RSC [Part 1] - Planning Mundane Stuff

[haptalaon]

Welcome to Part I. This post offers some suggestions for how to lay good groundwork during the planning stages. Here, we’re planning the humdrum everyday stuff any group needs to plan for.

Divide up power

Failure Mode: You don’t want all the power eggs in one basket, where a leader is the physical embodiment of the Aeon, and the prophet of Aiwass, and the best diviner, and the best mage, and the guy who writes your magazine, and receives the scripture, and who runs the organisation, and has the best cock, and the only person who can authorise you to run your own splinter coven, and he leads the rituals, and he’s also in charge of new members, and of training, and he’s had a new vision saying you are not the real Scarlet Woman and it’s actually this new babe he’s dating etc etc etc.
Success Mode: Reduce the concentration of power in one individual, and give everyone a vital role in the group. Instead of one leader, everyone has a “leadership” type role. Rather like a corporation – you have a secretary, a treasurer, a librarian, a CEO, a herbalist, etc etc etc.
In this context “Cult Leader” would be a job role defined to be boring as possible: an administrator responsible for calendar management, chairing meetings. No one should want to be the coven leader, because it’s a job and a very unglamorous one.
This would also underline the coven as a collective endeavour, and give everyone a “stake” in it – and a clear role in making it a success. And it minimises burnout, perhaps, and bystander syndrome, if everyone has a clear responsibility towards their own small part.
(Thinking about bands again – my most recent band did have a “leader”, and he booked gigs and did advertising and told us when rehearsals were. Brill. I play the keyboard, and my job was to be good at playing keyboard, and to turn up when told. That gave me a sense of pride and power, because I had responsibility for something important – and I was the Very Best keyboard player in the band!)
I would have epic respect for a coven who said “I’m Bob and this is my coven, but our spiritual leadership mostly comes from Karen who is a person I’m not shagging”.

Behave like a bigger organisation

One problem both queer & pagan scenes have is – they occupy a strange middle ground between “a bunch of mates hanging out” and “an organisation, with benefits and responsibilities”.
On the one hand, they are real networks with real power – not being able to access queer spaces means, I can’t access the binder exchange, I don’t hear about support services I might want to use, I’m not making friends who can relate to my life, I’m terrified at Pride – and not of the anti-gay protestors. The reality is, I am “banned” from these spaces, and it has a serious impact on my wellbeing.
On the other, they genuinely are just bunches of people who like spending time with each other, and one can hardly regulate that.
Another overlapping problem is how few of us there are. The same reason why bigger countries do better in the Olympics. I have a perhaps naïve hope that a huge Christian organisation has more people to choose from, and are less likely to enable crazies; just as you can go to any straight pub in the city – but there are only two gay bars, and there’s not really enough of you to start a third bar.
I think once a coven gets bigger than you, your boyfriend and some mates, it needs to take itself perhaps over-seriously and act very scrupulously indeed. For me, this would be the point at which you have a website, welcome applications from strangers, offer training etc.
For example:

• seeking charitable status
• having a written constitution
• having an AGM
• seeking training from non-Pagan sources (on management? Teaching? Counselling? Tax? Etc)
• If money changes hand, showing financial docs for the org to members.
• Clergy having a clear “job role” and set of boundaries, rather than it being fuzzy and ad hoc.
• “Our responsibilities towards you are…your responsibilities towards us are…” style mission statements
• Intermittent member moots: “we’re doing well at this, we’re doing badly at this”

These things exist in bigger organisations for a reason, and if one wants to be treated in semi-professional ways (“We provide a six-month initiatory program”) one ought to accept some of the responsibilities of that.

(I mention teaching because, as a teacher, I went to a heck of a lot of meetings about protection, accountability, punishment, mediation and best practice – it is a serious responsibility, perhaps less so with adults, but still. We were constantly thinking about how to use authority wisely and well.)

