.

three-fold model of the structure levels of homophobia experienced of gender is supported by both. during the 1980s and 1990s. NotAdditionally, rather than reviving ing how “masculinity does not exthe duality of the Genteel Patri- ist except in contrast to femininarch-Heroic Artisan, the hege- ity,”12 Connell emphasizes how monic masculinity theory upholds women and gay men are thus seen the single ideal of manhood in the as threats to the increasingly fragglobal north that originated with ile idea of hegemonic masculinity. Marketplace Manhood. Homophobia is a powerful force Homophobia, which Kim- and has been used for centuries mel considers to be “the central as a measure of one’s masculinity, organizing but things have

principle of Adopting homophobic at- begun to change. our cultural definition of titudes and marginalizing “Softboiled” masmanhood,” 11 is essential in those suspected of being culinity, a term coined by sociolconceptualiz- gay are typically extreme- ogist and mascuing Connell’s hegemonic ly effective in “securing” linities scholar Melanie Heath in masculinity theory. Ho- masculinity. 2003, is “a type of masculinity

mophobia keeps men striving to that provides space for men to be “prove” their manhood for not more emotionally connected with only the irrational fear of gay men, one another and to express thembut also the fear of being perceived selves in a manner that can chalas gay. Adopting homophobic at- lenge the norms of hegemonic titudes and marginalizing those masculinity and its strict boundarsuspected of being gay are typical- ies surrounding the performance ly extremely effective in “secur- of heterosexual male behavior.”13 ing” masculinity. This element of The Promise Keepers (PK), the hegemonic masculinity theory was group who informed this definiparticularly poignant for the high tion, are one of several organiza-

9 Reference quote: “The very definition of manhood we have developed in our culture maintain the power that some men have over other men and that men have over women.” Kimmel. Masculinity as Homophobia. 10 Connell, Raewyn. “The Social Organization of Masculinity.” Essay. In Exploring Masculinities, edited by C.J. Pascoe and Tristan Bridges, 136–44. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016. 11 Kimmel. Masculinity as Homophobia. P. 75. 12 Connell, Raewyn. “The Social Organization of Masculinity.” 13 Heath, Melanie. “Manhood Over Easy: Reflections on Hegemonic, Soft-Boiled, and Multiple Masculinities.” Essay. In Exploring Masculinities, edited by C.J. Pascoe and Tristan Bridges, 155-65. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016.

-tions that formed during the ganization, as is homophobia. mythopoetic movement of the Men are considered to be born 1990s. In a reaction to what they leaders, assertive, confident, believed was the feminization of and able to control their emomen, the PK aimed to transform tions; they are considered more and alter the norms of masculinity competent and powerful than by challenging men to reestablish women. In order to support the their leadership role in the fami- idea that strong male leadership ly. Unifying men of different races is crucial to bringing and mainand socioeconomic backgrounds taining moral order to modern under a single Christian banner, society, men–as the head of the the group provided a “safe space” household– need to be the spirfor men to be emotional with one itual beacons within the family another. This embrace of “soft these traits must be upheld. The masculinity” cites Jesus Christ PK is rife with contradictions as himself as inspi- they incorpo-

ration; he was a strong, powerful man who was Inclusive masculinity could help dismantle the idea and rate language from feminism and gender also emotional, and they should all do well to im“need” for a hegemonic masculinity in the United States. equality to reinstate the hierarchy of men

itate him. The over women, intersectional approach of the PK and heterosexuality over homooffered marginalized men a way to sexuality. Nevertheless, the PK participate in hegemonic practic- and similar movements changed es alongside more privileged men, the trajectory of hegemonic maswhile at the same time, using reli- culinity by allowing—and even gion to maintain gender hegemo- encouraging—emotional vulnerny and refraining from addressing ability, even if only amongst othstructural inequalities within the er men. organization itself. In interviews, With the Promise Keepthe wives of PK members noted ers group, we see emotional their roles in the household as stunting beginning to drop “separate but equal” with one wife away, but homophobia is as prescomparing the gendered division ent as ever. The passing of two of labor to cherry and apple pie.14 decades brought about massive The gender hierarchy is changes to the concept of hegestill alive and well within the sup- monic masculinity. In Eric Anposedly “enlightened” PK or- derson’s article “Inclusive Mas-

