On Oct. 28, Time magazine published an article called “Why Witches on TV Spell Trouble in real life.” It was part of the avalanche of articles on Witches and Witchcraft that typically appear in October. As suggested by the title, the article’s intent was to examine the social factors surrounding the popularity of TV witches. After publication, Time and the writer, Jennie Latson, were hit with a wave of backlash from Pagans and Witches.
The article contains two sentences that became the target of those reactions. The first is a quote from Emerson Baker, a history professor at Salem State University. He writes, “Witches, like terrorists, ‘threaten to wipe out everything you believe in.’ The article’s second offending sentence is “The difference, of course, is that terrorists are real, while witches are not.”
On Oct. 30, Silver Ravenwolf published a brief response:
I am shaking my head. I am wondering what rock these people are crawling out from under. How about you actually take the time to interview a real Witch, to live their life for 30 days, and then I dare you to come back and tell me that I’m a terrorist.
Jason Mankey posted a longer response titled “Dear Time magazine, Witches are Real!” on his blog Raise the Horns. His tempered response included:
I don’t think Ms. Latson’s article was intentionally insulting. She was simply trying to rationalize the explosion of Witch-themed shows on cable television. Fair enough, that’s the kind of article we all expect this time of year, but her execution was exceedingly poor.
Adam Osborne of Salisbury, North Carolina began a change.org petition asking Time magazine to apologize. He wrote,”The article, although seemingly benign, puts Pagans and those who practice witchcraft in a bad light, and could encourage others to “punish” us as they would deem fit.” The petition has received 5,078 supporters to date.
While Pagans sent angry tweets to both the magazine and writer, several online media outlets reported on rising tension. The International Business Times wrote, “Many practicing Wiccans were not amused, and some accused the magazine of comparing witches to terrorists.” The Inquisitor published an opinion piece on the subject and Religion Dispatches posted a reaction from religion professor Joseph Laycock. On Nov. 10, Latson linked to that response in a tweet:
How I (inadvertently) evoked the wrath of modern-day witches: http://t.co/CRbVTcxEzK. By @joe_laycock.
— Jennie Latson (@JennieLatson) November 10, 2014
Although the backlash was notable, Pagan reactions were not uniform, and many felt the article wasn’t a problem. Osborne’s petition has yet to receive the requested number of signatures. Why? Because the Latson article focused on fictional witches and the legends surrounding Salem. When she said, “Witches aren’t real,” she was referring to the type of witch found in most Hollywood representations (e.g., Maleficent,2014; Witches,1990; The Chronicles of Narnia, 2005).
The word witch is, and has always been, a very loaded term. Outside of fictional representations, the word has many meanings, each of which evokes a very different culturally-dependent reaction. When someone says “witch” in a small Nigerian village, the meaning is entirely different from a person using the word while relaxing at Treadwell’s Bookshop in London. It means something different within the walls of the Vatican than it does at a Pagan Pride event in California. And, it means something different today than it did 100 or 500 years ago. Contextuality is everything when using the word “witch.”
Considering the reactions, Latson’s article failed to adequately contextualize its subject matter in order to avoid criticism. The sentence “Witches are not real” was not encased in language that demonstrated an understanding or sensitivity to the term’s varied contemporary usage. This resulted in outrage.
Limiting her statement to Hollywood cinematic language, Latson’s statement about witches is mostly true. However, the article makes other claims, beyond those two statements, that prove problematic from a cinematic and historical viewpoint. The article suggests that fictional witches are more popular during times of trouble. This statement is not supported by film research. As with the word “witch” itself, the iconic meaning of the cinematic witch needs better contexualization in order to understand its popularity.
1957, The Undead. Dorothy Neumenn as Meg Maud. [Courtesy of Acidemic.blogspot.com.]
…may have its roots in the post-9/11 panic over terrorism and what could be seen as a Salem-like erosion of civil rights in the name of security — or, more recently, in the revelations that the National Security Agency seems to be spying on ordinary citizens as stealthily as neighbors spied on neighbors in colonial Salem
However, fictional witches were not only popular in times of trouble. Witches were prolific in American films at the turn of century because filmmakers, who wanted to showcase a new entertainment product, used popular stories, such as fairy tales and histories, to draw in audiences (e.g, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, 1910; In the Days of Witchcraft, 1913; Joan the Woman, 1917). Similarly, witches were popular in times of economic stability such as the 1950s and 1990s.