Have a written constitution

Failure mode: “your magic will vanish and you will be cursed until the end of time unless you agree to do this sex thing, and thou mayest not speak of it to any living creature for woe betide etc etc and this is the only way to truly keep the old ways, the same practices occur in every coven”
Success mode: “I may be new to witchcraft, but the constitution laid out what kind of sex things we do and what kinds of secrets we keep – and this grand master of the craft appears to be changing the rules on a whim, and I have a weird twisty feeling in my gut. I’ll ask my non-Pagan friend what they think...”

A written constitution helps lay members know what they are getting themselves into. It helps group members make decisions about whether this group shares their aims and vision, and it also lets them judge the group’s actual behavior by its written standards. It provides an initial statement of principles and intent which combats future authoritarian, hypocritical or shady behaviour by leaders. It gives members something to point at when another member is a dick: "Actually, Harold, it says here in the constution "Do not be a dick"".

It’s a useful tool for managing challenging Pagan content, like sex, oaths, hierarchy and so on:

• “We work sky-clad and use ritual tying, however we do not touch people in the circle”
• “We keep the names of our gods secret, however no one should ever require you to keep secrets about sexual rites."
• "You should not disclose the names of members to people outside the coven, unless a serious crime has occurred; however you should tell trusted friends you are in a coven, and talk with them about it generally as you would any interpersonal relationship”.

If Future Me decides to move the goalposts, alert congregation members have an opportunity to spot the discrepancy between our stated principles and my behaviour, and be wary, call me on it, or run for the hills as appropriate.
(When cracks appeared in Gardener’s original coven, he conveniently “discovered” another ancient text supporting his point of view. His members were able to compare this information with previous, and say “that’s bollocks, Gerald”. He failed, but his coven did not. The safety net worked)
A constitution guides group leader(s) in their choices and decisions, and helps them reflect on why they are doing what they do – on which more below. Jennet has written some good comments about Group Aims – which comes at this stage – but I also think I’d want to drill down into specifics more than that. “What is the aim of having a Degree system?”, “What is the aim of having this sex rite?” and so on.

Have leaders in clearly defined roles

Alex made a comment that “hierarchies can be good”. I agree in theory, so I mulled it over to try and find some ways to understand this within my misanthropic worldview.
Another problem in the queer community is that there are no leaders – except there are. But the power dynamic is not made explicit. Hierarchies can make clear the power involved, so it can be questioned and monitored.
For example, if a teacher have an expectation they sleep with students – that is clearly vile. If a Certain Community Notable has an expectation they sleep with whoever they like, and not doing so results in rumours being spread about one and one’s invitation to the best private parties suddenly drying up and no one wants to know you any more, the power exists but it is not made explicit, and is very hard to challenge. I've encountered similar dynamics online, when someone with a huge follower count took umbridge with a throwaway post of mine. Part of me thoughts and still thinks - how could we regulate that? People with a large follower count have a lot of power, but it's unrecognised and people are unwilling or lack skills and awareness to adjust their behavior accordingly.
The biggest challenge here is people with a small-scale semi-celebrity status - if Stephen Fry behaved like this, everyone would call it what it was.

I think this is related to the idea of behaving like a bigger organisation from the outset.

Comments

Size of group implications

[jenett]

Going to do this as different comments for different points, for easier replies...

1) The things that work for a group of 3-13ish people are different than the ones that work for a larger group. (Or are needed)

I actually think there's a lot of potential harm to a coven (small group, no more than 10-13 people, working with or toward building a group mind) to getting too official about things.

I've got a tendency toward "Write up how things go" documentation, but have found it tended to restrict what happened with actual people in ways that didn't produce the effects I wanted. It didn't leave space for an organic growth of what we could do together.

My current approach is to be up front about what I'm up for leading/participating in, so people could figure out if that's a thing they are also interested in.

And then with my current students, once we'd gotten through the intro Seeker classes, and they became Dedicants, we sat down with a list of "Here's some stuff we should make decisions about" (costs, food at events, planning other activities, how things run, my thoughts on running ritual, etc.)

The list was a mix of 'here's the stuff I'm willing to run', 'here's some stuff where we've got several possible choices' and 'here's some stuff that we might want to have a baseline about'.

