22 September 2019

haptalaon: A calming cup of tea beside an open book (Default)
Equinox was an odd one. I joined a group gathered by the sea, and had a day of casual ritual interspersed with trips to the café for beer and ice cream, then more bimbling in various groups around the sands,  then more ritual, more beer. It was a nice day, but also difficult. It's a lot of new faces all at once, and they're...very hard to talk to. I didn't have anyone ask who I was or anything about me all day, but I had a lot of people explain their magical insights to me, or overhear people doing this to others. We happened to be at the site by the beach at the same time as another group, who were doing a dragon weekend workshop; I was somewhat irritated by their presence because 80% of the dragon festival seemed to be stalls where you could buy things. Beautiful things, some of them exquisite, all from craftspeople in our community, and yet - can I please have one day of a year when no one is trying to sell me things. Anyway, every time I passed the tables in the cage with dragon people on it, each table had one person speaking at length about their magical insights too.

It's an odd dynamic. Both being sold things and being told things. I had one proper conversation all day, although I spoke with many people. Perhaps this will improve in time, as I know more people; or I will mind it less. I did try to listen a lot, and use my active listening skills - but that's not, perhaps, the approach one should bring to ones friends - it's a slightly mechanical skillset I have from work and trauma, making other people feel comfortable and heard, not genuine connection but a convincing facimile of it. And yet, I'm not sure how else to respond when someone begin explaining their experirence with dragon souls at length, besides politely listening. It's not a dynamic which seems to demand much of me in terms of responses or engagement besides listening and tacitly agreeing, and like..I suppose I can provide that, I'm very good at humouring men of a certain age and making them feel like the center of the world (as if they need much encouragement).

But like long term, I kinda want more from community and my engagement with people in it than this. It's alienating, and I feel like all I can do is model the behaviour I'd like to see - rather than participate, which I'm fully capable of doing, with the explaining magical esoterica and personal insights at tired listeners. But modeling a behaviour of listening and presence and trying to ask questions is a form of work, I guess, it requires a "work like" mentality and skill set, and that's not quite home yet.
haptalaon: A calming cup of tea beside an open book (Default)
A major thing all the big traditions get wrong is, I think, the idea thst attaining a certain grade of magic qualifies you to teach, lead, or guide ritual. Teaching classes and mentoring individuals; running a group, both the loud charismatic stuff and the difficult, patient community-building; and crafting ritual experiences which are meaningful, educational, otherworldly, with the right mood for the occasion. These are all different, difficult skillsets, and being an experienced or advanced mage does not grant any special skills in those areas, alas.

I do get the fundamental idea that the senior mage is most likely to have things to teach - although this is less true nowadays, where traditional year and a day material is trivial to find on your own. And is more likely to have the respect and network of relationship to help him lead - although this is by no means guaranteed, because he's also had more time to make enemies. And maybe her spirit relationship truly are deeper, but it doesn't mean she's able to facilitate those relationships well for others.

A more deeper problem is that then, we don't have any "mysticism" paths or titles equivalent to something like High Priest, which recognises the seniority of a person but not as a teacher or leader. The only way we have of establishing ourselves as Wayfinders of our craft is...teaching, leading ritual, founding groups. We don't have equivalents to, say, a monk or a holy man or similar devotional specialists, who are recognised community wide but who are primarily solitary and reflective.

I really wish we could decouple the two. I've always thought that a term like "receptionist" should be applied to the group leader, rather than Queen of the Witches or The Man In Black or The High Priestess, a fancy name with prestige. Receptionists handle admin, book the hall, answer the telephone, reply to emails, contact participants, and cover when their bosses have failed to do their job. I think this is a very good description of the fundamentals of group-running, and a humble term like "receptionist"  ensures the right people apply for it
haptalaon: A calming cup of tea beside an open book (Default)
(tiiIn my group, the conversation goes on about who should be the next Grand High Witch, although I couldn't see any tension yesterday so perhaps this is good and a sign everyone is healing.

The ritual was lead by no one; ten or twelve different members did a prayer, performance, or their own little bit, and I felt that worked well - it made power unclear, and I rather liked that, seeing a coven appear unified and giving lots of people a part to play, as it many voices were speaking with one voice.

My instinct continues to be that it's that term - The Grand High Witch - which is causing all the problems. and thst if you split the job down into its parts - who wants to update the website? Who wants to be media liason? Who wants to teach the novices? Who wants to run the full moons? Who wants to run the new moons? - then you'd have people taking on *work* rather than prestige, service rather than leadership. I think you'd get less takers. I think you'd help prevent any individual become overwhelmed, utilise the group's skills more fully, and decentralise leadership helping to break down hierarchy within the group. It defuses the politics of someone taking a title from a still-living crone who's been in that role as long as anyone can remember, and who should bear it until death,  but also recognised the reality that she's too unwell to do the day to day. It also helps mellow the handover: when you've had one leader and all the roles are centralised on that one person, then it all comes to pieces when that person cannot continue. No one else has has rhe practice,  form one thing, or has had a chance to build up any authority or respect in the eyes of others.

