Firstly, a quick general reply: Thank you for engaging with this post series. Measuring your own group against my ideas is, I guess, the sort of thing I'd like people to do for this to be a resource - but it's really useful for me to see them "applied" in practice. Either as examples of what this looks like when it's working (or what it can look like), and also places where it won't work or isn't practical.
----- I'm starting with this post because it's one where my reply is more in-depth than a greatful nod.
I think you're right, and I'm wrong. Your way of doing things is sensible and it's hard to imagine a better one. I think the problems I raise are legit, but I'm re-filing them as "challenging without solutions/problems to be aware of"
A big reason is, I've recently become secretary (and acting boss) of a local LGBT group which was about to fold due to mismanagement. I'm currently re-writing the group docs and structure so that a new committee can take over in the new year, and not hit rocks in future.
A big part of why the last committee went wrong was vagueness: "we'll all check the emails whenever we can". A big part of why I was the only previous committee member now not in disgrace is I came in and said "I can't do this, this, or this; but I am good at these things, so I take full responsibility for the library and being visible at meetings."
In short: now I'm running a small community organisation, I have a strong appreciation and preference of "each person has 100% responsibility for their 2% of the goal".
So it's exactly as you say:
1) People ought to do things they're good at (or want the challenge of attempting) 2) It's easier for one person to set up how they do the thing, and do it, than collectively 3) Shared roles gets messy, and too diffuse.
I hadn't considered the esoteric side that you mention; and I'm interested by the idea of integration.
From a mundane perspective, I guess it's another version of 3) - "Everyone already does all the things so I don't really need to do anything {not pulling weight} or doesn't need me here {doesn't feel included}".
From an esoteric one, I can imagine how this would be EXTREMELY difficult. I'm currently writing my own tradition, and constantly reminded how idiosyncratic it is whenever I share it with my partner for feedback. We don't have a shared basis for the 4 elements, even - we have extremely individual, odd, inexpressible understandings. So I can imagine entering rituals where the 5 members have, collectively over time, built up not only a group egregore, but a collective understanding of each ritual role/experience, which would be inaccessible to someone new. Because that ivy's grown on a certain kind of tree, that limpet's on a rock, and attempting to move it is impossible.
------
So yes. OK, so I've re-read my original article, and I think the goal was to tackle a couple of things.
When I imagine you and your coven, I have a generally buzzy feeling in my chest; and I have a mental image of it as "your" coven, and that being a positive thing
(Is this weird, but you've been on the web in the same places as me long enough that I have a mental image of a person, rather than a wall of words? I was on the Cauldron, finding you here was a pleasant surprise & one which encouraged me that Dreamwidth was a safer environment than tumblr for ideas. And now I think of it, I get a synesthetic blue/black/white association, which is also present in my system for a Mythic Queen Of The Witches figure, so evidently my subconscious does have a concept for "coven leaders which are good & true".)
So the idea of single roles as bad is a stand in for the bad of an abusive person in those roles.
(I imagine this is a trend generally in this Sequence, where a thing is pretty much OK so long as the wrong person isn't abusing it)
But when I imagine you and your coven, my insides go: "oh yes, makes sense that one person would be the eldest part of an established tradition, with a slightly deeper grasp on the concepts and link to the weird, and the motivation and experience and vision to lead a thing - and a figure who people might agree to follow in exchange for a certain kind of experience".
I've always got the impression of you as the sort of person who files the taxes, manages the calendar, and does the admin - instead of an aspiring deity/prophet who gets the praise and the benefits, while other people wash the dishes. And because of that, the idea of a tradition which is transmitted from a single vision - rather than a collective thing - seems more palatable and safe.
-------------
I think my Sequence combines two kinds of advice. Advice for coven leaders, and for members. The topics are the same, but the emphasis is either "check you're not doing this" or "check your coven isn't doing this". Advice is drawn from fear of a potential evil coven-leader, and my own fear of becoming that person.
So (brief) modified proposal advice would be:
Covener: Identify how power is structured, and assess whether a) this suits your needs, and b) whether it seems proportionate, wisely wielded, safe to be around, and beneficial to the whole rather than that one individual's personal gain. Be continually aware and alert that spaces may not be safe.
Leaders: be self-aware about your own insecurity, authoritarianism, or other negative qualities and challenge them where possible - for example, practice enduring your discomfort by splitting/rotating ritual roles, allowing Covener input into lore & rites, and so on. Ensure your cool esoteric duties is balanced by boring, administrative tasks. Be aware of Coveners and respect them - ensure they can come to you with concerns, or requests for more involvement, and facilitate them when possible. Power structures should be based on what's best for the group, so regularly check in and assess if this is still true.
