![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
In the process of replying to the comments on my last post, I've been made more aware of how much my viewpoint on the issue of contributing something to the gathers you attend is shaped and affected by my views of Eldership. I've been working for some time now on formulating a way to articulate and explain those views, and now it seems like it's needed.
For longer than I have been part of the otherkin community, certain individuals within the community have been referred to as "elders". I've never heard the term formally defined, but generally the idea harkens back to tribal cultures and the role older members traditionally play in such communities.
The term has, sadly, also been used by some individuals intent on manipulating others and gaining a position of status or authority in the community. Often these have been leaders of cults of personality, and have generally introduced an abuse element into the community. There's also a tendency by some members of the community to turn people generally recognized as elders into symbols, rather than individuals. They are looking more for a guru or mentor than someone who facilitates community, and tend to dehumanize the people they apply the term to. As a result of both of these negative uses, many people have shied away from using the term elder at all.
I don't shy away from it. I don't choose to let either the cultists or the courtiers take ownership of that term. There are many in the otherkin community who I would consider elders, either in the past or present. And I would hope, dearly, that there will be many more in the future. I aspire to be one myself, and I try to let that guide my interaction with the community. The writing I do, the resources (mailing lists and websites) I create and moderate, the workshops I run... everything I do is part of my effort to embody what a community elder should be. I don't know if I've achieved my goal yet or not, and I actually doubt that it is the kind of goal that can be achieved in any static sense, but the attempt has guided my path and will no doubt continue to.
As for what eldership means, in my opinion, I would have to draw from traditional tribal eldership to some extent. Foremost, I think that being an elder means being an example. Walking the walk, not just talking the talk. In our community, living in a way that is both functional and expresses that which makes us Other. Being an inspiration for others through their example. Also being a caution for others through the example of their mistakes, since elders are individuals as well and are not perfect. Which also means owning up to one's mistakes, taking responsibility for them, and allowing them to serve as lessons for others rather than trying to hide them.
Another aspect of what makes someone an elder is the willingness to build. To build resources, to build events, to build community. An elder gives back to the community. If an elder needs/wants a resource which doesn't already exist in the community, the elder may try to make themselves enough of an expert in that field to be able to provide that resource to the community. Conversely, if something is outside of an elder's experience and they cannot make themselves enough of a expert to successfully provide that resource, they know enough to mind their own business and leave it to those more experienced in that area. They don't presume to think that their personal knowledge and experience covers every area of study, or every problem of the community, unless they have put in real effort to make it so.
Eldership is also defined, in my opinion, by a certain willingness to serve. To help others when it is needed (within reason), to reach out to people, and to provide some measure of comfort and healing. It is embodied by the person who drives to be at a sick friend's side, and stays with them and their family through the night, even when it is inconvenient to do so. It is embodied by the person who takes the time to ask "Are you SURE?" when a friend is considering an ill-advised decision. It is embodied by the person who opens their home to others on a regular basis as a sanctuary, as a place to be themselves. It is embodied by the person who listens to the problems a friend has and offers candid advice without judging them. Even by the person, in our community, who takes the time to listen to the newly awakening and talk with them one-on-one without speaking down to them.
That last also leads me to another quality of Eldership: the willingness to learn. A real elder is someone who isn't just interested in passing on knowledge, they're interested in accquiring more. And they're willing to look to those more experienced than themselves, to their own peers, and also to those less experienced who may have their own unique lessons and insights to share. Because of this willingness to learn, real elders deal with everyone as equals, unless an individual's actions prove that they are of low quality. And when that happens, elders (even the more forgiving ones, who may wait for a pattern to establish itself before deciding that someone is of low quality) tend to have long memories, and share those memories with others.
Sharing memories and knowledge is also a function of an elder... one that is particularly necessary in a community such as ours, which primarily interacts over the internet. The turnover on mailing lists, as well as the tendency to forget things when a thread has ended, combine to make it very important that there be members of the community who take pains to remember, and even record, the past. Many events, and more importantly the lessons that can be taken from such events, should not be forgotten.