And maybe, in six months time, if you had split out the work like this amongst the volunteers - you would have a clear frontrunner for Grand High Witch if that's a model you still wanted to use. Whoever had not flaked out, and hadn't alienated anyone -I imagine hour list would be very, very short.)
haptalaon: A calming cup of tea beside an open book (Default)
Like, the heir apparent seems like a very serious person of faith, but they've got the personality of a Church of England minister, the charisma of a wet paper towel, can't project their voice, and doesn't seem confident building alliances or friendships or even staying at the cafe any longer than necessary.

They've got a clear candidate for ritual leader - a novice, but one with serious performance skills, the sort of theatrical talent that can pull a room together in ritual without even trying.  I know that's a controversial idea, but I'm fed up of attending pants rituals where the leader is a touch embarrassed and it's all last minute.  at rhe cafe, a woman exclaimed as a joke "...you plan for ritual?!" And like, yeah that's the attitude right there. If you don't plan for ritual, what you've got is a collection of oddly dressed middle aged misfits in a field, laughing awkwardly and waiting for someone else to make something happen. Of course you plan for ritual, if you want it to come together. If you want it to involve and transform participants.

We did a handful of meditations throughout the day, everybody had a whack - and out of that group  only one person was actually talented at leading them, because the act of *leading a meditation* is its own skill. Everyone was buzzed afterwards and said "oooh", so it wasn't just me.

And so on, you know? You break it down into skills  and assign the jobs to the people with those skills and the time to share them.
haptalaon: A calming cup of tea beside an open book (Default)
In part, I think the individualism of the modern world and the dispersal of magical knowledge kinda acts against the traditional role of a group leader. In the old days of the craft, things like hereditary knowledge and positions which passed down information had a certain purpose.  but here, if you take a student too slowly or try ad impart your tradition in a way they don't want to go, they can do it themselves or find something else. Is this good? I think it's good  broadly, but it does work against things like community and heredity and commitment, making us all rather spiritual dilettantes tempted by a buffet table of supernatural click bait. We've all got magical FOMO, where committing and strengthening something over time has its own power and one we seem to find it hard nowadays.

I've been readiing a lot of comparative religion atm, thinking specifically about deficiencies which I find in Paganism and how other religions cope with them. I'm currently reading the book by the Hare Krishnas, which is about bakhti yoga. The guru writing the book explains thst finding a mentor is essential essential. He also says you can tell a real guru from a false one because real gurus transmit information, not adding anything to it, being part of a long and ancient line. Which sounds pretty cool and kinda like Gardener tried to do  except that broke within Gardeners own life time because it's in human nature to tinker. Or perhaps, in Western nature to tinker.

I suppose this is the problem with hierarchical systems. You have to believe in the hierarchy, have some supernatural almost faith vested in it. Like monarchy. The Queen ia just this lady, but because people believe she is the Queen, she is. And what we have in Paganism is few paths which are truly ancient enough to command that respect, and few personalities who are both powerful and deserving enough of it. I can't imagine us ever having such a system as the Hare Krishnas do, where the role of a guru ia to transmit information without adding their own change. Paganism is profoundly individualstic, and this is perhaps our strength - but it works against such thugs as hierarchy and community.
haptalaon: A calming cup of tea beside an open book (Default)
I think what im writing about today is the idea that hierarchical systems come out of mainstream society, they're comfortable and familiar to people - but are applied to Paganism in a way which just...won't...work, because those drawn to paganism are already outsiders who are more likely to crave individualism, freedom and so forth.

The original druids in lore were imagined to work like the Roman senate, and then like an English priesthood; Murray imagined the witches as meeting in tiny cells linked into a wider organisation; occult groups often borrow the language and imagery of universities. These are models which are intuitive and familiar.

But they're imposed on Pagans from outside: these are people imagining what witches do, or setting up their own group nd using a familiar model for how to structure it. They're not responsive. They don't look at the participants of a Pagan group, and decide retroactively what model suits and matches their demographic.

I think if we did that, our standard group designs would look very different. Ideas like having a single fixed priest make no sense when we can all be our own priest, and choosing one person to channel the Goddess (or whatever) makes no sense when we all have our spirit guides, and so on. A system which is inherently set up to say - we are a community of individuals, and we meet in these ways for these reasons, and the ways and the reasons echo our understanding of a group that brings together a group of individuals as equals.