That let it be organic, and let them participate, while still letting me set some limits on how we were doing things.

Related size issues: tax-exempt status is expensive and pointless in the US unless you're looking at taking in fairly significant money in donations.

(The cost to file is several hundred dollars, plus upkeep of things like a separate bank account and mailing address you're willing to have listed in public documents - often a PO Box. And the paperwork is time-consuming and complex for the initial filing, often dozens of hours.)

For a group where you're doing "Everyone chips in for expenses", that's ridiculous, and doesn't benefit anyone.

For a group running larger public events, and especially dealing with larger space rentals (where there are often non-profit rates) then it starts making a lot more sense.

(I laid out some thoughts about this on a page on Seeking a while back.)

Re: Size of group implications

[haptalaon]

General agreement; and wrt "I've got a tendency toward "Write up how things go" documentation", I suspect I'm a similar sort of person, so it's useful to hear how it's often less useful in practice.

(One thing I've done in my current LGBT group, where I'm on the committee, is write job descriptions as job GOALS rather than task lists. In other words, "You do the social media - we need our events advertised in advance, and messages regularly replied to. How you do that is your own shout." Rather than have it as a set of instructions, or part of a bigger job ("this person does social media, runs Pride, and does graphic design".) - both of which are rigid)

I think you're right: so maybe amend this point to "understand how your coven scales", and have a different proposal set for small/medium/large. It would be silly to do these things for, say, covering wine & cakes; but necessary for sufficiently large amounts of money. One of my magic books recommend Coveners pay subs towards the cost of daytrips and funding a group library; that's out of the realm of "our mates take it in turns to bring snacks and buy beers".

I stand by the original point that the real danger zone is big orgs trying/pretending to behave like small ones; and your counterpoint similarly spots the problem of a small org behaving like a big one. So perhaps my v2 also needs guidance on identifying which you are (and for Coveners, to spot discrepancies)

The other thing about documentation is a comfort blanket/crutch for me. I think it would help me think through problems in advance; remind me to approach it as a professional role, not a personal one, and put in a bit of "distance"; provide me with reassurance. But officialdom can also be used as a tool for ill - and is devastating when so used - so perhaps it's less of a boon than I expect.

Re: Size of group implications

[jenett]

(One thing I've done in my current LGBT group, where I'm on the committee, is write job descriptions as job GOALS rather than task lists. In other words, "You do the social media - we need our events advertised in advance, and messages regularly replied to. How you do that is your own shout." Rather than have it as a set of instructions, or part of a bigger job ("this person does social media, runs Pride, and does graphic design".) - both of which are rigid)

I definitely agree with this approach.

I can't remember if I mentioned it in this series of responses, but I often refer to what I prefer as haptocracy, which is that the person doing the work (hapto is a verb for work in ancient Greek) gets to decide how it's done, within the boundaries of the goals or needed outcome.

(I may or may not have come up with that after a fit of frustration at someone insisting I do things their way, when their way was unsustainable for me, and mine would get us to the same outcome, but in a way that was much more manageable for me.)

One of my magic books recommend Coveners pay subs towards the cost of daytrips and funding a group library; that's out of the realm of "our mates take it in turns to bring snacks and buy beers".

I'm curious about which book, if you recall. That sort of baffles me, because those are also two very different things.

I am generally "Everyone pays their own way for outings, with arrangements for people for whom money is tight", and books (or other items) are tricky, because who keeps them if people leave the group or it dissolves (and where do they live)

But officialdom can also be used as a tool for ill - and is devastating when so used - so perhaps it's less of a boon than I expect.

Definitely on both - it's so complicated to find the balance. I've mostly been finding that 'document the implied structures so they're not just implied' works okay, but that focusing on 'this is a description of what we're actually doing we can refer to and edit as needed' rather than 'this is how things will be' works a lot better.

Re: Size of group implications

[haptalaon]

RE: haptocracy. Holy moly, I am delighted for a word describing this, and shall adopt it. Yes. This is particularly a chronic disability/neurodivergence issue - but even when you consider everyone. There's generally a better way of working which is unique to each person, and it's most beneficial for all to allow them to do so.