All in all, being an elder takes work. It involves a great deal of personal refinement, of dedication to the community, and even personal sacrifice. It's not an easy path, and the resultant status in the eyes of the community (if it ever comes) is a reward for the time and energy you have put into it, not an end unto itself. Abusing that status should be a clear indication that someone should not be considered an elder, and lead to people looking more closely at just what it is the false elder claims to have contributed to the community.
Ultimately, I would like to see a community where there are more elders. Where it is expected that the people who stick around, who become mainstays of the community, will take up such a role and begin building community themselves. Where it is expected that people will and should want to become elders in this sense, and where people take the time to articulate what an elder is and how to go about becoming one. Where people who regularly attend gatherings will take the time and effort to help facilitate the gathering in some way, to contribute to it and make it better.
With these people we can grow as a community. Without them, we can only stagnate and decline. I'd like to see more people stepping up to the challenge.
For longer than I have been part of the otherkin community, certain individuals within the community have been referred to as "elders". I've never heard the term formally defined, but generally the idea harkens back to tribal cultures and the role older members traditionally play in such communities.
The term has, sadly, also been used by some individuals intent on manipulating others and gaining a position of status or authority in the community. Often these have been leaders of cults of personality, and have generally introduced an abuse element into the community. There's also a tendency by some members of the community to turn people generally recognized as elders into symbols, rather than individuals. They are looking more for a guru or mentor than someone who facilitates community, and tend to dehumanize the people they apply the term to. As a result of both of these negative uses, many people have shied away from using the term elder at all.
I don't shy away from it. I don't choose to let either the cultists or the courtiers take ownership of that term. There are many in the otherkin community who I would consider elders, either in the past or present. And I would hope, dearly, that there will be many more in the future. I aspire to be one myself, and I try to let that guide my interaction with the community. The writing I do, the resources (mailing lists and websites) I create and moderate, the workshops I run... everything I do is part of my effort to embody what a community elder should be. I don't know if I've achieved my goal yet or not, and I actually doubt that it is the kind of goal that can be achieved in any static sense, but the attempt has guided my path and will no doubt continue to.
As for what eldership means, in my opinion, I would have to draw from traditional tribal eldership to some extent. Foremost, I think that being an elder means being an example. Walking the walk, not just talking the talk. In our community, living in a way that is both functional and expresses that which makes us Other. Being an inspiration for others through their example. Also being a caution for others through the example of their mistakes, since elders are individuals as well and are not perfect. Which also means owning up to one's mistakes, taking responsibility for them, and allowing them to serve as lessons for others rather than trying to hide them.
Another aspect of what makes someone an elder is the willingness to build. To build resources, to build events, to build community. An elder gives back to the community. If an elder needs/wants a resource which doesn't already exist in the community, the elder may try to make themselves enough of an expert in that field to be able to provide that resource to the community. Conversely, if something is outside of an elder's experience and they cannot make themselves enough of a expert to successfully provide that resource, they know enough to mind their own business and leave it to those more experienced in that area. They don't presume to think that their personal knowledge and experience covers every area of study, or every problem of the community, unless they have put in real effort to make it so.
Eldership is also defined, in my opinion, by a certain willingness to serve. To help others when it is needed (within reason), to reach out to people, and to provide some measure of comfort and healing. It is embodied by the person who drives to be at a sick friend's side, and stays with them and their family through the night, even when it is inconvenient to do so. It is embodied by the person who takes the time to ask "Are you SURE?" when a friend is considering an ill-advised decision. It is embodied by the person who opens their home to others on a regular basis as a sanctuary, as a place to be themselves. It is embodied by the person who listens to the problems a friend has and offers candid advice without judging them. Even by the person, in our community, who takes the time to listen to the newly awakening and talk with them one-on-one without speaking down to them.
That last also leads me to another quality of Eldership: the willingness to learn. A real elder is someone who isn't just interested in passing on knowledge, they're interested in accquiring more. And they're willing to look to those more experienced than themselves, to their own peers, and also to those less experienced who may have their own unique lessons and insights to share. Because of this willingness to learn, real elders deal with everyone as equals, unless an individual's actions prove that they are of low quality. And when that happens, elders (even the more forgiving ones, who may wait for a pattern to establish itself before deciding that someone is of low quality) tend to have long memories, and share those memories with others.
