![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
RSC [Part 6] - Unsolved Problems
As I’ve been writing and thinking, there are a couple of big unanswered questions/unadressed problems.
Many communities have faced this head on by designing processes for reporting and handling abuse. A lot of writing has been done about community accountability & mediation; activist-aware communities will often have a page on what their principles are.
(Here’s someone trying:
They are all flawed, all inadequate to the task. This is a very hard problem to solve.
And having gone through it, I still don’t feel like I have any answers. These situations are simply horrible for everyone involved. This article is excellent, especially its list of flaws in Community Accountability processes.
Now, this conflicts with an earlier principle: “Act Like A Larger Organisation”. Above a certain size, one really should develop a process for handling this, and do it before an accusation is made. Personally, I’d combat this by not letting it get that large. So perhaps there’s another point here about self-awareness and limitations, about setting a challenge you can meet. If I know I’m incapable of handling an abuse scandal in my organisation, I need to run an organisation sufficiently small that I can disband it just by no longer inviting members to tea.
At the same time, the Catholic Church is an ugly lesson in an organisation refusing to take responsibility for the actions of those it ordains.
Creating safer communities and accountability is a primary task for any larger organisation, perhaps the defining reason why such organisations should exist at all.
I’m currently looking program which teaches me lore for 12 months, and at the end promises initiation into the tradition – the website says it has initiated 120 people or whatever. I doubt it does follow-up on all those people. It doesn’t claim to, it doesn’t have to – but I can’t help think that would be so much more useful than sharing lore and ritual scripts. I like the idea that when someone says “I was initiated by Haptalon himself and have attained the rank of Adept”, it stands as a mark of their integrity and quality, and if someone doubts it they can write to the
organisation for a fact-check.
But of course, at that stage – it requires an organisation free from corruption, who judges wisely, makes fair decisions, is not controlled by a clique, doesn’t cover things up…
One option when passing on a reference would be to include some of your abuse-awareness materials as standard. You could write - "this is my impression of the person. But I don't feel able to vouch for anyone unconditionally, and would like to share some of the materials we use in our trad to assess the safety of individuals and groups"
For legal reasons, my work cannot provide character references - only factual ones. That's another neat way to both acknowledge and side-step responsibility: "I can confirm Jim worked in X Coven 2006-2008, and holds the rank of Fantastico - this role included...please note we don't give character references, but here are some resources for you". Job applications ask you why you left your previous role - so maybe it's appropriate to add "Jim was asked to leave after a serious infraction involving alcohol" or "Jim was a member in good standing, but wanted to pursue different avenues".
I'm a big fan of being upfront about limitations. Giving Jim a good or bad reference, or giving no references at all, cuts abuse out of the conversation, and doesn't offer insight into your perspective. Acknowledging the ways that reference-giving is imperfect means the recipient is thinking and reflecting about both Jim and me, and that's crucial.
In terms of this blog series. The original question was – how would I create a safer environment – so my answer on this would be: not letting a group become bigger or more official than I could be accountable for.
Failure Mode 1: Cal is in a coven. Martin is evil and cunning and manipulative. Cal leaves the coven; or maybe they speak out about it and are disbelieved; and they kinda drop out of the Pagan scene, or maybe they stick around but don’t have any influence or social power. Betty joins Martin’s coven, without the opportunity to talk to Cal. Repeat, repeat, repeat.
Failure Mode 2: Martin’s coven friends recognise he is a bad egg and eject him from the coven. They hear no more from him; or perhaps they try and spread the word, but tire of the responsibility, or aren’t well enough connected to do it effectively. Martin joins a new coven, who aren’t in contact with his old coven. Repeat, repeat, repeat.
This is one of the things which lets prolific abusers become so prolific. What’s to be done? It’s very difficult. Martin could change his name, or move countries. Abuse victims quite rightly want to move on. Ought a person or group have the responsibility - or the right - to tell stories about a person for months and years? What if Martin becomes a better person? What if the rumour-mongers are liars - what if Martin is the victim of a smear campaign? What if Martin’s accusers interpretations of the events are disproportionate or unfair? What if the tale-tellers have less social reach than Martin?
No solutions for this given, because few exist.
This is a scenario where a well-functioning hierarchy can be helpful. Your coven might not have any social reach or power, but you can let the other covens in your network know - and collectively, your organisation might have enough clout to spread the word further. If your org is large enough, maybe the scandal will be worthy of mention on The Wild Hunt or discussion in the wider Pagan blogosphere.
That doesn’t account for how “you’re on our blacklist and no longer welcome in this scene” is a horrifyingly powerful tool, and small community organisations don’t have the oversight or wisdom to use it with care. There’s a clutch of posts by Local Queer Notables about why I am a dangerous and toxic individual, written after I accused their buddy of the same. How is a third party supposed to judge between those two conflicting stories?
The Mystery
“I HAVE BEEN GENEROUS UP UNTIL NOW, BUT I CAN BE CRUEL. EVERYTHING THAT YOU WANTED I HAVE DONE.YOU ASKED THAT THE CHILD BE TAKEN. I TOOK HIM. YOU COWERED BEFORE ME. I \WAS\ FRIGHTENING. I HAVE REORDERED TIME. I HAVE TURNED THE WORLD UPSIDE-DOWN, AND I HAVE DONE IT ALL FOR YOU! I AM EXHAUSED FROM LIVING UP TO YOUR EXPECTATIONS OF ME. ISN'T THAT GENEROUS?”
Quite a lot of the things critiqued in this series are things I/we all secretly want. Of course I want to meet a geniuine guru, with a genuine historic lineage, who is Jedi-like and wise and touched by the Goddess.