culinity,” he explores the drastic changes he observed in the 2013 track team of a Southern Californian high school (his alma mater, in fact) compared to that of the 1990s, the same era the Promise Keepers rose to prominence. In the 1990s, the football team ruled the school from the top of the masculinity hierarchy. They “hate[d] gays, femininity, and all other ‘lesser’ masculine sports.”15 In what sounds like a scene straight out of the comingof-age classic, Grease, Anderson describes how football players maintained the social order “through physical domination (or threat thereof) and discursive marginalization (think homophobic discourse).”16 The behaviors of the 2013 track team are wildly different. There is no apparent athletic or social hierarchy, and the team embraces the openly gay players (and Anderson as their coach), and physical touch and intimacy between teammates is common. Anderson’s anecdotes of teammates holding each other in their arms for prolonged periods of time, wearing “feminine” clothes, and embracing a wide range of sexualities lead him to believe that the days of homophobic slurs and intimidation tactics are long gone. Instead, inclusivity and plurality seem to have replaced the exclusionary practices and language of the 1990s. Because of an active rejection of the aspired-to ideal by the younger generations, inclusive masculinity could help to dismantle the idea and “need” for a hegemonic masculinity in the United States. With these varying types of masculinities all on a level playing field, no singular masculinity is deemed the hege mon. Citing his observations as prime evidence, Anderson explains how hegemonic masculinity theory cannot explain this new form of inclusive masculinity where homophobia plays a miniscule to nonexistent role in the masculinity hierarchy. While acknowledging how useful it was during the highly homophobic 1980s and 90s, Anderson believes a new theory is needed for the

2000s, particularly his new theory

of inclusive masculinity. Anderson has found the same patterns exhibited in his Southern Californian alma mater across schools in other areas of the United States and the United Kingdom and believes it can be extrapolated to

14 Heath, Melanie. “Manhood Over Easy: Reflections on Hegemonic, Soft-Boiled, and Multiple Masculinities.” P. 158. 15 Anderson, Eric. “Inclusive Masculinities.” Essay. In Exploring Masculinities, edited by C.J. Pascoe and Tristan Bridges, 178-187, 78. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016.16 Anderson, Eric. “Inclusive Masculinities.” P. 178.

other populations. He explains that as the stigma around homosexuality declines, homophobia logically loses its power to regulate masculinity. This is exactly the pattern described in “Inclusive Masculinities.” Anderson also notes how people of all social and economic backgrounds become more tolerant at roughly the same rate, contributing to the normalization of behaviors previously considered deviant. We see this not just in social norms, but in legislation as well; by the end of 2013, 18 U.S. states had legalized same-sex marriage and two years later, the landmark Supreme Court case

Obergefell v. Hodges made same-

sex marriage legal throughout the U.S. This rejection of homophobia as a guiding principle of hegemonic masculinity seems to be a permanent fixture, but some would argue that the resurgence of hyper-masculine patriarchal values seen during the Trump Administration is providing significant pushback. The Trump Administration and its supporters rejected this inclusive masculinity and pushed for a permanent revival of the Marketplace Man, whom many would say Trump embodies. While these observations of inclusive masculinity between teammates are powerful and denote a significant shift in the field of masculinity studies, Anderson’s lack of an intersectional approach has drawn criticism. His purposeful exclusion of race, religion, and socioeconomic status limits the depth of his observations. Furthermore, Anderson does not discuss the status of female students. It is very possible that the lack of hierarchy amongst the boys he observed is not replicated in their rela-tionship with the school’s girls. Along these same lines, Anderson does not explore how hegemony is upheld in other arenas such as academics, within other sports teams or extracurriculars. Popularity, another aspect Anderson does not take into account, could also be comparable to the prior necessity of participation in the marketplace as seen with Marketplace Manhood and hegemonic masculinity theory. What “capital” does this “marketplace”—in this case popularity in a high school—offer? In what other ways does inclusive masculinity perpetuate the patriarchy? Masculinity is “a constantly changing collection of meanings that we construct through our relationships with ourselves, with each other, and with our world. Masculinity is

