![[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.
Sharing roles
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
-----
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
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.