Film scholars believe the popularity of witches is less about social instability and more about the negotiation of gender roles. When discussing witch films, theorists focus on female agency and sexuality. As noted by Tanya Krzywinska in A Skin for Dancing in, “Witchcraft [in film] has become a language of resistance to the cultural norms of femininity…” (Krzywinska, p.117) These norms include beauty, family roles, career paths and power held within society.
While this very specific cinematic codification is consistent across time, it doesn’t explain everything. The use of the filmic witch as an icon of radical femininity is wholly dependent on time and genre. In the 1920s, when women were experiencing unprecedented social freedom, witches nearly disappeared from the American screen. In 1934, witches returned as the Depression took hold and traditional family structures were celebrated. At the very same time, the Catholic-based censorship office began its control of the Hollywood production (e.g., The Wizard of Oz, 1939; Spitfire,1934; Maid of Salem, 1937). In this case, witches were an example of what not to be.
By the 1970s and after the social revolution, the horror film began incorporating versions of the witch figure. In these films, the focus is more on aberrant female sexuality than conventional social roles (e.g., Rosemary’s Baby, 1968; Carrie,1976; Witches of Eastwick, 1987; The Craft, 1996). And, in today’s market, the narrative positioning of the Hollywood witch trope has changed again as society plays with the acceptance of non-traditional cultural modalities. This can be seen in thematic and narrative complexities playing out in recent shows such as Salem, American Horror Story: Coven, the Witches of East End and others.
WGN America’s Salem Poster
In addition, most discussions of cinematic witches, like the Time magazine article, fail to take race into account. Most Hollywood cinematic witches are white. The female, brown-skinned witch has a very different role and cinematic meaning within Hollywood language. Analysis of this type of witch reveals threads of racism, colonialism and the unfettered objectification of the “other” (e.g., The Devil’s Daughter, 1939, The Crucible, 1996; Salem, 2014) This is an entirely different story.
The popularity, or the lack of popularity, of the witch in TV and cinema proves to be as complicated as the use of the term “witch” itself. In both cases, scholarship is not complete without acknowledging those complexities even on a small scale. Muddling this matter further are the many blurred lines between the various meanings – both fictional and real. There are shared details, such as black hats, cauldrons, magical work, healing and aspects of the Occult, that underlie our cultural understanding of the witch. These elements are often what lead to frustration and anger for those that identify as modern-day real Witches. Many people, non-Witches, don’t or can’t see the distinctions between the purely cinematic and fictional, the historical legends, the accusations in Africa, and the real, genuine practice of Witchcraft around the globe.
UPDATE 11/17/14: Prof. Emerson Baker, who was quoted in the original Time article, did issue his own apology on his site for the confusions that were generated by Latson’s story.
The Wild Hunt is not responsible for links to external content.
To join a conversation on this post:
Visit our The Wild Hunt subreddit! Point your favorite browser to https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Wild_Hunt_News/, then click “JOIN”. Make sure to click the bell, too, to be notified of new articles posted to our subreddit.
TIME magazine couldn’t have planned a better viral marketing campaign if they tried. They might have been something back in the 90’s, but the magazine’s quality has fallen so far that it’s on par with US Weekly and other material suitable for lining bird-cages.
I don’t know US Weekly but I can say that I generally thoroughly appreciate TIME Magazine. They, most of the time, represent what I think is the ´real´ journalistic spirit with well-researched and long articles, splendid photography and numerous exclusive features. This article was unfortunate but overall I still think TIME’s worth it.
TIME is too high-clay and high-ink to put in the bottom of a bird cage. That stuff is not good for the birds, who are small and easy to poison.
Problem with all that is that the writers and creators of ‘Salem’ said in an interview that they believe witches are real. Salem is the direct result of that belief.