One day, I will meet a line manager who understands this. Thank you for your kind words on the job; it was 9 months of pretty much this thing. "We can't make the changes you requested in week one, and whenever we discover you adapting a task independently we will require you to stop. Now, shall we discuss some goals for improving your wellbeing and work performance? But not the things you were already doing". It was in a very large old library, and the loss of the books and the building is raw indeed.

----

Hehehe it's the Ritual Magic Workbook by Dolores Ashcroft Nowicki; like many books in the ceremonial tradition, it reads more like self-insert fanfiction about an imaginary group the author would like to run, than an actual working tradition. i.e. she describes herself as Director of Studies for her tradition - and while I understand and share the fantasy of a Harry-Potter style real magical subculture, that's not actually how it works.

I've kept it because in the first "month", she writes "Now set aside a room in your house for your temple" - and every subsequent month has a DIY project like, now it's time to make your columns. Get a large roll of corrugated card and place a football atop them, and spray paint one white, one black. It's really charming; a touch silly; but every time I've moved house, I've thought "perhaps I should set aside one room as a temple", so I shouldn't make too much fun, as the idea clearly appeals to me.

Anyway. WRT Harry Potter. She has a chunk in month 11 about how to set up a working group, and it is again a kind of fan-fiction in which, perhaps, there truly were networks of students under her aegis; and if there were they could do this, and that, and collect subs so the group could buy books together and go on coach trips to Stonehenge.

Well, I accept that in an earlier time both the cost and rarity of new age books - especially Occult ones - might have made this more sensible. And I often think about founding a magical library, as I'm sure many do. And I share her "writing fanfic" approach too, and cannot fully judge it for it is important to strengthen a sense of make-believe.

I would only attempt a group library if we also had group premises. At that stage, the books would belong to the location. My origami society has a library - they are national, but when you go to meetings it's very much like a bunch of buddies. And indeed, where the library goes became a problem when the existing person - who had it in their garage - resigned. My LGBT group also does - it's at the meeting place. Both are legal entities, however.

With the drop in book cost, the internet, and the public domain accessibility of the older grimoires, I don't think a coven library is a good idea. If there are essential books, which are expensive/hard to find, then maybe have a lending copy. Much better to just lend books to friends when required.


---

RE: officialdom

Yes, that's the right balance I think.

Re: Size of group implications

[jenett]

RE: haptocracy. [snip] There's generally a better way of working which is unique to each person, and it's most beneficial for all to allow them to do so.

Yes! (Steal the word and share it as much as you want!)

I started articulating it, incidentally, after "No, the way we prep for group stuff is a three hour cleaning binge right before people come over for ritual or class" when I was living in the group covenstead.

(I had specific assigned spots: I could also not get them *not to mess up* the bits I cleaned - the temple room, for example, which wasn't going to get other explicit needed use overnight - if I cleaned them the night before.)

That was also the semester I was working full time, in grad school part time, and doing significant logistical support for a friend whose partner had died, so while it was before most of my health crash issues, my time was very tightly scheduled.

Um. Anyway.

Thanks for the book mention - it's been on my vague list to do something with sometime, and I will nudge it a little higher for amusement factor.

I do agree about the libriares. I do buy most of my Pagan books in print, still (and everything else in ebook) so I can share them or pull them out during a class, and I will occasionally lend. But they are my books, mine. (And yes, setting up Pagan libraries is... complex.)

Re: Size of group implications

[jenett]

One day, I will meet a line manager who understands this. Thank you for your kind words on the job; it was 9 months of pretty much this thing. "We can't make the changes you requested in week one, and whenever we discover you adapting a task independently we will require you to stop. Now, shall we discuss some goals for improving your wellbeing and work performance? But not the things you were already doing". It was in a very large old library, and the loss of the books and the building is raw indeed.

And on this point, specifically, ugh.

Libraries can be wonderful places, and they can be incredibly dysfunctional places, and sometimes both at once (amazing collection, but the people....)

