(Techno)Paganism: An Exploration of Animistic Relations with the Digital

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presents a interesting research. It is based on a clear and credible reflection about new modes of religion. It focus on the technological neopaganism. It liked me. It has been constructed with  a solid logical and empirical support and it express the Zeitgeist of our time.

But I recommend some consideration:

1.The classical voices of sociology as Weber, Durkheim, Geertz, Bellah and Joas could tell us about ths issue. In this research semms tha the religion beginns today. There is n references to the wordly religions  explained by this authors. The argument beginns with the old and preaxial religions and finishes with the neopaganism. In the middle thre is nothing.

2.  The question about the religion remains. Maybe a consideration about this issue mus be taken into account.  In the SEcular Age (Taylor) the Great Transcendences are in crisis. But the religion doesn't dissapear. It assumms different expressionn of our global and accelerated societies. Maybe its place belongs to the little transcendences (for example). The religion is a universal part of the social life.

3. Finally, it would be important to highlights the influence of this mode os religion on the social life., the identity and "the society of singularities" (Reckwitz).  The neopaganism comes to the creative soul of our time. The main aspect of this is the play, the experiences and the emotions. Some reflection about the impact of this kund of religion on the lights and shadows of our society could be interesting.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I would like to thank you for your encouraging evaluation and critical remarks. I revised my text and hope that it is now somehow clearer. In relation to your suggestions, I expanded the theoretical discussions regarding religion, its entanglement with digital media, and how neopaganism is present in today’s scenario.

All changes are highlighted in yellow.

Most challenging was your remark on the need for further discussion about religious evolution and the social effects of neopaganism in contemporaneity. Although I included some analysis and comments about religion (or what we understand as religion) and the particularities of ‘neopaganism’ as religion, I couldn’t cover all your suggestions since that would have meant to separate the paper from its main purpose, which is to show how through technopaganism it can be possible to appreciate an animistic perspective towards the digital otherness. However, I’m aware that in its previous version, the objective of the paper was not sufficiently clear. To avoid misconceptions, I included in the introduction how each chapter will allow us to explore the ways digital animism can be perceived in technopagan religious practices.

Therefore, though my paper does not allow for an in-depth discussion about religion and the sociocultural consequences of neopaganism, I did insert footnotes (number: 8, 12, 13, 19, and 29) commenting on the work of authors such as Clifford Geertz and Roy Rappaport, as well as in-text (pages: 2, 3, and 7) reflections about conflicts emerging in neopaganism in relation to validation and authority.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very interesting article - theoretical part and argument are clear and compelling (two categories of technopaganism is an important contribution which deserves some more attention in the rest of the article), although weakened by the empirical part. The case studies presented by the author are very interesting, but they are described in haste, not properly positioned in relation to each other and to the larger field of possible online engagements/experiences while the analysis of the different cases is not rigorous, thus the findings remain unclear. Furthermore the case studies contribute only minimally to the conclusion of this article as a proper link between the theoretical and empirical part is missing. Because of this dynamic the central argument of this paper is weakened: what is the central question which aims to be answered through this article and to which extent contribute the different parts of the article to answering this question?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I would like to deeply thank you for your thorough reading, your encouraging evaluation, and your critical remarks.

 

All changes are highlighted in yellow.

I revised the formulations you pointed out (pages 16, 17, 20, and 22). First, I expanded the analysis of the two types of technopaganism, situating them in other parts of the paper. I also did some further revisions on the case studies by analyzing them further in relation to technopaganism and digital animism. Additionally,  I clarified the aim of the paper and why the discussion about animism in technopagan practices can be important to the current studies about human relationships with the digital real (2 and 3).

Regarding your comments on the case studies, I previously didn’t work too much in that area since my paper is mostly a theoretical analysis; the examples were intended to show in a clearer way how technopaganism can be described nowadays.

I hope the developments I’ve made answer to your observations and comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been greatly improved.