![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
RSC [Part 1] - Planning Mundane Stuff
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.
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”.
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:
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...”
(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.
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.
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”
(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"".
- “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”.
(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.
Re: Size of group implications
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
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
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
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.)