I'm so sorry, and here for further venting if it's helpful, because I've been in similar positions. (My last job ended much that way, though it was not at all a gorgeous building, being mid-70s weirdness.)

Re: Size of group implications

[haptalaon]

RE: Seeking post. Cheers, that's cracking :)

That's pretty much the kind of thing I had in mind for v2, and is better for asking questions rather than a set of solutions.

I guess, critical thinking about benefits/problems, and how to choose well.

Oaths and information provision

[jenett]

2) Some stuff, I can't reveal, because of oaths.

For example, we do not explicitly say what's in our initiation ritual before someone is initiated. (There are a few other pieces like that, but they're all less of a 'this is something someone might object to or have concerns about' thing - details of meditations, a few specific bits of particular rituals.)

We handle it by teaching a class right before people can request initiation that is "Here is what initiation means in our context, and some similar ones. Here are kinds of things that show up in initiation rituals, and some of why. We're not telling you which ones show up in ours, but if you have questions or concerns about any of these, or need to share information we might need to know, your initiation request letter or a conversation before submitting it is the time to do that."

And by doing it before initiation, but late in the process, they have a baseline of what we do in rituals and meditations, and of whether or not they trust us. (And if they don't trust us after a year of working together, then there are other issues we'd need to resolve anyway...)

Similarly, there are some roles in our ritual work that can only be done by people of a particular degree. If you're not that degree a) it's not relevant and b) you should be focusing on other stuff.

There's actually a tremendous freedom in that (I'm the kind of person who always feels I should be doing more, and to have it be so clear during my own training that that wasn't my job to worry about yet was really helpful. Hard, but helpful).

But it means I can't begin to promise full disclosure. We're a mystery-focused tradition, and those two things just don't fit together, by fundamental nature. The best I can do is be honest about the scope of what I'm not sharing, and talk about when I will share information that people need as it becomes relevant to their decisions.

Re: Oaths and information provision

[haptalaon]

I think we're broadly in agreement here - information should be provided, to an extent. The goal is informed consent - people don't need the exact details, but they should have the opportunity to opt out of anything which one might reasonably object to in advance.

However, I accept your criticism: what if something is both importantly oathbound, AND the sort of thing some may wish to opt out of?

That's tricky. I sort-of accept the idea of previous rites as a building up of a baseline - as an experiential alternative to a written document.

I guess I'd then emphasise that initiation requires a kind of implicit, blanket consent to the experience - a bit like going to a Halloween walkthrough or an immersive play - and if that isn't the kind of person you are, then likewise this initiation (and group) is not for you.

------

At the same time, worst-case-scenario abusive environments do pretty much this. They put the frog in the water and slowly turn up the heat; Coveners are pushed slightly more each time, their loyalty tested. No one voluntarily gets into a death cult; it's an insidious, organic process which slowly makes its members accept it as normal. Similarly, no one ever willingly dates an abuser. So the idea that trust *alone* is good enough, I'm not so certain of: plenty of people do develop trust over time in people and groups which do not deserve it.

(i.e. one famous cult which ended in bloodshed had, in fact, rehearsed it many times before things ended. It started as essentially a social justice campaign, and people joined because they wanted to help the downtrodden etc. I guess a written constitution would just have been rewritten; but I like to think that reading, signing and possessing a document wakes the conscious mind, and more people might have been able to think "this death stuff isn't what I signed up for" or "this has changed since I joined", and have concrete proof of it, something physical.)

---

as ever, the real trick is "Coven with good people not monsters", but it's easier said than done.

Re: Oaths and information provision

[jenett]

I guess I'd then emphasise that initiation requires a kind of implicit, blanket consent to the experience - a bit like going to a Halloween walkthrough or an immersive play - and if that isn't the kind of person you are, then likewise this initiation (and group) is not for you.

Yep. And I think that's one of the best things you can do.

(Also, initiation is different for everyone, so the other challenge is not setting up expectations for someone that may not be true for them for whatever reason, even if the initiation 'takes' well.)

When is info relevant

[jenett]

3) Related to #2: different information is relevant at different points.

