This study examines the political aspect of labeling contemporary followers of pagan beliefs. It is shown how domestic and foreign religious scholars discuss the conceptual meaning of the problem of naming modern pagans. The theoretical significance of the study lies in its assessment of the political implications of the use of the terms «neopaganism», «modern paganism», «new paganism», and others. It is noted that some religious scholars tend to confuse the scholarly (ethical) view of contemporary pagans with their political assessment or with the "emic" position of the neopagans themselves. The latter is justified by considerations of political correctness, which cannot serve as a scientific argument. The authors agree with the opinion of experts who prefer to refer to contemporary pagans as "new paganism." The article examines the arguments of contemporary pagans who refuse to classify their faith as «pagan», «neopagan», «or even religious». The authors employ a critical analysis of concepts presented both in the academic literature on neopaganism and in the discourse of the New Pagans. The authors emphasize the political aspect of this argument, which consists of modern pagans' desire to emancipate themselves from religious tradition as part of the ruling establishment in their respective countries. The practical significance of the study is determined by the substantiation of a critical assessment of the ideological and political aspects of the academic concept of neopaganism as an important prerequisite for an adequate policy in this area of interreligious relations. The study's main findings indicate that not only the terminological classification of modern paganism but also its relationship with other religions and ideologies are associated with a few political issues that require further study. In particular, the role of «Rodnovers» in the ethnonationalist movements of Russia and Ukraine appears promising in this regard.
Nebozhenko et al. (2026) studied this question.