Sharing memories and knowledge is also a function of an elder... one that is particularly necessary in a community such as ours, which primarily interacts over the internet. The turnover on mailing lists, as well as the tendency to forget things when a thread has ended, combine to make it very important that there be members of the community who take pains to remember, and even record, the past. Many events, and more importantly the lessons that can be taken from such events, should not be forgotten.
All in all, being an elder takes work. It involves a great deal of personal refinement, of dedication to the community, and even personal sacrifice. It's not an easy path, and the resultant status in the eyes of the community (if it ever comes) is a reward for the time and energy you have put into it, not an end unto itself. Abusing that status should be a clear indication that someone should not be considered an elder, and lead to people looking more closely at just what it is the false elder claims to have contributed to the community.
Ultimately, I would like to see a community where there are more elders. Where it is expected that the people who stick around, who become mainstays of the community, will take up such a role and begin building community themselves. Where it is expected that people will and should want to become elders in this sense, and where people take the time to articulate what an elder is and how to go about becoming one. Where people who regularly attend gatherings will take the time and effort to help facilitate the gathering in some way, to contribute to it and make it better.
With these people we can grow as a community. Without them, we can only stagnate and decline. I'd like to see more people stepping up to the challenge.
Tags:
no subject
no subject
Coming up with a new term in order to escape the way a term has been used has two real problems: the first is getting people to adopt it. The faeborn community has taken this tact in distancing themselves from the term otherkin, but otherkin definitely has more widespread usage and even penetration into other subcultures. The second problem is preventing it from taking on the same negative meanings that the first term did. Practically speaking, there's no way to prevent someone from adopting any term in the same manner than elder was adopted by those seeking power.
The best way to take back the term is to make a stand for it. I did my part with the term otherkin by writing the kin to the other essay. One person, one essay, and several years later we're finding that usage being adopted more and more. The same thing can happen with eldership. And as the negative examples have created certain expectations of this word by their presence, the positive examples will begin to create a new expectation by their presence, especially as the idea spreads and grows.
As for the connotations of the term, I don't think elder has ever denoted "flawlessness" outside of the minds of the false elders, and possibly some RPGs and TV shows. (*coughCharmedcough*) And I think most people, if presented with ideas of eldership like what I have tried to articulate here, would recognize and acknowledge that fact. I don't see native elders giving up the term because of the pretenders, and I see little reason why we should either.
Avoiding the term entirely makes a little more sense, but leaves the problem of explaining to people how, after a certain period in the community, working towards a particular but unnamed/unnamable role is desirable. And since it is a role that will be familiar to people from outside our community, or the pagan community, as an "elder", sonoer or later new people are going to come along and say "oh, you mean an elder" and the whole business will start over again. I say we just tackle it head-on. It will take some time to have a real impact, but we can change things if we make the effort.
no subject
Modern paganism isn't like that. One can be a quite self sufficient pagan as a full solitaire. While some people may try to place anyone who writes a book in the elder status, that doesn't mean that those authors have other elder qualtiies beyond transmission of information. Therefore, a solitaire need not have elders. Many of those who seem to want elders the most are the ones who cling to organized religious structures the most. They want someone to direct them and lead them.
As for "Kin to the Other", I don't see it as a replacement for "Otherkin", so much as I see it as an elaboration upon it, or a further explanation of it. "Otherkin" is easier to say, and I think that the two words relate in the same way "neopagan" and "pagan" do--neopagan is used when emphasizing something more specific. In the same way, "Kin to the Other" emphasizes a particular way of viewing/explaining the concept of "Otherkin".