neither static nor timeless; it is historical. Manhood is not the manifestation of an inner essence; it is socially constructed.”17 Hegemonic masculinity cannot be explained as a simple list of traits, as that would be far too reductive. Behaviors and relationships, however, are to be observed and explored in an effort to understand and explain how exactly the hegemonic masculinity of a given period is embodied. Homophobia was once thought to be inevitable—even imperative—to hegemony by masculinities scholars but has since been proven to be unnecessary; gone is the need to constantly prove one’s masculinity to other men. What prevails is not sheer physical strength or the absence of emotion as seen in prior iterations of masculinity, rather it is the possession of power. While this power may look different depending on the era, it is central to the concept of hegemonic masculinity as we understand it today. Power prevents homosexual men from climbing up the ladder of the masculinity hierarchy and forcibly perpetuates women’s lower status which maintains the patriarchy. As Americans become more accepting and more people—particularly boys and men—live in tolerant societies, the prominence of inclusive masculinity is on the rise and could very well become the next hegemonic masculinity or promote the absence of one.

Bibliography

Anderson, Eric. “Inclusive Masculinities.” Essay. In Exploring Masculin ities, edited by C.J. Pascoe and Tristan Bridges, 178-187, 78. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016. Connell, Raewyn. “The Social Organization of Masculinity.” Essay. In Exploring Masculinities, edited by C.J. Pascoe and Tristan Bridges, 136–44. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016. Heath, Melanie. “Manhood Over Easy: Reflections on Hegemonic, SoftBoiled, and Multiple Masculinities.” Essay. In Exploring Mas culinities, edited by C.J. Pascoe and Tristan Bridges, 155-65, 158. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016. Kimmel, Michael. Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, Shame and Silence in the Construction of Gender Identity. St. Augustine: Centre for Gender & Development Studies, University of the West Indies, 1996. P. 73.

GUNPOWDER

Believe it or not, I can smell fear Little bumps carry an ever so clear message to me The flinch beneath your pale skin Ever so clear

A delighted shout escapes my throat Before your throat heaves back in whatever laugh you have You flinch Maybe not at your surface But the skin beneath your skin beneath your skin

The cells that have died since you watched terrorism on channel 6 Leave their corpses behind Because noise escapes cells that look like mine The chords in this hairy neck transcends a brown scale Ttossing out explosive volume in even mundane situations and sentences A volume you don’t see coming from a brown girl Outside from pledging the greatness of a certain god You weren't aware brown girls raised their voices

But only half of me is tinted like the mix of hummus and rye chips And these chords escape that half I bought and wore a perfume Smelled good enough to be chomped and swallowed A crust, an apple and sugar smell And amongst all that your nostrils dissected it down to only the spices

Even cinnamon and nutmeg smells like gunpowder

I yell in joyous laughter Slap my knee while howling But eardrums above your smooth neck first hear a battle cry selene ashewood

New Age Witchcraft: The History Behind the Magick

Marteena Mendel-Duckins

Iremember my mother telling me a story of how she made a man fall in love with her. It’s an old hoodoo magic practice; write the name of your lover on a sheet of paper 3 times, place the paper in a jar and fill it with honey, close the jar with the lid and melt a candle to seal. I believed that this beautiful, yet dangerous spell was a hoodoo practice carried down from generation to generation. That this magic should only be practiced by, well, Black people. Hoodoo is a mix of spiritual practices, traditions, and beliefs created by African slaves in North America that were held in secret from slaveholders. One could only imagine my surprise when I saw that this sacred honey jar was being practiced by white wiccans on TikTok who had no idea the impact of hoodoo on African American spiritualism. Witchcraft has been embedded in many cultures around the world, including countries in Europe, The Americas, Africa, and South Asia. Harvest, healing, and overall health is just a few ways witchcraft has affected populations. “Early works in astrology, originally written in Sanskrit and dating as far back as 400 B.C., make observations of the powers of crystal magic. According to New Age practitioners, crystals, in their modern-day usage, can be used as a teacher or source of spiritual guidance by anyone.” (Carlos 1). In western society today, women --especially minorities-- have been able to use magic to feel divine and achieve success. In some cases, it’s almost like a form of therapy. All over the world, many people, especially women, are beginning to open up their

