Yesterday I was invited to live-chat with the Three Fat Readers and one of the topics that came up was deck personification. You can watch a replay of it here.
The timing of our sit-down together coincided with a greater conversation that’s been trending in our community as of late. Tarot Readings From a Bitch covers the controversy succinctly here and gets the ball rolling by asking the question.
I very much enjoyed ScholarBot’s perspective and explanation for not personifying tarot decks, linked here.
Robyn’s Reflections shares why and how she personifies some decks and not others here.
Lisa and Dawn Michelle chat about deck personification here.
This particular issue recycles in the tarot community every so often, so if you go back five years, you can see this video by Katey Flowers on personifying tarot decks.
Since the opening premise of the tarot deck I created, the Spirit Keeper’s Tarot, was to explore and experiment with the concept of animism, I thought I might chime in. To that end, I’d like to separate out the discussion on deck personification and the discussion on animism.
Deck Personification
When I make a casual remark like “This tarot deck is sassy,” what I actually mean to say is, “Due to a multitude of factors taken in totality, I psychologically project a sassiness onto this tarot deck.”
But that’s a mouthful. So I’ll resort to saying, “This tarot deck is sassy.”
Beyond that, Dustin raised a point I agree with (I’m referring to the Three Fat Tarot Readers live group chat) — often when we personify a deck, what we’re doing is describing the art style.
We all have different ways of communicating. And that’s okay. In fact, that’s cool. Some people like to use personality traits to describe an art style.
And the art style can affect how we might personify a deck when we read with it. If the art style is moody and broody, I might feel more influenced to be moody and broody myself when I interpret a tarot card reading with that deck. Or… I might not. It all depends on an individual’s personal response to the art style.
All that being said, within the realm of personification, there’s a spectrum.
One person might just be flippantly describing their tarot deck as temperamental but if prodded to explain, will acknowledge it’s just projection. They’re being fun with their word choice.
Meanwhile another person personifies a particular object or concept the way one might personify human emotions, planets, or virtues as gods and goddesses.
What’s interesting to me isn’t whether tarot readers personify their decks. What’s of interest is why those who say they don’t are perceived as being smug, and why those who do personify their decks feel they must defend why they do.
I speculate that the need to declare that one does not personify tarot decks comes from a yearning for their tarot practice to be legitimatized. “I am intelligent. Do not lump me in with the uneducated” is the subtext.
Meanwhile those who get defensive about personifying decks are hyper-aware that mainstream society today ridicules them for their spiritual beliefs. “Just because I believe in something that is not backed by science doesn’t mean I am not intelligent” is the driver behind getting defensive.
To maintain a level-headedness about all this, we do need to address what can happen if we over-rely on projection and in effect turn an inanimate object into a scapegoat so that we don’t have to address something about ourselves. And I love that ScholarBot brought up the anthropomorphizing of tarot decks.
When anthropomorphizing, or attributing human qualities and sentience to that which is non-human, inspires humans to be more compassionate and sensitive to other humans, it’s a fantastic thing. Anthropomorphizing can potentially have the effect of fostering people who are kinder, more inclusive, and who will show more heart to people very different from themselves.
When anthropomorphizing results in behavior or thought patterns that can be self-destructive, then it has fallen off the cliff of reason and become detrimental. “This tarot deck doesn’t like me” or “this tarot deck is haunted,” were the examples ScholarBot gave.
Personifying or anthropomorphizing something like a tarot deck by ascribing it with traits so that we can avoid dealing with something within ourselves that we probably ought to be dealing with head-on is psychological projection 101.
“This tarot deck doesn’t like me” might be a way to avoid having to engage in more dedicated study of the system, or avoid having to acknowledge our own discriminatory biases. It’s a way to deflect from facing our personal shortcomings.
“This tarot deck is haunted” is treating the object as a scapegoat so we don’t have to face our own inner demon (figure of speech).
Have you ever wondered whether there is a correlation between tarot readers who buy into the whole “Crowley was bad juju and he put bad juju into the Thoth” and those more susceptible to believing propaganda?
Ultimately where I land is this: personifying objects is fun. It is just a way for us to communicate. When taken to the extreme, it can hinder self-awareness.
Animism
Animism, I think, is a different beast altogether. Animism is a religious belief that inanimate objects and even geographic places can take on a particular spirit or life of its own. That spirit or life is perceived by us humans as having a distinct and palpable sentience.
Most of the indigenous spiritual beliefs of our ancestors are animistic. So those of us oft categorized as “pagan” in the context of modern spirituality will probably integrate some extent of animism into our religious or spiritual practice.
And because animism is integral to so many indigenous religious perspectives, some cultural sensitivity when describing our own beliefs around animism can be helpful.
To publicly declare, “I am not an animist” is not unlike declaring “I don’t believe in the transubstantiation of Jesus” or “I don’t believe in karma.”
It’s perfectly fine to want to express your theological beliefs, but just remember that when we express in the negative, we risk making people who do believe in what you don’t feel rejected or less-than.
This is why social etiquette tells us not to talk about religion — not because we shouldn’t, but because it’s way too easy to accidentally offend.
When someone says to you, “I believe in the transubstantiation of Jesus,” a productive and diplomatic response might be, “That’s cool! Tell me more.”
Imagine what happens to the relationship if your immediate response to that had been, “Well I don’t. You do understand that your belief is not rationally-based or rooted in science, right?”
First off, I might challenge the notion that it is not rooted in science. Do you really know that for sure? We already know everything there is to know about science?
Perhaps what you can say is that we cannot currently prove transubstantiation with the scientific tools we have availed to us at the moment. But that’s not as smugly satisfying to say, now is it. 😉
Beyond that, when you are engaging in commentary on animism around objects that are part of people’s spiritual practices, then be prepared to approach it as theological discourse.
When we say something like it is not our fault that someone has misinterpreted us, we are behaving with the attitude that being right matters more to us than being kind.
Sometimes being kind is more important than being right.
But Why Do We Care?
So my question presented to the collective is not do you personify your tarot deck, why or why not. My question is why do we care whether others are personifying their decks or not. What is it exactly that makes this topic “controversial” and salacious?
benebell wen 
Hi Bell: this is an interesting question to ask. My take on ‘personification’ vs not is that we are responding to the art. The art depicted in Tarot decks definitely sets a mood. I recently gifted some decks to a friend (an artist) who had very definite responses (like vs not like) and I did notice that she responded to the packaging of the deck as well as the art. Even though she’s an ‘old hippy’ she hated the Morgan Greer Deck. So I guess there’s the art of the deck and there’s also our own aesthetic sense as well as our personalities (analytical versus emotional or feeling). I’m not sure what words to use here. I hope I’m describing my thoughts with a modicum of clarity. Personally I don’t care if a reader personifies their decks or not! We’re all individuals after all. I really believe that one style of reading is no better than the other–with the exception of ethics, maybe. I think if we read for someone we should keep their best interest at heart (no manipulation) at all times. Blah blah blah. 😉 thanks for this posting and I love watching the vids of the different readers!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The art, for me, has to draw me in. I find it plays a big part in whether I feel the pull to own a particular deck of cards.
LikeLike
Hmm. Since I find myself scratching my head at folks putting so much energy into devalidating beliefs outside their own, I am quite sure that I don’t know the answer. Heck I catch myself being unnecessarily judgey more often than I’d like to admit. That said, hold my beer…
We judge others because we judge ourselves. We judge ourselves because we feel judged. We feel judged because we judge. Rinse. Repeat. Personification. Anthropomorphism. Animism. Trading in trates is our power and our fate. The pain of being human is the pain we collectively create. And there’s nothing like a good controversy for making us feel like we’re on the upside of the wheel.
The collective act of controversy. I think it’s a form of mob psychology. It feels good to judge as a group basically. It’s human nature. We’re animals. We’re hard wired to huddle together and point fingers. It’s how we collectively judge our environment as safe, our foes as strong, our friends as trustworthy, our food as edible… We create our boundaries together based on the quorum of our judgements. It’s not a perfect system, but it has worked well enough for a long time.
But these are fascinating times we live in. We can create or join controversy for pure sport from safety of our phones. This imperfect survival tool is entertainment on tap in our pockets. The Internet is the coliseum and we’re all simultaneously the lions, gladiators, plebs and patricians. I believe most of us join in controversy without much thought. We are playing follow the leader more than acting on truly held convictions.
I say this is because it’s nearly a truism that the same folks who take sides in a tarotverse controversy about which there really is no “correct” position would also, without hesitation, say they are for inclusivity, against gatekeeping, open to all views that do not harm another…
And I believe them! As our best selves we are genuine and good! I think it’s participation in controversy that compromises our convictions. When we are being our true, best selves, we are in community not controversy. The knee-jerk slip-n-slide of a juicy controversy causes people to act against their own closely held convictions because it is such delicious emotional candy to judge-mob. We gotta get out that phone and weigh tf in like bosses. We all do it. I’m doing it now. And I apologize.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Hold my beer” indeed. 🙂
“When we are our true, best selves, we are in community not controversy” is a great way to put this.
There is something in the water that seems to make all of us want to be right. And that means we must see others as wrong.
But, do we? Do we really? I’d love a world where we allowed ourselves to not judge our lives against other lives.
LikeLike
I like your analogy of controversy as sport. I just wish it were more touch football at a barbecue and less gladiators in the coliseum. 🍻
LikeLike
I agree. Unfortunately the impersonal nature of social media seems to give people permission to bring out the torches and pitchforks (wands & swords?) I think we’re less prone to such craziness when we’re face to face. Which is why, despite being a wool-dyed introvert, I’m more interested in connecting with tarotfolk and other magick users in person or at least intentionally. Not that I don’t ingest plenty of esoteric arts content, but I tune out content created for algorithms. Which is why I only hear about the “controversies” when one of my trusted sources of knowledge happens to mention it.
LikeLike
Hmmm… I personally don’t personify my tarot cards, but I don’t care if anybody does. I do describe decks (and art in general) by the mood I perceive or rather by the mood it triggers within me. However, I have other personal objects which I might personify sometimes. I even apologize towards my furniture if I accidentally stumble upon them. And I say thanks to my old clothes for the service they offered to me, before giving them away. Not because I do believe those are somewhat alive, but as a matter of respect towards the resources we use in our daily life.
And it’s not even uncommon to personify objects and tools, considering how many people give their cars a name or keep talking to their computers.
Well, like you said, animism is quite a different matter, though. I personally believe that it is possible to put some spirit/qi/life force energy into an object (intentional and unintentional). However, I also believe that this whole danger of offending someone in their believes is always reciprocal! Those who do believe into something might feel less than if someone says that they don’t believe. But those who don’t believe feel also less than if someone says they do believe. This is because we want to connect and want to make the other person understand our point of view. However, realizing that we can’t make the other person understand and thus not connect, because that person does not share our believe, is what makes us feel meeh.
By the way, this is also true for the famous discussion about energy vampirism: It’s always reciprocal! No matter whether you are the leaving or the left person in a relationship – you will always feel depleted by the behavior of the other one. It’s simply a symptom for a relationship that got out of balance. Think about it – if you perceive someone as an energy vampire – it’s very likely that the other person feels about you like this, as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
oops, in two cases it should be “belief” (noun) , not “believe” (verb)…
I’d also like to add the following thoughts:
As much as it should be ok to say “I believe into [placeholder].”, it should also be ok to say “I don’t believe into it.”
The statement, as you mention it above, “Well, I don’t.” is just that: a statement. It’s not judgmental. Were it becomes problematic would be a statement like: “I don’t believe into it, because it is unproven bullshit.” THAT would be judgmental. But it is also judgmental to say towards someone who doesn’t believe, that he/she is wrong or even evil, because he/she is not spiritually developed enough.
There can be missionaries on either side.
I don’t know if it would be such a good idea to say “Oh, tell me more.” – in a situation when you recognize that you probably won’t find common ground. For deepening the topic also increases the danger to say something judgmental and offend the other one – for either side.
LikeLike
Why do we care, indeed.
Who died to make any of us the arbitrator of WHAT IS RIGHT IN TAROT? WIRIT is a projection of a lack of confidence, IMNSHO.
If you, generic, like to personify…do it.
If you, generic, dislike personification…don’t do it.
Pretty simple, really.
I also apply this to humans. 😉
Great post.
Oh, I personify everything. Car, cat, dog, tree, deck…
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-28722-1_1
Dispositionalism vs Animism: “Representationalism”
https://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2022/06/dispositionalism-vs-representationalism.html
https://menla.org/retreat/menla-online-psychedelic-assisted-therapy-as-a-contemplative-practice-for-healing/
LikeLike
Yay! Amazing post. I actually agree 100%. I’m proud to be a believer in animism which is probably why I just HAD to have your tarot deck. And by the way, your SKT is absolute perfection. I will probably resurrect an old blog of mine just to do a review of it. I can’t tell you how much I love it. ❤️ And yes, being kind does matter so very much.
LikeLike
Hello, just doing a test comment to see if my original lengthy comment was pre-filtered by WordPress. It’s a shame if it was but perhaps that’s for the better, because my original comment probably delved a bit further than necessary to answer your question.
Nonetheless, it was insightful for me to write it out so I appreciate your question. If I were to summarize my previous comment succinctly, it would be because there’s a power that comes from animism and personification—within the belief and believers, no matter whether it be fantasy or reality.
So provides the Mona Lisa or Michelangelo’s David; so professes the story of Pygmalion and Galatea; so do, more tragically, the monkeys of Harlow tell us about their surrogate mothers.
LikeLike
I don’t think I have ever personified the Deck itself, but I definitely do with the cards, but I think It may not quite be the same as here described. As example; when the Empress comes out, She is Present. There, making herself known. Venus in all of her Victory. If the Moon comes out – this is Selene, the Moon expressing herself through the Lens or Principle of Pisces. As the Priestess, this is Selene in her aspect of Sophia. The cards are Avatars of the Archetype they represent. These Archetypes have many Names and Titles. Our card Names are only just a mnemonic trigger to an Archetypal Vibration or Presence. Does any of this make sense? To me the cards are exactly what they are sometimes calls; Keys. They are conduits for the Divine Archetypes.
LikeLike
I’m someone who doesn’t personify decks, mainly because I don’t feel energy or connections like that. I do appreciate art and can understand when art evokes feelings in me. For the most part, I don’t have opinions on others personifying decks, as it’s their practice and their experiences.
What I AM concerned about is the amount of newbie posts on forums like r/tarot that say things like “does this deck interview mean my deck hates me” or “I kept drawing the same card, this deck must haunted” — and, even though it’s hard to tell tone over the internet sometimes, these posts seem to be coming from a place of serious concern. And it makes me wonder if these posters are personifying their decks because they truly feel that connection and it makes sense for them, or if because they see other people using that language, and so are imitating them without actually feeling the same thing.
But newbie posts or misinformation are always going to abound, even beyond this particular topic.
LikeLike
Pingback: Tarot Deck Personification (cf. Animism?) – benebell wen – FanFare Holistic
I appreciate and endorse your approach, I am currently deconstructing “Shakespeare” as yet another theme in Tarot divination.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s an interesting connection…
LikeLiked by 1 person
An academic friend of mine, Maria Louka suggested that I design my own set of “Shakespeare’s Tarot” to which I responded that it had already been done by several other writers:
According to a Tarot review by Adam Mclean in the year 2006 there were four Tarot decks available to the general public based largely on a Shakespearean theme, he lists the following:
“I Tarocchi di Giulietta e Romeo” of 1990, by Luigi Scapini (Also known as the
‘Shakespeare Tarot’ and the ‘Romeo and Juliet Tarot’).
“The Shakespearian Tarot” of 1993, conceived by Dolores Ashcroft-Nowicki, artist Paul Hardy.
“The Shakespeare Oracle” of 2003, conceived by A. Bronwyn Llewellyn with artwork by Cynthia von Buhler (Despite the name ‘oracle’ this has a true tarot structure.)
A “Russian Shakespeare Tarot”, edited by Vera Skljarova, in 2003. Adam McLean’s Study: http://www.alchemywebsite.com
So we have an Italian, a British, an American and a Russian view of Shakespeare through the oracular lens of Tarot divination but there have been several others since 2006. Among the most recent are:
“The Shakespeare Oracle” (https://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/shakespeare-oracle/) which is probably the same as quoted by McLean above.
The “Shakespearean Tarot” by Michael Kucharski (no website)
“The Shakespearean Tarot” by Chris Leech:
https://chrisleech.wixsite.com/theshakespearetarot/copy-of-home-1
https://chrisleech.wixsite.com/theshakespearetarot/thehighpriestessiithevirginqueen
“Shakespeare Oracle” by Chesca Potter:
https://voicewithinthecards.wordpress.com/tag/shakespeare-oracle-tarot/
Here Be Dragons (Not entirely about Shakespeare):
http://web.archive.org/web/20110721055158/http://www.herebedragons.co.uk/chesca/cp/green.htm
The “Enchanted Shakespeare’s Oracle” (36 beautifully executed in Renaissance style portraits on card) by Elena Beato.
https://www.facebook.com/enchantedshakespeare/
Contact: (www.enchantedshakespeare.com/contact-us)
McLean also affirms that currently there is no evidence that “William Shakespeare” used or owned a set of Tarot Cards.
I will be posting further on the question especially since I have been studying the Alchemical and Neo-Platonic references found in Shakespeare’s plays this is an indication that “Shakespeare”, whoever he was was certainly familiar with occult science from the time and loved all things Italianate-so, must have been exposed to Tarot Symbolism.
The “Neo-Platonic Magic” of Shakespeare
A great number of references and metaphorical tropes in Shakespeare’s work are actually derived from the early Neoplatonic Schools in Europe, rarely are they analysed for their significance or meaning by orthodox academics and scholars. Qudos Academy examines their influence and origins.
The Secret Alchemy of Shakespeare
Thanks for your comment, leonidas
LikeLike
And here’s me giving everything a name.
Part of my practice is naming magical objects, places, etc, or, more accurately finding the name. I don’t really bring this up when reading cause usually no one asks.
But I think atheists tend to lean to hard into the if you believe in religion you can’t believe in science (so do certain religious followers too). There is a happy middle ground that people aren’t willing to accept.
I can believe that everything has a name, and that I need to find it’s name to be able to command it AND I can still believe that you should see a therapist rather than have me give you a tarot reading.
This reminds of a writing group I once belonged to. I turned in a Vampire story that I had written as part of my senior thesis in college. One person looked at me square in the face after reading it and said, “You know Vampires aren’t real right?” to which I replied, “You know what fiction is right?”
I guess it all comes down to, am I harming anyone. Naming my deck doesn’t harm anyone. You naming my deck doesn’t harm me (no matter what weird on youtube said). Crowley being a weirdo addict that rarely finished anything in his life (yeah I said it) doesn’t make his deck evil or bad. It’s not my favorite, but I know some great readers that I would say are the kindest people in the world, who use it exclusively. it’s all about the power you give someone.
the answer, to me is simple, if you are harming someone. Stop.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The circular cards are lovely, but I wonder how difficult it might be to shuffle them… I don’t have a lot of cards myself, under a dozen decks, but the art work in the Chakra Wisdom Tarot deck is probably my favorite. 🧙
LikeLike