I think the problem with "elder" is that you do have a lot of people in both communities who are very distrusting of authority *raises hand*. The negtive connotations behind "Otherkin" may be irritating, but generally harmless. The misuse of "elder" strikes many folks as more ominous, especially for those of us who don't want to see our respective communities turn into just another organization.
no subject
I see that too. That happens whether or not they claim the title of elder, and whether or not they claim to be flawless. That's the way hero worship works, unfortunately. People find people they consider role models, and then get upset when they learn their role models are human too. That does not invalidate the idea of elders, only reinforces the fact that they are human and that we should learn as much from their mistakes as we do from their positive example. Which I said in the original essay.
I think that may be one of the disconnects we're having here... I'm not trying to recreate anything, I am describing a role which tends to arise on its own in human social settings, using a term that has commonly been used in english-speaking cultures to indicate roles having similar qualities. From Wester Judeo-Christian tradition, to Administrative/Governmental titles, to the traditional elders of various indiginous cultures who choose to use the term "elder" to describe themselves in the english language. This word has a long history in english, to the extent that few people in english-speaking languages would not know what you meant if you used it to describe someone.
None of this invalidates the use of the term outside of that context. It's already being used in other ways, and has been for centuries in the english language. Church elders, community elders, tradition elders... not one person who speaks english would have any confusion whatsoever upon hearing these terms. The role is a familiar one, and this is the term used to describe it.
(Cut for Length)
no subject
I agree with you on one point: a solitary need not have elders. Which leads me to another interesting point: no one NEEDS to acknowledge any given individual as an elder, whether we use that term for them or not. There are people in the community I consider elders. Other people who use the term elder for that role in our community may see a drastically different lineup of elders than I do. That's not a bad thing. This is a role, not a formal position. Not part of a heirarchy, not part of a government, just a role that tends to be needed and tends to find people to fill it. I advocate acknowledging that role, and promoting the mindset needed to do it well, rather than getting into any form of debate over who is one and who isn't.
I agree, it is not a replacement for otherkin, it is a clarification of it. An attempt at clearer definition. But you wouldn't believe how many people resisted any attempt to define otherkin at all, let alone defining it in the way I have advocated. Most people wanted to lock it down, restrict it to people just like them. A few wanted to break with the whole concept, because they thought it had become too watered down and was at the point where the word meant anything anyone could possibly want it to. Even when I came out with my own definition, people argued with it and thought I was going too far, especially with the idea that people who are not themselves other but are related to the Other in some way (blood, marriage, etc) could be considered otherkin. But that definition is gaining ground now. People are starting to listen. I don't see why the same could not be done with a clarification of eldership, if we make the effort to do so.
I'm afraid I don't see where in my essay it mentioned real elders being authorities of any sort... I said that some people misuse the term seeking positions of power and authority. I also said misusing the status (or perhaps "reputation" would be a better word) that comes with being considered an elder should be a clear sign that someone is not a real elder. None of this is a basis for not using the word, only for being careful who we give our trust and respect to, which I would hope is already the case.
no subject
I see this as another problem. To me, that gives power over people, wether you realise it or not, and that could turn really sour if you consider these people actual friends.
There are people I respect, yes. But that doesn't mean I intend on giving them an advantage over me, percieved or no, other than equality with myself.
~Solo
no subject
no subject
You are making a mistake by wanting a title that is not only outdated and not applicable for this culture, but one you may not deserve.
~Solo
no subject
Since the communities I'm in, and especially those small ones I've created, have declined and stagnated for one reason or another, I doubt I do a good job in the role anyway.
Thanks for sharing these ideas, they've given me some food for thought.
no subject
As for the idea that you may be considered an elder by others, but don't consider yourself one, I find that's true in an awful lot of cases. Most people who display the qualities of eldership tend not to want to be associated with the title. Often they have their own set of people they consider elders, and do not think they measure up. There's also a good deal of concern about people placing them on a pedestal, rather than accepting them as human and fallible. Sadly, that tends to happen whether they adopt the title or not.
Communities fail and stagnate for a lot of reasons. Some of those can be laid at the feet of the facilitators, and some of it can be laid at the feet of the participants. Ultimately, though, if you weren't doing a good enough job in certain areas to maintain your communities, and no one else stepped up to the plate to try to fill in the gaps, the whole community failed each other.
no subject
Well, what does that say about you then, who seem to strongly want to be associated with that title?