minds to different spiritual practices. Whether it be old folk magic, tarot, or crystals, witchcraft has been commercialised and accepted as a way to enhance spirituality. But this also prompts the conversation of who exactly can partake in these practices. Hoodoo and Voodoo

particularly originated from african american slaves. Santeria comes from cuban-african origin. Crystals and yoga from India, and folk practice comes from, all around Europe. In any case, some traditional practices such as honey jars, crystal-work, and ancestor ma ic are arguably to be kept within the ethnic bloodline. The new age witchcraft and commercialisation of certain practices are in danger of becoming a mass culturally appropriated spiritualist product. So, how do we navigate the world of New Age witchcraft while also being mindful of ethnic practices? It would be easy to say that if an individual is not African American they should not practice hoodoo, or if one is not Cuban don’t practice santeria, but in most cases, people do not even understand where this magic originated. They simply scroll through posts online and attempt to imitate spells. The most important idea is that if an individual decides to practice magic, they should learn the history and foundational ideologies to participate in the cultural exchange of witchcraft. I personally think that it’s amazing that spiritual practices are being normalized. Much of the magic practices are anti-patriarchal and give women power to reach for their goals and tackle social norms that hinder women from being successful. Even more so, it’s a way for women to join together and understand themselves, and each other. As seen in early 2017, American witches participated in the mass spell against former president Donald Trump. These witches used hashtags on social media to join witches all over the country to strengthen their spell. Nevertheless, witchcraft and spirituality goes deeper than political hexing, it’s about connecting

Whether it be old folk magic, tarot, or crystals, witchcraft has been commercialised and accepted as a way to enhance spirituality.

with the universe or ancestors (depending on one’s specific practice) to gain insight on how to succeed in life. Madame Omi Kongo, a Hoodoo rootworker from a long line of female practitioners who runs a Tumblr blog, says, “Without an African ancestral link, the practice becomes something other than Hoodoo.” For her, Hoodoo means “making something out

of nothing.” She uses the magical practice for herself and her clients as a way to overcome obstacles and attempt to gain a desired outcome with the help of spirits. One can only truly appreciate these cultural practices when they learn the history and importance behind it. While some may find witchcraft as an interest or hobby, others believe that this is birthright that should be recognized. There is a difference be-tween being interested in witchcraft and being a practitioner. Many of those scrolling on their TikTok feed will see a ritual or an altar as an aesthetic, and not as a duty that should be taken seriously. “The recent rise of WitchTok (a portmanteau of witch and TikTok) is the only latest manifestation of the internet coven’s magical ascendence, ranging from your everyday basic witch to the “influencer witches” who dominate every social platform. The Witchtok hashtag currently garners a staggering 5.4 billion views, while #WitchesofInstagram boasts 5.6 million posts” (Joho & Sung). In most cases, people don’t actually know what a rose quartz crystal does, or the effects of a moldavite crystal. They just regurgitate information they saw on a video. They buy crystals because they’re pretty, not for the actual practice. It’s completely ok that a person wants to buy crystals for the “look” but it’s not ok when someone claims they are a witch just because they collect crystals. “Not everyone who practices spiritualities commonly associated with the witch aesthetic identifies with the word, and labeling their sacred rituals or

Witchcraft gaining popularity is not a bad thing. The problem is, when a practice becomes commercialized, the product’s origins lose its meaning.

medicinal practices magic is not only offensive, but a tactic used to justify violence against Black and Indigenous people. There’s also a difference between folk magic and formal religions that were born out of slavery and colonialism, like Santería, Voodoo, and Candomblé” (Joho & Sung). For some people, it’s a trend, for others, it’s a generational rite of passage that’s being misused in the name of “aesthetic.” The commercial use of the word “witch” has become more harmful than good. Once again, I will say, witchcraft gaining popularity is not a bad thing. The problem is, when a practice becomes commercialized, the product’s origins lose its meaning. Many argue that certain practices of witchcraft such as voodoo, hoodoo, and reiki , or all witchcraft that is dominant to one ethnic group, should remain a “closed practice.” Meaning, those who are not born into the practice should not dabble in that specific magic at all. Witchcraft and magic is all about experiencing life in a new way, to see life with a different set of eyes. However, at the same time, many spells and traditions are linked to generational suffering and should not be shared with others outside the heritage. This has led to eclectic (mostly white) witches becoming angry, as they are interested in trying new spells and rituals with a particular witch practice. Even more so, these same witches are the people who fail to represent or even display Black, Asian, or Hispanic imagery on their typical “witchy” blog or Instagram posts. The