And more to the point, my experience is that a lot of people, even if you try to tell them about stuff earlier, will just gloss over it, ignore it, or otherwise be utterly baffled that you mention that you talked this through six months ago.

This is partly to do with the nature of learning things that aren't about intellectual knowledge, people need to be in a place where the mystery can be revealed to them, and that's not something under conscious control. It turns out that even talking about mystery work is a mystery, y'know?

So, my take (really, the most ethical one I can come up with) is to mention it early, as a thing to be aware of, and then to be really clear about having space and time to talk about it again when I get to a point where they can hear it and make sense of it and/or we're about to do that thing.

Re: When is info relevant

[haptalaon]

Agree; and I hadn't considered the need to repeat information later - or a Covener's ability to fully understand it.

I think this is also about the Leader's moral management, however. "Novices are not ready to know; but in time they will accept the vital call to have sex with the great leader" - with the preceding months a gradual grooming and breaking-down process until the Novice genuinely does "decide" this is a good idea. Is the kind of thing I want to stave off.

As ever, not a problem if you're a good dude. BUT I think there's a middle way, where someone might not understand that "gradually building people up to initiatory secrets/experience" can be a bad thing.

We do have so many ideas like - the initiation destroys your old self, it's a kind of spiritual death, it's a submission and loss to the higher power, it's supposed to be difficult/dangerous/challenging etc.

So I do think there should be some check present. So Coveners don't mistake spiritually enlightening danger for the wiles of a canny manipulator; and so a well-intentioned Leader, gets a chance to reflect on how their initiation program might be experienced by a Novice. If a Leader is reluctant to put something upfront - it could be a clue that it has the potential for abuse. And similarly, if our subcultural norm is that most Covens provide such an outline - when encountering one that doesn't, you're a bit more awake, and primed to assess the group's behaviour a little more closely before joining.

Re: When is info relevant

[jenett]

I hadn't considered the need to repeat information later - or a Covener's ability to fully understand it.

I didn't either, until I had a conversation with someone (out at dinner after their initiation) where they were shocked by something in the initiation that I knew perfectly well we'd talked about at the class about initiation. (And I was pretty sure previously, but I had notes for that particular class.)

As ever, not a problem if you're a good dude. BUT I think there's a middle way, where someone might not understand that "gradually building people up to initiatory secrets/experience" can be a bad thing.

Definitely.

The way I'm currently handling it is a discussion early on with Seekers about the nature of initiatory craft: that it may change your life, for most people that's in good ways, but we can't promise it'll all be good, and it probably won't be comfortable for a while. And then more explicit conversations as we approach initiation.

And encouraging them to read widely (with a caveat about reading actual descriptions or scripts for initiation rituals, and why, which is that for a lot of people, it will make your analytical brain kick in if you actually do the ritual, and that makes the esoteric parts a lot harder to integrate.)

Sharing roles

[jenett]

One of the challenges of sharing roles in a degree-based system is that not everyone can do all the roles. (Right now, we are in 'I am the only person who can do most of the circle cast, and I'm the only one who can teach the teaching things'. And we're not doing a ton else in terms of activities.)

That said, my students volunteered on their own to sort out bringing food for all of us (they alternate who brings the main dish and who brings something supplemental) and they do the dishes after. I just taught them how to do altar set-up, so we may talk about alternating some of that.

(Because I've got limited storage, and we're doing stuff in my bedroom, it may make sense for me to keep doing that, though. Logistics are hard. And so very individual to particular times, places, and people.)

My hope is that as the group acquires more initiates, we'll be able to split things more easily - my ideal would be rotating who plans rituals, for example, and for them to help with teaching future students (maybe alternating classes). But that's also a limited frame thing, because I don't want to run a group that's more than about 5-8 people.

There are some things it's hard to alternate: in our tradition, as I suspect a number of others, there are esoteric portions of the role of HPS and HP (among others) that continue between rituals, and it's a lot trickier to do those if you're swapping up all the time - both because you can't set up some longer-term management and process that works for you as a particular person in the role (on the exoteric side) and also because you lose continuity on the esoteric side, and are constantly trying to pick up threads of energy.