Christians are the terrorists…they are the reason why all pagans were forced to convert to their filthy religion or die…Wiccan and Proud
Another great article Heather…I am just wondering two things:
Have you ever written any academic/popular article about the representation of witches in US movies? If so where can one find such an article – besides, have you ever researched witch-figures in international cinema?
The second question would be: has everyone even tried to just talk to the article’s author? I recognize that the article could have been written in a subtler way, but instead of just complaining and asking for apologies, wouldn’t it be more productive to try to learn why the journalist made those statement and educate her -and other as well- about the state of witchcraft in the present day?
I am not heather but your second question is simple….have you ever asked someone who doesn’t follow “the craft” what a “witch” is?
They will tell you…..filthy, scary, evil….and I’m sure you could think of a million ugly words that they would answer with.
The Author of the Time’s piece said she didn’t mean to be a bigot however she came off as one in her piece why? Look at how Christians, Jews, and other religions view witches as “evil”. They killed all Pagans who didn’t convert to their filthy religions because they saw Pagans (in their messed up world) had no gods (god). So, to not only control the masses they turned their sheep in to haters and made them murder, rape, and torture innocents to take over claiming they were the “true” religion….This happened in the dark ages and also over in England during the “witch hunts”.
We have laws against that now but even today other religions still have their prejudices against Pagans/Wiccans. So, if you want to get into the “mind” of the Author all you have to do is realize that other religions will shape their sheep into believing anything they want them to believe which is why we call them sheep. They are gullible enough to believe that a woman conceived a child with no sexual intercourse…..and that when he died on the cross he rose again from the dead and is coming back for them….this is all complete non-sense but yet the sheep maintain that it’s true and it really happened.
So, why are you surprised or want to know what this Author was thinking when they wrote the piece. It’s obvious she “believed” the hype that witches are evil things that must be put to death…Just look at some of the other pieces the Time have done about Heaven being real what Jesus would really do…..They are not for Religious freedom…They are for the one “true religion” just like back in the dark ages except their words are hurting instead of their fires and ropes.
Totally agree with your talk on christianity in regard to the image of witches. However I have, over the year, found very little religious propaganda in the pages of TIME so my immediate feeling would be that this woman was probably not writing intentionally hurtful words. It still is a possibility though but we won’t know until we ask. Hence my question.
Bull.
I don’t “follow the craft” and I wouldn’t sasy that –but then again, I get the impression that you’re one of those people who uses the words “pagan” and “witch” synonymously and probably don’t even realise that there are polytheists who only barely, or don’t even at all, consider themselves or their religion “pagan”. So you’re probably giving others incentive to say those things who otherwise would not, by intentionally alienating them.
Thank you, Dantes. I have written 2-3 articles on U.S. films and witches here at The Wild Hunt. Do a search on Hollywood. I also have also reviewed several films and shows. I am currently working on a book on this topic.
Yes, I have done research on International cinema. However, I am limiting my work now because each cinematic system has its own symbolic language and needs to be dealt with independently.
Cool ! I sure hope you’ll let us know when your book is finished! Good luck with it!
This is a wonderful article, well researched and written with understanding.
Heather Greene should give Jennie Latson journalism and writing lessons. Thank you. You hit on all my arguments about the Time article.
Time’s been doing quite a bit of what I consider to be trolling, lately, probably in an effort to boost their now-almost-non-existent relevance. See, e.g., their recent article on the word “feminism.”
I just got an email from iirc EMILY”s list, to the effect that TIME has apologized for the latter.
Agree. The title reeked of clickbait.
Their quality has declined precipitously in recent years.
I cancelled a subscription that I could have kept for free just because the articles won’t worth the used paper.
There’s an odd typo in there: “In these films, the focus is more on abherrant female sexuality than conventional social roles”
Did you mean aberrant or did you mean abhorrent?
(Ed: cleaned up post. Disqus is being disqusting again and made hash out of my attempts to c&p the phrase.)
This was a typo. Aberrant is correct. However, I suppose abhorrent would work in some circles as well. Thanks.