The principles I have laid out strip out a lot of the flim flam and make-believe, and suggest no more sacred an experience than joining the Women’s Institute. The experience of being initiated into the Mysteries is real – these things work on the psychology in a powerful way. Magic is supposed to be immersive, ecstatic, participatory and strange – not run like a business meeting.
To what extent is this a problem? Can we create similarly powerful and authentic experiences without them? What checks and accountability would be needed to continue using them? How would I give my congregation the experience of me, as the Prophet of the Aeon – masked and all-powerful, a shadow cast by the fire – without the imbalance of power that inevitably comes with it?
Abuse reporting?
Many communities have faced this head on by designing processes for reporting and handling abuse. A lot of writing has been done about community accountability & mediation; activist-aware communities will often have a page on what their principles are.
(Here’s someone trying:
They are all flawed, all inadequate to the task. This is a very hard problem to solve.
And having gone through it, I still don’t feel like I have any answers. These situations are simply horrible for everyone involved. This article is excellent, especially its list of flaws in Community Accountability processes.
--
For these reasons, I haven’t listed anything about how to handle abuse when/if it happens. Is this a failing? Definitely. But I think it is better to be honest about our limitations, and the extent to which individuals can effectively act as a substitute for law enforcement.
Now, this conflicts with an earlier principle: “Act Like A Larger Organisation”. Above a certain size, one really should develop a process for handling this, and do it before an accusation is made. Personally, I’d combat this by not letting it get that large. So perhaps there’s another point here about self-awareness and limitations, about setting a challenge you can meet. If I know I’m incapable of handling an abuse scandal in my organisation, I need to run an organisation sufficiently small that I can disband it just by no longer inviting members to tea.
---
Rising again to Alex’s challenge to think of ways that hierarchy can be good. A large umbrella organisation can also be a way to reduce spiritual abuse – if the organisation is up to it.
At the same time, the Catholic Church is an ugly lesson in an organisation refusing to take responsibility for the actions of those it ordains.
Creating safer communities and accountability is a primary task for any larger organisation, perhaps the defining reason why such organisations should exist at all.
I’m currently looking program which teaches me lore for 12 months, and at the end promises initiation into the tradition – the website says it has initiated 120 people or whatever. I doubt it does follow-up on all those people. It doesn’t claim to, it doesn’t have to – but I can’t help think that would be so much more useful than sharing lore and ritual scripts. I like the idea that when someone says “I was initiated by Haptalon himself and have attained the rank of Adept”, it stands as a mark of their integrity and quality, and if someone doubts it they can write to the
organisation for a fact-check.
But of course, at that stage – it requires an organisation free from corruption, who judges wisely, makes fair decisions, is not controlled by a clique, doesn’t cover things up…
Technique: Keep thinking about abuse
One option when passing on a reference would be to include some of your abuse-awareness materials as standard. You could write - "this is my impression of the person. But I don't feel able to vouch for anyone unconditionally, and would like to share some of the materials we use in our trad to assess the safety of individuals and groups"
For legal reasons, my work cannot provide character references - only factual ones. That's another neat way to both acknowledge and side-step responsibility: "I can confirm Jim worked in X Coven 2006-2008, and holds the rank of Fantastico - this role included...please note we don't give character references, but here are some resources for you". Job applications ask you why you left your previous role - so maybe it's appropriate to add "Jim was asked to leave after a serious infraction involving alcohol" or "Jim was a member in good standing, but wanted to pursue different avenues".
I'm a big fan of being upfront about limitations. Giving Jim a good or bad reference, or giving no references at all, cuts abuse out of the conversation, and doesn't offer insight into your perspective. Acknowledging the ways that reference-giving is imperfect means the recipient is thinking and reflecting about both Jim and me, and that's crucial.
Technique: Know Thyself
In terms of this blog series. The original question was – how would I create a safer environment – so my answer on this would be: not letting a group become bigger or more official than I could be accountable for.
Dropouts
Failure Mode 1: Cal is in a coven. Martin is evil and cunning and manipulative. Cal leaves the coven; or maybe they speak out about it and are disbelieved; and they kinda drop out of the Pagan scene, or maybe they stick around but don’t have any influence or social power. Betty joins Martin’s coven, without the opportunity to talk to Cal. Repeat, repeat, repeat.
Failure Mode 2: Martin’s coven friends recognise he is a bad egg and eject him from the coven. They hear no more from him; or perhaps they try and spread the word, but tire of the responsibility, or aren’t well enough connected to do it effectively. Martin joins a new coven, who aren’t in contact with his old coven. Repeat, repeat, repeat.
This is one of the things which lets prolific abusers become so prolific. What’s to be done? It’s very difficult. Martin could change his name, or move countries. Abuse victims quite rightly want to move on. Ought a person or group have the responsibility - or the right - to tell stories about a person for months and years? What if Martin becomes a better person? What if the rumour-mongers are liars - what if Martin is the victim of a smear campaign? What if Martin’s accusers interpretations of the events are disproportionate or unfair? What if the tale-tellers have less social reach than Martin?
No solutions for this given, because few exist.
This is a scenario where a well-functioning hierarchy can be helpful. Your coven might not have any social reach or power, but you can let the other covens in your network know - and collectively, your organisation might have enough clout to spread the word further. If your org is large enough, maybe the scandal will be worthy of mention on The Wild Hunt or discussion in the wider Pagan blogosphere.
That doesn’t account for how “you’re on our blacklist and no longer welcome in this scene” is a horrifyingly powerful tool, and small community organisations don’t have the oversight or wisdom to use it with care. There’s a clutch of posts by Local Queer Notables about why I am a dangerous and toxic individual, written after I accused their buddy of the same. How is a third party supposed to judge between those two conflicting stories?