~Solo, who realised that using his coyote icon would be more applicable for this discussion
no subject
A lot of the elders I know have great hearts, great minds, but they're not as pragmatic as they could be. They tend to let people take advantage of them to one degree or another, and not ask for help when they need it. They don't want to burden others with their problems. Slowly but surely, this is causing elders in the community to withdraw. And very few people have stepped up to take their place. I've tried to fill that void to some extent. And this essay is a call for others to do the same.
You're right, that does say a lot about me.
no subject
Quit twisting your own words around. I think you are Wrong, and nothing you say will convince me otherwise. Go ahead. When you start your ego-tripping, I'll be right there to piss on your tree.
~Solo
Fucking internet
Go ahead. Make your comment, I'm not responding to you anymore. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over.
~Solo
no subject
I can't find it, but I wrote an article on community and leadership once for a pagan group that included the quote: "I don't want to be an Elder. That's a tree, and we all know what coyotes do on trees." The people assuming that 'title' are being set up for an unpleasant sort of 'feet of clay' scenario where all the implications are that they're wiser and somehow better then others.
The problem is, people crave a heriarchical structure. They want to know where everyone belongs, what the person's 'rank' is. That's a hard to escape kind of thing, and people do fall into following percieved leaders, sometimes quite blindly.
Am I making sense? I can see what the Issues are, but am having trouble articulating.
no subject
Haha. Very well-put. I'd never want to be a so-called 'elder' either--I prefer being the coyote *wink*
~Solo
no subject
no subject
Amen brutha!
~Solo
no subject
Another leap of logic is that the feet of clay scenario only applies to these people if they adopt the term elder. In my experience, that's not at all the case. Whether or not someone is called an elder, people who are respected as role-models tend to end up on pedestals; when they make mistakes, when they show that they are human, they tend to fall off and many people who look up to them have a hard time forgiving them for that. That's an aspect of fulfilling the role, one of the less pleasant ones, not an aspect of the term used for it.
As for "merit badges", and the idea that some are more equal than others, I don't think anything in the concept of elder I've given reflects that mindset. If people choose to give more recognition, respect, and even status in the community to those who act as elders, that is recognition of the work they have put into the community in the first place. It is not "poof, you're an elder, now we'll respect you". It is not "this, this, plus this equals this level of respect, and for a buck fifty shipping and handling we'll throw in this fabulous coffee mug". It's being there when you're needed, often with no warning and at inconvenient times. It's taking a stand when you know you're right and that your position will help the community, even when it's an unpopular one. It's spending an evening letting someone cry on your shoulder as they go through a rough breakup, or driving to another state in the middle of the night to come to the rescue of someone stranded far from home. The respect is earned.
no subject
I've been around for a very long time. I'm solitary, because I can *see* trainwrecks before they arrive and it became too hard to watch for me. You have your ideal of what its supposed to be, but I can tell you how people *react* to it. (Which I did do.)
You're trying to create a social More that defines a certain position in society, and it may be possible but what I've seen in the last 20 years suggests that Camelot is hard to build. Good luck.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I love you dude, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to say that we are going to disagree on this here.
I don't understand why you want that so-called title so much, when simply 'walking the walk' would be, and should be, enough. This isn't about ego-stroking, its about helping others. Plain and simple.
~Solo
no subject
no subject
The thing that worries me is this: Do you want to help people for the sake of helping people, or do you want to help people for the sake of achieving some self-serving egotistical title? You need to answer this truthfully.
~Solo
no subject
I was going to answer this on your last entry, but it seems more appropriate to do so here, since this is more on-topic. This actually brings me back to the whole 'part of being in a relationship' thing. I didn't say that anyone in a relationship necessarily contributes to it. However, contributing to it is not anything special. Do you see what I'm getting at? Do you understand? The only bonus to contribution is that, ideally, your relationship should be better, healthier, and you should get more out of it thanks to what you've put into it. That should be the reward. Not some 'status'.