I’d love to know how someone who became a history professor could possibly make such a ridiculous statement. I sincerely hope he’s a professor of 19th century Europe or something like that, because no one with even a cursory understanding of the “witch scares” in Europe could make that comment. Even assuming the viewpoint of someone opposed to “witches”, they didn’t serve a similar role in society as modern militants/terrorists (also terrorists is such a broad and lazy term with no context like that and he’s vastly misunderstanding terrorism as well).
I wonder if he’s a History Channel style “professor”.
I agree, and at the time I also thought the lack of reference to women’s sexuality was bizarre, as witches (unlike any other fictional superhuman trope I can think of) are portrayed as almost exclusively female.
Well, strangely enough the man appears to be somehow somekind of “authority” on witchcraft and has even authored a bool On the Salem Witch Trial. Worse, his Wikipedia page even says that he is a Specialist of XVIIth century Maine.
Maybe his words were somewhat twisted out of context (after all, his ratings are rather good). Even I, with only one year of Folkloristics find this sentence rather dumb.
He wrote an apology statement in your first link, which sort of clears it up.
But he is still vastly misunderstanding terrorism. I’m sure the political science department is right down the hall he really should go get a refresher on the topic.
Nor do I still think the two are comparable in any way, even limiting his statement to Salem.
I don’t either but if we’re talking about popular representations of threatening others I can kinda guess that one could make a comparison. I won’t talk further though, considering that I haven’t read his book.
Two weeks after this little incident, what bothers me most is that Latson refuses to apologize or even acknowledge the Witchcraft community. She didn’t call us terrorists, but she did basically imply that we don’t exist, and certainly continues to act that way.
This is the problem inherent in claiming a word that has, for centuries, been used almost exclusively to describe an individual with supernatural powers, in a less than positive fashion.
The vast majority of people to day will still think of the Wicked Witch of the West, or someone who has “kissed the Devil’s phallus” before they think of the modern, Pagan, definition.
That being said, it is significant that Jennie Latson has not given an apology. Either she has no remorse for what she has written or she feels that the backlash is not warranted. Either way, it is interest that I have not heard of Time Magazine’s stance on the controversy.
Hence I think, the need to maybe ask her directly what she thinks about it all.
So very, very true. I have never understood why someone would adopt such an emotionally charged word to describe something that doesn’t remotely resemble every other definition of that word, since ever. “Pagan” at least I can see, “Wiccan” makes sense, but to use “witch,” especially after the myths surrounding the ancient universal goddess worship and the nine million women dying during the Inquisition makes zero sense to me.
That said, emotional attachment doesn’t have to make sense to be valid, but if you are attached to it, you’re attached to a long fight to redefine the word, not “reclaim” it, because it never meant any of those nice things in the first place. Since you want to redefine it, you don’t start by getting offended that a professional journalist uses the generally-accepted definition rather than the one adopted by a tiny fraction of a fraction of a minority of people in this country. No, if you want to redefine the word, start by being positive rather than pitching a fit. After all, what you put out into the world comes back three times.
Indeed. Even in ancient Hellas, the Pharmoukossai Isles (the “Witch Islands”) and center of Kirke’s cult were something viewed with suspicion, and those who sought the assistance of those women seldom spoke of it. While I will pick this nit with those who say that “witchcraft” and magic use somehow didn’t exist amongst the ancient Hellenic polytheistic religion, I also have to admit that it clearly wasn’t a mainstream thing. It would be more-comparable to, say, Catholics in Venezeula who also worship Maria Lionza —to the local archdioscese, these people are not Catholics, but something else entirely, but to those who do follow both, they are both,whether the Church likes it or not, they just have a calling to Maria Lionza as much as Jesus and Mary and perhaps other Saints in the Catholic religion; to many people and some prominent philosophers, I’m sure, in ancient Hellas, one couldn’t practise magic/witchcraft AND be a “good Hellene” who follows the Theoi, but to those in the cult of Kirke, since She *is* an immortal Goddess, they *are* being good Hellenes following the Gods of Hellas by abiding by their calling to Her service as much as the Gallae are following their calling to Kybele or the Orphics to their calling to Dionysos, and so on.
