I've seen people objecting to the use of the word "syncretism", perhaps because it's used as a fancy way of saying "eclectic" that doesn't have the negative baggage of eclecticism. I object to this; the words mean different things.

Starting from first principles: If one were to look up "eclectic" in the dictionary one would see something about selecting parts of a variety of styles and systems. At the same time, a scan of definitions of "syncretic" include words like "fusion", bringing entire systems together and reconciling them, perhaps imperfectly.

Historically speaking, religious syncretism has often come about when two religious systems live side-by-side, often because one is the religion of the natives of the area and the other the religion of the conquerors. The concepts from each leak into the other over time, and people either hold both simultaneously or participate in the synthesis religion that results.

Eclecticism is something that is easier to practice on an individual level, and individuals do it all the time -- adopting ideas, symbols, or other things that speak to them personally. When it happens at the group level, it can lead to the sorts of evolutions that make for denominational differences.

I suspect that most of the modern paganisms have their roots in a combination of syncretic and eclectic impulses. There has often been some sort of core thread that has been grafted onto, improved, shored up, or blended with other practices. Sometimes large portions of systems have been brought together; other times the collection has been an image, a gesture, a practice, a name.

If I'm talking about system-level combinations, therefore, I want to talk about syncretism; if I'm talking about pieces, small borrowings, that would be eclecticism.

The work I'm doing partakes pretty thoroughly of both.