(no subject)
22 September 2019 07:55![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
haptalaon(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.)
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.)
