haptalaon | Running Safer Covens: Introduction (Reply)

alexseanchai asked some good questions in a recent comment:

How do you propose to ensure the safety of the community you propose to lead?
How do you ensure the perceived safety of the community you propose to lead, when you are top of the hierarchy? how will you prove that you are worth their trust (knowing that you are not the only one with these two instincts and especially knowing that religious hierarchy is easily abused?)
How do you propose to continue to ensure the safety, both actual and perceived, of this community at such point as you are no longer able/willing to be top of its hierarchy?

The two instincts I described were:

I believe groups to have an inherent capacity for violence, abuse and danger
I want to run a coven in part to ensure I'm not on the recieving end!

The topic is important enough for an expanded reply...

CN: This post series talks about spiritual abuse, community abuse, and #metoo dynamics - but not in graphic terms.

Power Imbalance

Power imbalances are knives: tools which are good, neutral, or wicked, depending on how they are used. Power imbalances can come about by…

Someone deliberately and maliciously taking power
Someone gradually believing their own bullshit
Valiente seems to think most of the chaps she worked with were in this category, becoming more authoritarian over time; and it’s the category I worry about being in too.
An individual congregant investing power in an individual
A collective investing power in an individual.

Usually, some combination of the above! This means there are as many points to stop authoritarian behaviour – the problem person can change, the individual can change, or the group can change.
I think an important theme in the ideas I’ve come up with is:
abuse prevention should be semi-automatic, and have failsafes

Like the American concept of “checks and balances”. Some of my ideas occur at the initial planning stages; others are ongoing; some target the potential cult-leader-type; some target lay members. Some are things the group has to continue to commit to, but others are embedded in the design and hopefully will continue to do good even if the group does not. A cult leader who goes off the rails in their later career might be checked by principles they put in place at the beginning.
Some techniques will fail; the key is a large enough safety net that not all of them fail.

Preventing Authoritarianism

In each technique, the goal is to do some combo of:
· Minimise the risk of an unsavoury individual taking charge
· Minimise the damage an unsavoury individual can do
· Provide opportunities for well-intentioned group leaders to reflect and check themselves
· Set a standard that helps leaders be accountable, and helps members spot things they ought to question

Again, a group doing all four of these simultaneously has a stronger immune system.
My understanding of abuse-prevention is that people ought to be taught simultaneously that they could be a perpetrator, or a victim, and how to handle both scenarios. Many of my bad experiences were with queer theorists who inevitably associated abuse with straight men, while having a (I hope, accidental) blind spot to their own capacity for violence; so I think it’s healthy for anyone in a position of responsibility to be self-aware and scrupulous about the possibility. Part of the fear is the fear of my own potential to be villainous, so a lot of these are designed to remind me of that capacity & provide opportunities throughout the process to spot and reflect on that urge.

Techniques

Alex asked two questions – how do you make a coven safe, and how do you demonstrate that it is safe? (The third question I’ll get to separately)
The techniques below would be “green flags” for me. They would demonstrate that a group were actively thinking about power & how to handle it.
There’s an important second stage, however – having accountability and evaluating whether techniques are working. People who “talk the talk” are perhaps the most dangerous. So I’ve also included a lot of “pauses” where a leader or group member can evaluate what is happening against their expectations, other covens, other members, group principles & so on.
Many of the techniques have multiple aims. For example, “Open Source Ethos”, “Rotate Ritual Roles” and “Divide Up the Power” all prevent one person taking undue control. But they also give a well-meaning leader opportunities to confront any possessive or authoritarian feelings which come up, and be aware of them.
(I think about my Imaginary Coven, and how I would feel about someone else coming in and saying they had had a vision and could we change how we do prayers – it makes me feel pretty pissy. And I don’t even have a real coven! It’s a thought experiment! It’s wholly imaginary but I really do not feel OK about my Imaginary Congregation changing my Imaginary Liturgy in my Imaginary Coven (and would you look at the number of times I used “my” in that sentence?!))
So planning for authoritarianism-prevention means anticipating these kinds of problems, and planning for them: here are techniques which both set a social norm of congregants contributing, and which give me opportunities to spot & handle my shit. If one fails, the other may catch us.

Disclaimers!

Before we start, here are some important disclaimers:

1. Humans are vile, and nothing will ever protect against a suitably motivated ne’er-do-well to twist to their own purposes.
2. I have zero experience in magical groups
3. I have a certain amount of applicable experience in other communities, and as a teacher
4. Some of this experience was very very bad. As such, my ideas might not be reasonable, practical or proportionate.

And most importantly
This is not a list of things 100% of magical groups must do or else they are evil.

They are pointers to places where hierarchy can become unhealthy, and ideas for how to limit the risk:
· There are other ways to accomplish the same goals
· These ideas might not make sense with the way a particular group works
· Some groups may not need these principles
· These methods could be used maliciously
· They might be shite.

In short, they’re conversation starters. This post got long because the actual method is less important than the reasoning. They’re things to consider. They are the things I would put in place; but they're not the only way, or the best way. Think of them as illustrating particular problems which could arise, and suggesting ways to solve them.

Thanks to

alexseanchai for asking the question & providing the spark for some reflective writing; & everyone who follows my journal and interacts here for making this a welcoming & friendly environment to write difficult reflective content.

I’m looking forward to replies – criticism, questions, and strong disagreement are all welcome, but not nastiness.
I'm happy for an opportunity to make something constructive out of unhappy experiences - but bear in mind the root here is pain, it's a topic where I'm both vulnerable and sensitive. If you think this post is awful or I'm awful, please be mindful & kind and step away from the keyboard.
If you've not participated here before, I also welcome your voice - but check my rules of engagement first.
I think I borrowed this concept from Jennet's salon posts - when you comment on my blog, you're in my virtual "living room" attending a virtual tea party, so behave as you would in a stranger's house where you are a guest. Lively debates are excellent, but don't be destructive or cruel.

Master Index

Dear gods this got out of hand. Sorry everyone.

Planning Stage: Mundane Stuff
1. Divide up the power
2. Behave like a bigger organisation
3. Have leaders in clearly defined roles
4. Have a written constitution

Planning Stage: Spiritual Stuff
1. Reduce material risks associated with leaving and dissent
2. Reflect on flaws in your belief system
3. Whenever you make a decision, ask “why”?

Training: Members