That said, I am pretty much completely against the idea of 'elders' in the community. No one has any right to tell me who I should listen to or respect. I also don't like the implication of superiority, or competition, or power. I prefer to choose the people I walk with, and for those people to be my equals. If I don't know something, great, I can ask someone. If someone asks me about something I know, that's great, too. I think this ties in to my whole idea of energy flows going back and forth, of them circling, and not being unidirectional. I honestly think that moving towards a hierarchy is a great mistake, and would turn the whole thing into a place someone like me just wouldn't want to be.
no subject
Quite frankly, if my goal was what you believe it to be, I wouldn't care about others working to embody the role of elders. In fact, I'd want fewer people considered elders, because the fewer elders there are the more consolodated any power from the associated status would be. That's not what I want. Ideally, I would want a community where *everyone* aspires to be an elder someday. Where everyone works at creating the kind of environment that promotes community, that evokes magic and Otherness, and that is conducive to the growth of new elders.
As for the idea that contributing to a relationship is not anything special, I'd have to disagree. The number of people out there who don't contribute to their relationships, who don't put in the time and effort, more than convinces me that the people who do take such time and effort are special, to be cherished, and to be encouraged. In interpersonal relationships, this action earns you the respect of your partner. In a community, respect and status are synonyms. Another appropriate term might be esteem.
Finally, I agree. Moving towards a hierarchy is a mistake. Letting people tell you who you should listen to or respect is also mistake. That is and should always be your own decision. Not everyone in the community needs to consider the same people to be elders in order to acknowledge that there are people in the community who fill a role best described by that word. Much the same way that not everyone needs to agree on who fills the role of "healer" in a community. Broadly, people may tend to agree that certain individuals fill a particular role. Some, through their actions, may earn broad respect. Not everyone will. For all the people who think some in our community are already acting as elders, there are scores more who think they are frauds or worse. Let their actions show which is true, and let people decide for themselves. Let elders have their own set of people they consider elders, who may or may not match what everyone else thinks of as an elder. Nothing about this needs to imply a heirarchy, unidirectional eldership, or even inequality. In fact, I specifically mentioned treating others as equals and learning from everyone as a quality I associate with eldership.
I kind of wonder how many people here actually read the whole essay before objecting to it...
no subject
What you say you want, and what you're actually saying don't match. You can't put different labels on people and expect them to all act like they're the same. You can't imply that this is something all people should work towards, that this should be a goal, and insist at the same time that this does not make a hierarchy. I don't believe it's a case of people not reading the whole essay, but the fact that you are contradicting yourself within it. People are picking up on that.
We'll just have to agree to disagree that contributing to a relationship does not make someone special. Just because other people don't, or just because other people expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter does -not- make me special just because I believe in putting effort into things. It makes me willing to work for what I want. No more, no less. If I decide it makes me deserve some special status -other- than the joy of a healthy relationship with my friend/spouse/community, it makes me just as bad as the entitlement bitches, in my opinion.
no subject
As for the idea of being lesser until we reach that state, yes in a certain sense we are. In the same sense that I've improved myself by studying hard and learning things and working towards being successful and stable in my life, I will have improved myself by working towards the goal of being an elder.
Considering that you have accused me of holding positions I have directly argued against, I have a hard time believing that you are "picking up" on anything. Especially since you seem to all be arguing from the same preconceived definitions of elders, rather than the ones I have actually provided. There are enough different expressions of eldership that I've outlined for people to all find aspects which fit their personal paths, while still contributing to the community. If what I've outlined still goes against "their path" at that point, I can only conclude that their professed path is actually to tear down the community. As for the idea that you can't work towards something as a goal for everyone and not have it become a hierarchy, let's try a little thought experiment:
"Ideally, I would want a community where *everyone* aspires to be a role model someday"
"Ideally, I would want a community where *everyone* aspires to be a better person someday"
"Ideally, I would want a community where *everyone* aspires to be honorable someday"
No, I'm pretty sure you can in fact have everyone aspire to embody the qualities represented by a particular label without that leading to the automatic creation of a hierarchy. Especially since everyone's ideas of what a role model, a better person, an honorable person, or even an "elder" is can differ. I've put my ideas of eldership out there. People can choose to adopt them or not, as they like.
If you're the only one willing to work for what you want, or one of a very few, that is special. I'm sorry you don't appear to like the term, but it's a fact. It's the definition of the word special. And as I said, in an interpersonal relationship, it earns you the respect of your partner. In a community relationship, it earns you the respect of the community. Whether that respect, that esteem, that "status" is special or not depends very much on the others in the community. If they're doing their part, no it's not anything special. If they're not, it becomes special, because it is the exception rather than the rule. Notice that in either interpersonal relationships or community relationships, when this quality IS considered special, that implies a distinctly unhealthy overall environment which would be greatly improved by more people who aspired to maintain the same quality of relationship. Hence the call for more elders.
no subject
For example, I respect Rialian and Helen both. However, I would not label them as anything other than friends. To me, that's more important than anything else.
I don't believe in perfection. I don't believe that there is -ever- a point where the ability to change and grow is impossible. Thus, there is no invisible line to crss where you suddenly become an 'are' from an 'are not'. Do I want to be a better person? Hell yes, or I wouldn't be going to therapy. Do I want to be a role model? Good gods, no. I want people to choose their own way.
If these things make me a person who wants to tear down the community in your eyes, then so be it. It's not a community I'd want to be a part of.
no subject
But he's wicked clever. And I see a lot there to admire.
And we've shared some tense situations; that kind of thing's a very good yardstick of what kind of person a man is.
no subject
I never said being an elder was more important than being a friend. But the roles are different. Ri and Helen may be great friends, but they give a lot back to the community by hosting the events they do, and they don't do that out of friendship. Thresholds has in the past been opened to people who have problems with Ri as long as they are able to act civilly. In his esssay "We do not do it for you" he even specifically states "I do not do it FOR my bestest buds, I do not do it FOR the camaraderie." By the way, though his essay does not use the term elders, who do you think the "we" he is referring to are, that are building community and doing things to create the environment which keeps things going?
I don't believe in perfection either. I thought that was clear when I was talking about the humanity of elders, and learning from their failures and mistakes. I also thought that was clear when I was talking about real elders always being open to learning more, including from those less experienced than themselves. But this lack of perfection certainly does not mean that there can't be a point at which people become elders, any more than an inability to learn every possible programming language means someone can't become a programmer. It's a function of what you do, and in the case of an elder it's a function of what you do to build community specifically. I also don't believe that having role models means people can't choose their own way... for one thing, they need to choose the role model. For another, even once they have, they need to choose aspects of the person to emulate. Nobody is good at everything. Choosing role models to emulate does not mean giving up one's capacity for reasoning.
These things don't. But neither do they show me any way in which acting more like an elder would prevent you from following any path you want to. The only aspect of one's "path" that would prevent someone from doing the things I have described elders as doing is if their goal is to accomplish the opposite; and since the things I have described elders as doing all actively promote community, the opposite would be destroying community. For the record, I don't see you as trying to destroy community. But I also don't see you as someone for whom it is inherently impossible to be an elder (as I have defined it) without going against your path.
no subject
As a result, I will -never- strive to have anyone view me as one; in -any- community that I am a part of. I don't want it. If I'm respected for the things I do or the knowledge I have, that's cool. I have this respect for others already. I just want to leave the labels out of it, and -not- because of the abuse of others using the term. Simply because I dislike labeling in general- I find it far too confining. I don't even like referring to myself as 'male' most days because I view even such a thing as gender as being somewhat fluid.
To conclude- if that's the thing you want to work towards, fine by me. We all just won't work towards the same things or in the same ways. I wasn't kidding when I said I'd be actually offended to be thought of as an 'elder' or a role model. Particularly since my idea of 'teaching' tends to be: Go, make your own mistakes, and afterwords, we can compare notes. *grins*
no subject
Damn your wording is much better than mine. I tried bringing that concept out, albiet clumsily, because its early in the morning and I've not had my motherfucking caffiene.