witchcraft exchange argument has become the heat of discussion in the witch community and has been subjugated to the name of “gatekeeping” or trying to keep people out of certain witch communities, The argument basically comes down to this: Should a white person be practicing a ritual that is rooted in slave practice? My answer, as a Black woman who has come

Women of all backgrounds are free to use tarot and divination to fight the patriarchy, but the main priority is to give credit to the women that were persecuted to make this practice possible.

from a line of women who’ve practiced witchcraft is no. When a white person practices hoodoo or voodoo, it becomes something else entirely. It can not possibly be practiced with the same intentions as a slave who has experienced suffering at the hands of white people. “If you don’t know about where the customs you practice come from, figure that out because otherwise it becomes another form of colonization and theft,” said Edgar Fabián Frías, a Latinx artist with Wixáritari Indigenous Mexican heritage who identifies with the non-binary brujx moniker (Joho & Sung). In either case, close practices and gatekeeping is at the core of the argument in the commercialization of witchcraft. Since Western culture has seen a recent surge in witchcraft, tarot cards and crystals have become a particular interest for beginner witches. Initially starting in Italy, tarot has been used for centuries as a tool for divination and oracle reading. But the new introduction of this practice has been seen as a way to invigorate minority communities such as the LGBT+ community and people of color. Lisa Sterle, freelance artist and creator of the “modern witch” tarot deck stated her tarot is, “ an inclusive feminist deck.” She exchanges the predominately white characters in the tarot cards of the 1909 Rider-Waite-Smith deck to women, people of color, plus-sized women, and queer characters. In addition to tarot, working with the cycles of the moon and seasons; and using a daily meditation practice alongside energy healing crystals are used to empower the everyday modern woman. Crystals have been used in healing since the times of the ancient sumerian civilization, and have since then evolved into British, Indian, and Native American cultures alike (Carlos 6). Unlike Middle Eastern and North African women who seek marriage with spells and witchcraft, these western practices aim to encourage women to center themselves and become independent from the patriarchy. In Orlando, Florida, the store “Avalon’’ contains self-help books, classes on how to read Tarot, and collect cultural talismans inspired by peoples around the world. At the center of it all, is the crystal collection. Avalon is the perfect example of the good that New Age spirituality is trying to bring to the world. It promotes peace

within religions, good diet, good mental health, and plenty of other things that attract a young clientele – or a clientele looking for deeper meaning in their daily lives (Carlos 25). But even though these practices are becoming mainstream in western media, it can not be forgotten that women and people of color are at the forefront of this practice and should be recognized for their contributions. Women of all backgrounds are free to use tarot and divination to fight the patriarchy, but the main priority is to give credit to the women that were persecuted to make this practice possible. Whether one was born into a line of witch practitioners, or became interested through TikTok, witchcraft has become a quintessential aspect of the female experience. The traditional uses of magick have been to help women tap into their divinity and climb the social ladder, even in modern day it has become a way for women of all shapes, colors, and sizes to connect to their spirituality. Female power can be invoked in many ways. Using tarot, crystals, and other magical methods is just one way that women can evolve and gain confidence. Whether exploring or experienced, witchcraft is open for everyone-- as long as it is respected.

Works Cited

Bess, Gabby. Black Magic: Hoodoo Witches Speak Out on the Appropriation of Their Craft. September 23, 2015,https://www.vice.com/en/ article/qkg93m/black-magic-talking-with-hoodoo-witches

Carlos, Kristine D., "Crystal Healing Practices in the Western World and Beyond"(2018). Honors Undergraduate Theses.283.https://stars. library.ucf.edu/honorstheses/283

Joho, Jess. Sung, Morgan. How to be a witch without stealing other people’s cultures, Oct 31, 2020.https://mashable.com/article/witchtok-problematic-witch-cultural-appropriation/?europe=true

This article is from: