Does Not Play Well With Others

[haptalaon]

I feel like I'm in such a weird position wrt joining a spiritual group right now. Most I can find with a public place are targeted at novices, and have a whole bit about going through a training program to explain what Wicca is.

1.
The process of learning Wicca 101 is used as a prerequisite for joining a group. Well, I already know my 101. I don't expect automatic entry into a group just for that. I guess my point is, none of these groups seem to have an *alternative* entry pathway. Learning how to pronounce athame is and what the East symbolises is as much a period of time & space to demonstrate commitment and shared values.

Clearly, joining any group requires a grounding in that group's *specific* traditions and working practices. At the same time, these things all have forms with questions like "why are you interested in becoming a Wiccan?" and there's no way to answer that as someone with 20 years of magical practice behind them, without sounding like an asshole. You know?

I'd like to see entryway structures which are more clearly focused on "we need to get to know you & gradually share some of our specific working practices" rather than "this month we discuss ritual tools". I guess, maybe a more individuated process than I've been seeing. I've found a lot of "pass our 6 month training course and then we'll introduce you to a local coven in our network (tough luck if they turn out to be assholes)", and not a lot of "we're interested in new seekers, let's have some conversations". I feel like groups don't really know what to do to warm up to people, if it's not explaining what Lammas is.

2.
Maybe the problem here is my ego & my inherent discomfort with groups.

3.
But also, interviews and initiatory processes are a two way street. It's about two people meeting and seeing what each can do for the other. So the fact I see this stuff and prickle with discomfort, perhaps that is also a useful feeling to acknowledge. I'm not going to do well in a group which expects me to complete a lengthy correspondence course before meeting the people I am to work with.

I guess also because I want to practice - I'm done reading and writing and thinking, or at least, do enough of all three not to want to be required to do more. I want to be doing more magic and ritual, and while no one should open the door to that just because *I'm* in the mood for it, at the same time...I'm interested in things that meet my needs. Joining a working group means meeting a bunch of people who have similar needs, or where we can compromise on both sides to meet each others' needs. Let's just say my need is not, and will never be, encouragement to do more book-learning and written work.

4.
I wouldn't be looking for a group if I didn't think I had things to learn; it's not exactly that I feel "better than" the covens I've found, although I do try and be aware of my ego & stuff like that which gets in the way of me playing nicely with others.

It's that periods of training are impersonal and therefore not structured around my weaknesses and areas for development. I'm not ready to participate in rituals or lead ritual, I have a lot to learn - but the available entry-to-coven programs in my area are exclusively for new Pagans, online, and generic.

5.
And I'm thinking about the Online Dating analogy of Paganism - in which "joining a coven" is analogous to "getting married". Clearly, there are steps between meeting someone online and committing to marriage - feeling one another out, sharing values, spending time together, having your first argument.

I think this is where the covens I'm seeing fall down, because if someone sends you a couple of questions to answer before a first date - well OK then. But if they send you a 20 question form, then another, and then something to study and write answers on once a month for a year before a first meet up, then...I get that it's a commitment challenge, but I guess what I'm saying is I ALSO want to interview the people who are initiating ME. I don't like how unidirectional and hierarchical the process seems. I want the people who run the coven to be demonstrating *their* commitment to ME.

For example, I finally found a tradition that I was excited about, answered their first 10 questions, and got a perfunctory "well done! Here's another 30 questions and administration fee before we send you your member pack" and I'm like - hold on, buddy. You can ask me for my legal name and political views and address and some money and "how I handle feelings of guilt" and all, but commitment goes both ways. I'm not here to make you feel good. I'm not here to beg, or give you an arbitrary sense of power and grandeur at my own expense. I'm looking - fundamentally - for friends.

And I feel the process should be a bit more like making friends, which is to say, no you can't have my address or a detailed questionnaire about my personal habits before our first date. And as it happens, I have a couple of questions for you. I'm turned off by anyone who thinks dating them is such a privilege I should have to run a yearlong obstacle course for a chance to be considered" - rather than a casual "let's see if we can work together" sort of a chit chat.

Writing an enquiry email to a coven or organisation is just that - an enquiry email. It means I'm shopping, but not yet ready to buy. Just like I'd be uncomfortable if I sent someone a flirt on OKCupid, and got back a full document describing the engagement rings they'd consider and asking me what I'd like to name our child.

In fact, it's EXACTLY like the Bachelor. Do you ever watch that? We really do need better heterosexual representation...in the Bachelor, a large group of women are put together in a house and compete in a series of challenges and skill tests to "win" marriage with an eligible single man who they've not actually met but nevertheless talk endlessly about their "relationship" with. No dating on earth is like the Bachelor, or at least, it shouldn't be. And then we get to coven hunting and it's - coven entry is like the Bachelor, something there to be won, something initiates need to commit to wholeheartedly from the outset and then compete for as part of a generic team process which the Bachelor can end at any time.

Rather than - coffee. Cake and coffee. What I'm looking for in a coven initiation process is exactly what I look for in a date - a fairly clear outline of their expectations and personality, followed by a cake date and conversation, and then if that goes well, maybe more...

It's 2018 - you don't need to be initiated or taught witchcraft by anybody, so the covening process is ultimately about people and relationships between people. I don't think there's anything anyone knows important enough that it can't be figured out and faked through other means. I'm not looking for an organisation to train me and make me into an initiated witch, and then find me an affiliated coven - I've got books for that. I'm looking for people who want to work with me, and who I want to work with. I'm looking for friends. I'm looking for a relationship.

6.
Also, darn. It's hard to tell how much of the problem is me. A fair amount, I'd guess. I just...don't...have the personal characteristics which make undergoing a year-long email correspondence course before being sent an introduction to local witches an easy sell. I want to start work, I want to circle with people soon, I want to be meeting the people I'm going to circle with now and developing a commitment to them just as they develop one to me - I don't think that's too off base. Is it? Is this unreasonable?

I just don't play well with others. And damned if I'm going to make a stranger feel special, and let them drip-feed me information and dangle the promise of hidden secrets and dance to their pipe on the promise of something which might never happen.

Comments

[alexseanchai]

I want to start work, I want to circle with people soon, I want to be meeting the people I'm going to circle with now and developing a commitment to them just as they develop one to me - I don't think that's too off base. Is it? Is this unreasonable?

Not unreasonable in the slightest.

[jenett]

So, I think one reason you're seeing that pattern is that it is a significant part of what most groups get, unless they are explicitly invite-only (in which case, external applications aren't a thing) or doing something fairly advanced or tightly focused.

There's two particular challenges, I think.

One is that for teaching focused groups, there is a tremendous drop off between 'people who show any sign of interest' (like an initial email) and 'people who do even the most rudimentary introduction activity . a 5 paragraph email, showing up for a single free class or intro meeting'.

In the group I trained with, for every 30 odd people who sent an initial email, maybe 5 would show up at a (free, intro, public space) class. And of those, 1 or so would make it to a point where more significant discussion about group work was the next step.

(That group did it so you did the 5 intro classes, which covered basic stuff, but were explicitly a 'even if you know this, it's a way to get a sense for the people and how we teach' and if people had experience, they were welcome to chime in on the conversation). At the end of the process, there was a more involved process (longer questionnaire) and interview to discuss it, before someone was accepted as an actual student.

It also turned out to be a good weeding factor to distinguish 'person who claims relevant knowledge' and 'person who actually has it' (You clearly do. You are very very rare, in terms of someone looking for group work who doesn't already have some behind them. I can tell a few stories, if it'd help.)

On the group end, it gets exhausting, people coming and going, and being pleasant and asking them stuff, and then they disappear into nothing and you maybe see them across a large space at a future Pagan event.

And for groups who don't have something like regular public classes/events, starting with in-person can turn into a lot of one-on-one meetings, which can take a bunch of time and arranging. (And even more so if you have to coordinate multiple people's schedules.)

It can also be emotionally pretty weird: there are tons of people who say "Oh, yes, witchy stuff!" or whatever, and then have no follow-through (and the occasional person who is on the creepy and/or scary end of behaviour), so there's also a certain amount of being protective of self+existing group involved, especially if group members work in professions where being outed could be a problem / have young kids / difficult custody issues, etc.

For all those reasons, even in fairly large groups, it's usually a couple of people handling the new-person-intro stuff, not the whole group, and usually meetings with the whole group are a later step unless the group is doing entirely open to the public rituals or events.

Coupled with that is the question of where people meet and there are reasons a lot of groups do some filtering before meetings. (One or two meetings in a coffee shop is usually quite managable, but more than that, and you're looking at rented space or people's homes, and the latter has a lot of privacy/personal safety/comfort implications on both sides, but usually more so for the people hosting.)

And I know you've seen the post in my own journal where I commented on numbers in the last year, because you commented on it.

Which in summary were 11 people -> 4 actual in-person meetings -> 2 students
2 people who were very unspecific and unfocused in what they wanted
2 people where the early info was really unpromising.
2 people not actually looking for training and not interested in learning a new trad for purpose of shared practice (so good conversation, but not leading to group work)
1 who couldn't read for content
2 people who had life happen
2 people who actually became Seekers (and now Dedicants)

And that's with me saying explicitly I'm open to people with training in other traditions - all but one of those people had fairly limited experience in religious witchcraft of any form.

So, given those experiences, it doesn't surprise me that most groups base the process on 'people without experience' and 'people who say they have some, but we need to figure out what that actually means and there's at least a 1 in 2 chance they have a lot less understanding than they think they do' - hence a more significant up front process.

All of that said, I think there are limits - there are reasons my intro thing is 5 questions. It was the balance for me between 'there's a fair amount of information about me on my various linked sites if you choose to read it and I don't know anything about you, the person asking, yet' and 'how much time is it reasonable to ask up front'. So I went for 'equivalent to my bio pages' and 'enough info to help me decide if meeting in person is worth our time'.

Once we get through the Seeker classes, then I get a lot more detailed, and there's a bunch of medical/mental health stuff I need to ask about in order to plan some specific ritual and class pieces sensibly, but we've also had half a dozen meetings at that point, and it's info I actually need at that point to plan things and make some decisions.

(I would probably modify this for someone who came in with significant background, possibly including a 'walk me through your current practice' piece.)

I feel like this is somewhat incoherent rambling, but I am glad ot expand on whatever parts are confusing.

[haptalaon]

Not incoherent :) and I was thinking as I was writing about the thing you posted about auditioning potential people from the groups perspective, and how perhaps I was being a touch unfair.

Part of the relevant knowledge problem is, I think, I don't want to be an asshole. Like most people, I get impatient being told things I already know; BUT ive also done a lot of teaching and there's nothing worse than that one student who thinks they know your job better than you. So I guess it's partly wanting to avoid situations I don't think I'll be my best self in. But also, as they say, it's about the journey rather than the destination - someone new to these paths will benefit from a 7 month training program in a way I won't. I do need more experience before I'm ready to join a circle, but hence why I'm thinking in terms of - what specific skills do I need to develop, rather than generally.


Part of the drop out you're seeing might be due to a lack of instant gratification & flattery? Which is a good thing, I expect. And I definitely about getting people together; the trans committee Im on is like herding cats and there's only five of us.

I read the bit on your Seeking site last night about wanting to rule out people who were "witches! Literally any witches!", and look for those interested in specifically what your tradition was doing. I thinK this is the crux of a spectrum between "people focused" and "doctrine focused" processes?

That quote stood out to me because I think my process genuinely is "any witches will do" - because what I'm looking for is training in *groupwork*, the transferable skills and experiences of working with others and also of working consistently within a tradition, rather than a specific trad commitment. I've dabbled in enough magical things that I could find a home in all sorts of different paths. The processes im seeing are very "doctrine focused", where I'm looking for ones which are people focused. In short, I can be flexible about doctrine, but there are important lines around people which are not up for debate.

For example, I could do OK in a group with a strong gender polarity doctrine - even if it wasn't my preference - but not a group with abusive dynamics, ie. And spotting that isn't something you can necessarily do as part of a training program with one or two of the full group.

Again with the sex and relationship metaphors, doctrinal stuff feels a bit like the specifics of - where will we go on holiday? Do you like spanking? How will we teach our children? Stuff which you have to muddle through with time and practice. But you have to base it on a strong foundation - the person or people you're dating/marrying. A good person you have a strong, trusting bond with - but who doesn't like spanking and wants to raise the kids as Mormons - is a better investment for me than a kinky Pagan who has punched all her ex girlfriends and who lies about money. People first, doctrine second.

The fear on my end is going through a 12 month process, getting that coveted invitation, attending the first circle with the Inner Circle and knowing in five minutes that these are people I can't be intimate with.

I've done my writing and read a bit from your site and slept on it, and I'm thinking I am going to try and be open minded and attend some available opportunities instead of rejecting them out of hand. That's the only way to find out if this is a process which suits me or not :)

It's a very difficult balance, I think - it's a process with both a time investment, trust and vulnerability on both sides, and processes must meet the needs of both. I accept what I think is your main argument -that getting it right as a group leader is very difficult & theres a lot of different factors to consider.

[jenett]

Yeah, it is tricky. I think some of this might be locational, too (not just US vs. UK, but different cities in the US go about some of this pretty differently, from talking to people in different places. Sometimes it's that one group set a way things worked, and a lot of other people did things the same way because reasons, and sometimes a group did things a way, and other groups did different things very deliberately.)

(And a lot of people are less up front about why they do it the way they do it - sometimes it's 'this is the way we've always done it, and I haven't rethought that', sometimes they just don't communicate it. I think I'm pretty rare in 'I do it this way because going out and meeting people is harder for me than email, so I don't want to do that if there's really no potential fit for the actual group work')

One thing to know - and this is definitely something people talk about in discussions about group leadership but might be a lot more obscured otherwise....

The groups that do the 'you work with a couple of people, and only meet the full group later' usually have it work so that you'll meet the coven members, just not necessarily in a 'this is the coven' setting or identified as such (i.e. social events hosted by the teachers, open rituals, having them individually come in and help with a thing where they're not identified as being a member of the coven, just 'person who does this thing')

After all, the members want to get a sense of who might be invited to initiate, too!

I think given your interests, that checking out anything that seems vaguely promising that you're up for is a good move - for one thing, it's a really good way to hone what you're looking for, and it also builds some useful skills for long-term community work.

I also wonder if, as you talk to people, if you might not get pointers to groups who don't advertise, if you present yourself as a serious person, interested in group work, reasonably flexible about the precise details of the group practices, but wanting to work with other people who take it seriously. That's the kind of situation where often someone may meet you, go "Not the right fit for us, let me introduce you to someone..."

[haptalaon]

"That's the kind of situation where often someone may meet you, go "Not the right fit for us, let me introduce you to someone...""

This reminds me very much of looking for bands to play in. Which might be more of an apt reference point than a relationship, in fact, because you're combining personal feelings for people with a shared ethos and professional goals.

We should come up for a witchcraft equivalent for the word "jamming" - I kinda want to jam with some people.

[jenett]

I think that's a really good way to look at it, yeah. There's an element of the personal connection (and personal desire in how you do this thing) that is not at all about intellectual fit or matching up things on paper.

And people can be amazing musicians, and bounce off of each other in independent projects, and yet not a good fit for even jamming with each other, never mind something long-term.