We all want what hierarchical, tradition Paganism seems to promise  - the idea od having a lineage and being part of a Real group and so on.  But very few of us seem prepared for the reality of that, like -do you accept someone as a spiritual authority?  what happens when you disagree with this person? What happens when the office is passed to the wrong successor? Do yoy have a belief in that hierarchy, in that structure, or do you go off and do your own thing instead? Most people, I think, have this "choice capitalism" mindset where a community or religion which isn't working can easily be replaced with an alternative.  and I don't want to trash that idea, because obviously you need to leave religions and communities which are dangerous, and why would you stay in one shih made you unhappy? But if it can be picked up and dropped so easily, it's not really community or religion. And it's that shallowness of engagement which I encounter a lot in Paganism, and which I guess I want to act against. I don't know many Pagans who would practice in secret under a repressive regime, for example, or risk prison; perhaps this is good, we're tricksters and survivors who reject the ways thst other religions harm their followers. Perhaps it's because...most Pagans just don't seem to believe that deeply or strongly that...the gods are real, and present, and not a figment of imagination or something which exist to serve our personal journey of self-actualisation.

I think we have to design membership structures around the people we tend to get, and find ways to create community which doesn't require Pagans to wholesale change their behavior and attitude to life. Design the community for the people, and it won't be at odds with their values.
haptalaon: A calming cup of tea beside an open book (Default)
But'm really liking how the Rebellion organises, using Self Organising Systems - it's a blend of totally decentralised and totally hierarchical organising.

We don't have leaders, but we do have facilitators who have a mandate to manage meetings. We have a shared set of values - the 10 Principles - and goals - the Three Demands. We're self reliant and take responsibility for ourselves: if we want to do something for the Rebellion, we just get on and do it - so long as it serves the demands and principles.

We have Working Groups, each one with a mandate to take care of a certain area: for example, Arts or Lobbying or Media. A mandate is a kind of job description, describing what they do - and if you have a mandate, you have complete responsibility for that area. No one takes it away from you or tells you you're doing it wrong; if you want to criticise Arts, you have to be part of the Arts group, or else you accept what has been done. Working Groups have an Internal and External coordinator , and these roles rotate every six months so no one takes ownership of them. Internal basically project manages the WG  and External communicates with other Ext Coordinators so everyone is working across teams.

Everyone else is arranged into Affinity Groups. These are eight to twelve people, who sttend protests together. Specifically, they do direct action together: this is a kind of activism which might include hunger strikes, street performance, blocking a road, doing graffiti, or so on; or they attend attend protest together as, say, a samba band, or a first aid street medic team etc. Affinity Groups have trust and have shared values - for example, people willing to take very arrestable actions should be in AGs together, so they're on the same page. AGs have an External coordinator each, and someone from Central has their number so they can be deployed quickly. For example, if you need to set up a canteen at a protest site, you find an affinity group: a set of attendees who already work well together and have the numbers. The Ext Coord isn't the leader, they just pas messages between groups.

I believe in this system. It think it's brill, and makes the community work - focused (we don't have a leader, but we do have people with responsibilities for tasks)

And I feel it would work well for a Pagan community. Affinity Groups are about the size of a coven - you might have two or six or fifteen covens, each with their own flavour and history, attached through their Ext Coord to the local hub. They work autonomously, and yet can come together when required - and also cross promote. Affinity Groups are, at the end of the day, just are bunch of mates - and that's the reality of of a lot of Pagan groups, I think, too. In your community you might have some AGs who were pub buddy pagans, and others who were super hardcore technical magicians.

And then you have Working Groups for people willing to give a bit more time. What WGs would a Pagan community need? It's less clear. You'd probably want a Media one at the very least, for press releases; and maybe a Tech one for the website and social media.  I think you'd set up a Teaching WG, who did a basic six month or twelve month "year and a day" standards, and that course might involve talks from the AGs introducing the different flavours of Paganism in the community, and that course would have pathways into more specific trainings done by any covens seeking members. You might want a music WG or a craftsman's WG, depending on your membership; possibly also one for magical skills, if there were members who were celebrants or so on. It would kind of depend on what the local group really "needed": if you had a site or building, you'd need a WG to manage it; if you had a library, you'd need a library WG; if you took subs,  you'd need a Finance group and so on.