The group I trained in handled it by having people try different ritual roles as part of training, but by having a long-term person assigned to the major ongoing roles in the group (HPS, HP, Handmaiden, Summoner, in our terminology) plus usually one person responsible for Seeker emails and classes who'd get other people to come co-teach with them.

People would rotate through some of those roles (Handmaiden, Summoner, Seeker stuff) based on interest and available time/energy, but the HPS and HP roles were constant, because their energetic connections to the group were part of the esoteric and exoteric 'what makes the group like this'.

Groups that explicitly structure as sharing all the roles from the beginning can and do work, but based on observation, they're a lot harder to get off the ground, and it's really hard to add people to (because people without that background have things they can't take on, at least yet, and integration is hard.)

Re: Sharing roles

[haptalaon]

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

[jenett]

First things first...

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?

Absolutely.

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 really enjoying it (and getting useful things) out of it too, so thank you for doing the setup! As is probably clear, a lot of my current group work is making me look at things because it's the first time I'm doing some of them in about a decade, and in a different structure in some ways.

And it's definitely an area where I think looking at how things come out in applied practice a) varies and b) seeing the variation is really helpful.

-----
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"

Heh. I think there's also legitimate variation here - a bunch of your suggestions do make a lot of sense for, say, a Pagan open ritual group without a lot of esoteric streams in play.

(I just met someone for coffee last weekend who is interested in getting a local Pagan Way-type group going: rotating open rituals with something like potluck and topic-focused discussion after sort of thing. In that case, rotating duties in most roles make a lot of sense, though you want some consistency for a reasonable period for things like 'organisation head' and 'treasurer' but those can also rotate at longer intervals, like a year or three.)

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."

It's amazing how having boundaries comes across looking weird, doesn't it? And yet, works so much better than trying to do everything, vaguely.

I hadn't considered the esoteric side that you mention; and I'm interested by the idea of integration.

I am glad to see if I can expand more, if you have more questions.

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.

That is a big part of it, yep - and there's a lot of 'this thing needs to feel this way but it's hard to describe, you learn by being around it a bunch of times' in some forms of Craft (including mine.) It's not that someone can't learn it - but that it takes time.

(And likewise, people swapping roles is a good learning experience, but it shakes up other things in the circle. In general, that is not the circle I want for high-intensity ritual or higher-risk ritual, like initiations, or Drawing Down, or whatever. I want to know what the energy's going to feel like before we add the more complicated stuff.)

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

Aw, thank you!

(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.

Not that weird!

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".)

That is fascinating, and an image that fits things I've heard from other people, but not exactly the same. (I am, mind, the world's greatest fan of cobalt blue and other blues around that shade.)

(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)

Yeah. And that's the hard problem to solve.

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.

Which amuses, because my current students are very insistent about washing the dishes.

I've been thinking (and there will be some blog posts on Seeking as soon as I can get my life to simmer down enough to sort out a posting schedule for them) about how a lot of this is driven by 'we are hosting this thing in my home'.

They might do the dishes, but I'm also doing an hour or so of clean-up household prep before every class or ritual (plus the routine 'enough cleaning I can have people over regularly') on top of the explicit class or ritual prep.

But yes. I have gone into it very much with "This is the thing I do and want to do, and I am glad to share it with people it's compatible with, but I have limits on how I'm going to do that and what I'm going to commit to and what that means."

So (brief) modified proposal advice would be

(not quoting the whole thing)

I like both of these a lot - I'd love to have a resource checklist (similar to the CARE pages on the Seeking site - that individuals and group leaders could review regularly.

I think one of the greatest (and probably most common) fail states for relationships of all kinds is that a thing goes along, and then it changes slowly over time, and it's hard to notice that the new status is not actually an okay thing until something brings you hard up against a problem. At which time it's painful to course correct (and more likely to fail) even if everyone is basically a person of good will. And of course, that's also the state where abuse often happens: there's a building of trust, and then things go bad.