-----
If it's OK, I'd like to fold some of your ideas about this into my v2 Sequence (with credit). Would that be OK?
Re: Sharing roles
-----
I'm starting with this post because it's one where my reply is more in-depth than a greatful nod.
I think you're right, and I'm wrong. Your way of doing things is sensible and it's hard to imagine a better one. I think the problems I raise are legit, but I'm re-filing them as "challenging without solutions/problems to be aware of"
A big reason is, I've recently become secretary (and acting boss) of a local LGBT group which was about to fold due to mismanagement. I'm currently re-writing the group docs and structure so that a new committee can take over in the new year, and not hit rocks in future.
A big part of why the last committee went wrong was vagueness: "we'll all check the emails whenever we can". A big part of why I was the only previous committee member now not in disgrace is I came in and said "I can't do this, this, or this; but I am good at these things, so I take full responsibility for the library and being visible at meetings."
In short: now I'm running a small community organisation, I have a strong appreciation and preference of "each person has 100% responsibility for their 2% of the goal".
So it's exactly as you say:
1) People ought to do things they're good at (or want the challenge of attempting)
2) It's easier for one person to set up how they do the thing, and do it, than collectively
3) Shared roles gets messy, and too diffuse.
I hadn't considered the esoteric side that you mention; and I'm interested by the idea of integration.
From a mundane perspective, I guess it's another version of 3) - "Everyone already does all the things so I don't really need to do anything {not pulling weight} or doesn't need me here {doesn't feel included}".
From an esoteric one, I can imagine how this would be EXTREMELY difficult. I'm currently writing my own tradition, and constantly reminded how idiosyncratic it is whenever I share it with my partner for feedback. We don't have a shared basis for the 4 elements, even - we have extremely individual, odd, inexpressible understandings. So I can imagine entering rituals where the 5 members have, collectively over time, built up not only a group egregore, but a collective understanding of each ritual role/experience, which would be inaccessible to someone new. Because that ivy's grown on a certain kind of tree, that limpet's on a rock, and attempting to move it is impossible.
------
So yes. OK, so I've re-read my original article, and I think the goal was to tackle a couple of things.
When I imagine you and your coven, I have a generally buzzy feeling in my chest; and I have a mental image of it as "your" coven, and that being a positive thing
(Is this weird, but you've been on the web in the same places as me long enough that I have a mental image of a person, rather than a wall of words? I was on the Cauldron, finding you here was a pleasant surprise & one which encouraged me that Dreamwidth was a safer environment than tumblr for ideas. And now I think of it, I get a synesthetic blue/black/white association, which is also present in my system for a Mythic Queen Of The Witches figure, so evidently my subconscious does have a concept for "coven leaders which are good & true".)
So the idea of single roles as bad is a stand in for the bad of an abusive person in those roles.
(I imagine this is a trend generally in this Sequence, where a thing is pretty much OK so long as the wrong person isn't abusing it)
But when I imagine you and your coven, my insides go: "oh yes, makes sense that one person would be the eldest part of an established tradition, with a slightly deeper grasp on the concepts and link to the weird, and the motivation and experience and vision to lead a thing - and a figure who people might agree to follow in exchange for a certain kind of experience".
I've always got the impression of you as the sort of person who files the taxes, manages the calendar, and does the admin - instead of an aspiring deity/prophet who gets the praise and the benefits, while other people wash the dishes. And because of that, the idea of a tradition which is transmitted from a single vision - rather than a collective thing - seems more palatable and safe.
-------------
I think my Sequence combines two kinds of advice. Advice for coven leaders, and for members. The topics are the same, but the emphasis is either "check you're not doing this" or "check your coven isn't doing this". Advice is drawn from fear of a potential evil coven-leader, and my own fear of becoming that person.
So (brief) modified proposal advice would be:
Covener: Identify how power is structured, and assess whether a) this suits your needs, and b) whether it seems proportionate, wisely wielded, safe to be around, and beneficial to the whole rather than that one individual's personal gain. Be continually aware and alert that spaces may not be safe.
Leaders: be self-aware about your own insecurity, authoritarianism, or other negative qualities and challenge them where possible - for example, practice enduring your discomfort by splitting/rotating ritual roles, allowing Covener input into lore & rites, and so on. Ensure your cool esoteric duties is balanced by boring, administrative tasks. Be aware of Coveners and respect them - ensure they can come to you with concerns, or requests for more involvement, and facilitate them when possible. Power structures should be based on what's best for the group, so regularly check in and assess if this is still true.
-----
If it's OK, I'd like to fold some of your ideas about this into my v2 Sequence (with credit). Would that be OK?