Thanks for a thoughtful and very interesting article. Since many of the comments and concerns are about me and my book, I thought people would appreciate reading my views on this controversy in the post I made on my website (www.salemstate.edu/~ebaker) two weeks ago:
I want to clear up any confusion that has arisen over my views on modern day
Wicca and the events of the Salem witch trials of 1692. Any reader of my book, A Storm of Witchcraft: The Salem Trials and the American Experience
knows that I acknowledge the existence of Wiccans, modern day pagans or witches,and note their substantial presence and many contributions to Salem,
Massachusetts today. In the conclusion of the book I do draw parallels between
the present day terrorist threat and the fear over malevolent witches who in
the seventeenth century were believed to have the power to kill people and
destroy property from a great distance. The problem was that anyone could be a
witch, so detecting one in 1692 was difficult. Indeed since malevolent witches
did not actually exist in Salem we now recognize that it was an impossible
task. I compare this situation to today when America faces the very real danger
of terrorism, which is so difficult to detect and prevent.
Unfortunately as Salem has shown, our tendency is to give in to our paranoia, falling back on perception and stereotype to scapegoat those who look or act differently. The result then and now is that real and perceived dangers become inextricable and all too often this results in the victimization of the innocent. If there is a key take away from my book, it is a call for toleration. I hope that this call will not be misconstrued as a justification for modern day persecution.
So I do make a comparison between the very real presence of dangerous terrorists today and the supposed existence of witches in the seventeenth century who allegedly could perform harmful satanic magic. But I would never make any suggestion of a link between modern day pagans (and witches) to those accused of witchcraft in 1692, or between modern day witches and terrorists. I am sorry for any confusion that has arisen, and I urge people to read my book to see for themselves.
Thank you for clarifying your actual position! There isn’t much that’s more irritating to a writer than to have words they do not agree with attributed to them through sloppy summaries and badly framed quotes.
I agree that the panics of the past draw from the same ugly paranoia that often comes out in our dread of terrorism today, and I see a parallel, too, in our willingness to suspend the normal protections of our legal system, hoping that will somehow give us greater protection against the things we fear.
I’d say that the rumor panics of the late 20th Century–including the notorious “Satanic Panics”–have some of those features, too.
I will look for your book, and I’m grateful for your willingness to respond to us here.
Thank you for the response – that was how I had interpreted your words, which were poorly contextualized in the Time article.
Thanks. As a Witch, myself, I am constantly amazed that modern media
has yet to portray Witches in a balanced, realistic way. When people
talk of “fictional Witches,” they need to state it plainly, obviously.
However, even the idea of “fictional Witches” comes from somewhere. The
question of Female Spiritual Practitioners has a long history of
oppression and abuse and needs to be understood. 1692 is not the
beginning of Witchcraft. But it may be the peak of the era where
Witchcraft has been identified as “evil.” Many of us identify as
Witches in order to serve as a reminder of how women have been
discouraged as Spiritually Creative Beings through thousands of years on
our planet, and also to bring back an awareness that women are capable
of Spiritual Development independently or by banding with others in
small groups to pursue Spiritual Goals.
Historical “witches” were not universally female, though.
In the Salem trials, for example, six of those killed were men and, in Iceland, most of those accused of witchcraft were men.
To suggest that the persecution of “witches” was primarily sexist-motivated belies the evidence.
As for the spiritual element, I feel that ignores the fact that most seem to have been Christians, rather than remnants of pre-Christian belief/practice.
That said, a minority of scholars, before and since Murray, do point to a bit of evidence of small pockets of surviving pre-Christian practises, but as you point out, this was far from the case for a majority of those accused of witchcraft in the 17th Century witch hysteria; in fact, the most compelling evidence for survivals of pre-Christian practises lies in folk Christianity as practised in Ireland, certain rural regions of Greece and Italy, and various other regions of Europe. Hell, there’s more compelling a case for the hijab as a survival of pre-Islamic practise than the notion of a fairly widespread pan-European survival of polytheism practised as polytheism rather than a thinly-veiled Christianity.
As I said, “most”. 😉
Thanks for answering! Your point makes much, much sense when presented in its original context. Good luck with your research and teaching!