What you say you want, and what you're actually saying don't match. You can't put different labels on people and expect them to all act like they're the same. You can't imply that this is something all people should work towards, that this should be a goal, and insist at the same time that this does not make a hierarchy. I don't believe it's a case of people not reading the whole essay, but the fact that you are contradicting yourself within it. People are picking up on that.
Exactly. And quite honestly this worries me about you. Alot. Though I think this worry has mostly to do with the topic at hand.
If I decide it makes me deserve some special status -other- than the joy of a healthy relationship with my friend/spouse/community, it makes me just as bad as the entitlement bitches, in my opinion.
Yeah...I think its reward enough just to have relationships functioning well. To have a good, healthy, rewarding relationship, regardless of the type of relationship should be...er, rewarding enough.
~Solo
no subject
A glorious, and amazing idea that should be striven for. That will get trampled by people being people...and having that happen to one's cherished planned framework's painful as hell.
We're all saying: "Dude!! Look out for the pit!" but you're hearing it as a challenge.
no subject
You might be right that people will trample it... but aren't they doing that already, without any help? The word is currently in use, and generally being abused. Trying to remove the word from usage is, practically speaking, near impossible. It's too familiar a term for any english speaker. It will always sneak back in to describe people filling a certain role, because it is the best english word for that role and has a historic connection to the role in the minds of english speakers. I say we try to work with the term, rather than against it. Nudge it back in the proper direction. Promote the things which make good elders, and encourage the idea that anyone can become an elder.
I'd probably see this discussion more as a warning of potential pitfalls and less as challenge if the ad-hominem arguments had been left out of it. Both Solo and Corey have made it a point to specifically attack my reasons for striving to act like an elder. They've accused me of wanting status, suggested I am missing something in my life. Claimed that I was loudly proclaiming the things I've done in order to seek recognition. This has even gone so far that Duo, Solo's brother and headmate, has said (via text-message) that by responding further to Solo's comments in my own journal I am "instigating", and has compared me to a cult leader we have a mutual bad history with.
If people want to discuss the idea itself, fine. I will not be responding to further "questions" about my motives. I believe my character, both in the past and the present, speaks for itself. If it doesn't, then I've been wasting my time anyway.
no subject
Like he wasn't instigating too in some of his comments? Like you didn't respond by comparing me to an equally nasty individual?
Please don't make our private discussions public like this. Thats why I chose not to handle it on the internet. This was between me and you, and no one else.
Please remember there are two sides to every story. I apologized for my nasty comment, and I'm trying to sort this out with you, but this is Not Cool.
~Duo
no subject
As for the discussion, it started public. Then you made a private attempt to get me to terminate my end of the public conversation after your brother had his say. It was originally between me and the others here. Not with you, whether reading our argument was giving you a migraine or not. This is my journal. If people choose to respond to my writings here, I will reply if I choose to. Period.
You're right this is very not cool. And I'm willing to accept the apology and try to move past this, but I'm not sure you actually see why it was wrong. The comparison was only one aspect of the problem. Taking it private and trying to get me to stop commenting in my own journal was also wrong.
no subject
~Duo
no subject
The first relationship I was in after joining the otherkin community ended because of a public debate I was having. (Admittedly, in that debate I was in the wrong.) He left a message for me in private IM that his patron Goddess was offended by the debate, and warned me not to continue it or our relationship would be over. Of course, I was in the kitchen at the time making dinner, and the person I was living with had taken my place at the computer, and didn't see fit to tell me about this message. I continued the debate, and there followed a very nasty, very public, breakup via the mailing list the debate was happening on.
That said, I shouldn't take the past out on you. You're not him, nor are you the person we each compared the other to. So reacting to your actions as if you were either of them is probably inappropriate, and I'm sorry. We can take this back to a private discussion if that's what you really want.
no subject
I'm sorry I made those comments, and I'm sorry you're acting this way towards me. I am not happy about this.
~Duo
no subject
no subject
no subject
Do you see what I am saying? I don't know how to make myself any clearer than this. I apologize if you took it as an attack.
no subject