# Talk:Post-lineage yoga

This article presents post-lineage yoga as a “movement” with scholarly buy-in and historical significance. In reality, it is a term coined by a single researcher (Theodora Wildcroft) and deployed by a small circle of practitioners and commentators. Calling it “a contemporary form of yoga practiced outside any major school or guru’s lineage” gives it an aura of being a coherent style or category, but in practice it lacks institutional depth, clear boundaries, or a widely recognized pedagogy. The Wikipedia account also invokes “scholars and yoga teachers” approving its evolution, as though there is a larger critical consensus. But the cited reviews are mostly of Wildcroft’s own work, not independent validations of post-lineage yoga as a broadly meaningful movement. Thus the article gives the sense of “this is a big deal” more by rhetorical framing than by evidentiary support.
The framing of post-lineage yoga is tightly bound to Wildcroft’s scholarship and critique of traditional (especially guru-based) yoga hierarchies. This makes the concept difficult to disentangle from the personal brand of its originator. Critics of mainstream yoga (especially those implicated in abuse or power dynamics) are accused of “capitalizing” on yoga; but the post-lineage authors themselves are doing exactly what they decry: building a brand around moral authority, positioning themselves as reformers, and claiming legitimacy through resistance to “institutional yoga.” The rhetorical alignment with #MeToo (e.g. from the subtitle From Guru to #MeToo in Wildcroft’s book) strategically situates post-lineage yoga in a more broadly accepted social critique, giving it a veneer of urgency and righteousness. But that alignment does not by itself substantiate the distinctiveness or depth of post-lineage yoga as a practice.
The definitions in the article emphasize what post-lineage yoga rejects — e.g. hierarchical guru authority, doctrinal allegiance, etc. But there is little positive specification: what are the technical, ethical, pedagogical, or ritual innovations that distinguish post-lineage yoga from generic eclectic or secular yoga? The claims are mostly negative or oppositional. Without a clear method or coherent theoretical basis, “post-lineage yoga” risks being a catch-all label for anyone who wants to discredit guru-dominated lineages while still doing their own thing — in which case it’s less a new movement than a rebranding of a diffuse DIY yoga tendency.
Much of the rhetoric around post-lineage yoga is framed in oppositional terms: “resisting commercialization,” “rejecting unquestioning allegiance,” “privileging peer networks over pedagogical hierarchies.” By cloaking itself as a morally superior or more authentic alternative, it can close off meaningful critique or nuance. If all lineage-based or guru-influenced yoga is suspect, then conversations about reform, accountability, or adaptation within those lineages are marginalized. The approach can also be dismissive of the real value and depth in traditional lineages. Many lineages offer centuries of embodied wisdom, transmission integrity, lineage memory, and rigorous training — none of which can be casually discarded simply because one objects to certain abuses.
The Wikipedia page states that Wildcroft’s book “has been warmly received by scholars.” But closer inspection shows the reviews come primarily from scholars who are sympathetic to the project (e.g. in Journal of Contemporary Religion, Race and Yoga, Nova Religio) — so we are seeing reception within a narrow scholarly niche, not broad disciplinary validation. The fact that the Wikipedia article doesn’t (or can’t) cite critiques of post-lineage yoga or dissenting voices is telling. A more balanced treatment would acknowledge substantial skepticism, internal contradictions, or the slipperiness of the concept.
In sum: post-lineage yoga, as currently framed, is less a mature or widely recognized paradigm and more a rhetorical device built around the personhood and critique of its originators. It leverages #MeToo and critiques of power to claim moral and scholarly gravitas, yet lacks clear technical substance, institutional depth, or consensus beyond a small circle. The Wikipedia treatment presents it with inflated legitimacy, glossing over its contingent origins, promotional character, and conceptual thinness. Satya Satyananda (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing. However, both the term and the practice that it denotes are understood as significant by multiple scholars. The article is reliably cited to multiple sources, so the topic is notable as defined in Wikipedia's core policies. This is not the place to discuss your views of Post-lineage yoga (a talk page is not a forum). I note your mention of dissenting views; if you know of any such published in reliable sources, we can of course add them to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for correctly placing my post here. I'm curious about how "multiple scholars" is defined, and just what the theshhold is for such status. Wldcroft's work is cited by two writers:  Wildcroft herself and her Matthew Remski. As for being scholars, one might look for credibility in publication in credible peer reviewed academic journals. Wildcroft has none – not one. Remski is a journalist and podcaster and had no peer reviewed scholarly publications. Does this meet the standard of "multiple scholars"?
To be accurate, the Venn diagram would collapsed into a single circle: all claim some tradition(s), and all are commodified, including those in the so-called "post-lineage" (including Wildcroft, Remski, and their ilk, who are laughing their way to the bank with their holier-than-thou anti-capitalist stance. Satya Satyananda (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Several things here. Reliable sources do not have to be scholars; newspapers, well-known journalists, and authorities in their fields are all included. Authors' politics are not considered, with the exception of dangerous extremism. Wildcroft has published in the Journal of the British Association for the Study of Religion which is peer-reviewed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)