Some of the benefits include -
  • a wider community, which is connected together by values and friendship but not by practices.
  • Some formalisation of the kinds of processes which exist in community anyway. But maybe that formalisation would help there be a more service minded and communal approach to each other, rather than an extractive or competitive one based around whose book sells or who has what title.
  • The psychological benefits of having Joined Something - benefits to both the person and the community,  benefits which are greater than merely following a Facebook page or other activities which give you no stake in the group's welfare.
  • And if one fell out of a particular practice  in this model represented by an Affinity Group, you'd still be part of the whole even if you joined a different one.
  • You'd get the benefits of of a larger membership (more resources, more skills), but also of the small specialised units (individualism, quirky magic, expertise in niche areas)
  • No Grand Poobah reduces pressure on an individual, and competition around who should be it; no power vaccum created by their absence.
  • Flat system rather than hierarchical - you might move into around different Group or WG and learn *more* things or *different* things, but never *better* things
haptalaon: A calming cup of tea beside an open book (Default)
BUT just as important as any of this is being a joiner; investing your energy and time in communities that already exist, instead of setting up new ones. That's the real dull work that every community needs to survive more than the lifespan of its initiator. And so, I am committed to supporting both the local community where I live and the community by the sea I seem to have been drawn into, and prioritising that over setting up a new thing (however sure I am that my thing would be Objectively Better)

(Still. The goal of XR is to empower citizens to take direct action, and so every party of the organisation is designed to encourage people into taking on jobs and roles and discovering their own power. And it's kinda overwhelmingly wonderful ehen you realise that two days after turning up at a protest, you could be trusted by everyone to do literally everything - it's not a model you encounter in the real qorld all that often, but so powerful to experience.

And yeah, what I don't get from either of the groups I'm in is a way to *participate* rather than just *attend*; a way to feel like a co-creator and member, rather than a hangaround or audience member. It's that sense of having a stake in community and being an important part of the plan is, I think, what gives a group longevity, rather than it being a mailing list. Like, I really want to start designing and leading ecstatic ritual, and have no idea how to find participants, or seek permission, or join the ritual team, or even if such a thing would be wanted or allowed. No one is going to ask me, obviously, what I know or might want to learn or contribute. Or what my name is.

It's at times like this I think...It have the skills and the desire to get through the veil myself - why atm I spending the equinox propping up someone else's ritual instead of dazzling through my own, alone, in the woods. This is the very same tendency I criticise in others,  though: people prioritising "my path" over "our community" is how we get communities which atmtr so fragile. I want to know how to balance these needs, both in my own life, and also if communities could be redesigned in ways which minimise this experience.
haptalaon: A calming cup of tea beside an open book (Default)
I think there's a relationship here to geek culture. I've been in a lot of geek scenes, and you'll meet rhe same 30 people once a week for four years  but somehow never get past the acquaintance level with any of them. Geeks competitively talk over one another with esoteric geek knowledge. It's tiring to be around and a shallow way to relate.

(I don't like the term "mansplaining" because, if you notice, it's not a thing men "do" to women. It's just how men talk. It's not how women talk, so when men talk to women there's a discomfort there which starts from mismatched expectations of what conversations are for. But if you ever see two men speak, they both mansplain *constantly* at each other.)

And geek subcultures are especially Like That. One doesn't really talk to people or listen; one takes it in turn to repeat ever more obscure factoids or meme banter which doesn't really add up to friendship. I asked my husband about this, and he agreed and advised that the best way to deal with this dynamic? Was to win.

Anyway,  I feel like the same factors cause this behavior to come up in both geek agreed and pagan spaces -outsiders who haven't got got a lot of traditional success markers, but who can compete by having exclusive knowledge etc. You can't win at football, but you can win at knowing the most about Batman. And maybe a certain lack of comfort with people or emotions which make deeper connections difficult. The term Geeksplain has been used, and I think it's an excellent one - Person A explaining something to Person B, without/despite knowing if Person B already has expertise on this subject.

I don't want to win. I dont want to participate. I...dont want that to be the dynamic, because for so many years in geek circles I know that leads to a very shallow, vapid level of friendship, very disposable acquaintances who you can meet for years and know nothing about.

So I've been trying to use my skills to draw people into deeper engagement. questions like, what is their favourite book or animal, or what first got you into Paganism - not your magical CV, but what was that tingle in the spine longing which drew you here. To try and jolt out of that dynamic, and into something interpersonal, a foundation. Until then, though, I'm a little depressed at the prospect of more "men explain things to me" afternoons out.
haptalaon: A calming cup of tea beside an open book (Default)
(& I want to emphasise that Geeksplaining is different to info dumping. The latter is joyous - when you just can't stop yourself sharing everything about something which fascinates you and which you adore. Your listener may well be bored or annoyed by you,  but at least your initial trigger was passion and a desire to share brilliance.

Whereas geeksplaining is, as my husband says, about winning. It's not really about sharing passion, or even imparting information, but about displaying your knowledge as a kind of verbal parry to the knowledge or others in the room. It's not a delighted overshare, but a (unintentionally cynical) tactic.)

Profile

haptalaon: A calming cup of tea beside an open book (Default)
Haptalaon

Welcome!

Greetings, friend. Sit by the fire, and we will share hot drinks and tales of long-forgotten lore.

☉☽🌣


Visit my welcome information & index page

pixel art by dollarchive


Tags

Style designed by: