Building Community

[jarandhel]

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.

Comments

[lupabitch.livejournal.com]

Being in both the pagan and Otherkin communities has pretty much soured me on the concept of elders as I've sene it most commonly manifested. I don't really think it's salvagable, either. I do believe there are people out there who fit your definition of a healthy elder, but there are so many people who have abused the notion that I think if anything we either need to come up with a new term, or ignore terminology altogether. Labels come with expectations, and most people just aren't up to fitting the expectations of "elder". (In fact, as 'elder" tends to denote "flawlessness", I'm not sure anyone could properly claim it). I'm happy just being able to say "Oh, you want to know about X? Well, I can't help you, but this person can". It still denotes authority in my mind and that of the person I'm advising, but it doesn't have the connotations of "elder".

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

Compared to traditional uses of the term elder, both pagans and otherkin have a very short history of using the term. I think it's much too soon to declare it unsalvageable, particularly when mainstream society is unfamiliar with the pagan and otherkin uses of the term, but is familiar with more traditional tribal usage.

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.

[lupabitch.livejournal.com]

See, I've seen plenty of situations in which a venerated member of the pagan community was set up as a supposedly flawless elder (without wanting it in the first place), adn then when they displayed some modicum of humanity they were chastised. The problem with the pagan and Otherkin communities is that we're basically trying to figure out this whole organization things for ourselves; in the case of pagans, you have people raised in a primarily middle class semi-suburban situation trying to recreate a social structure found in small, relatively spread out pockets. Elders in traditional societies are *family*, as well as being dependent on other people for survival. Some societies killed their elders if they could no longer provide (or at least had a cultural tradition of the elders committing suicide at some point). In societies where elders were valued even beyond their productive years, it was for information necessary for the society to survive.

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.

[smokierings.livejournal.com]

It's funny.. by your definition, I've been an elder in some handfuls of people for quite some time. Oddly enough, they'd probably tell you the same thing, though I wouldn't.
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.

[netdancer.livejournal.com]

For us it comes back to Merit Badges. "Do X, Y, Z and you win a Sekret Decoder Ring. Do A too, and we'll show you our leet handshake." I've seen that happen in the pagan community a lot more then once, and in groups like the SCA. It creates a 'community of exclusion' where all animals are equal but some are more equal then others.

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.

[per-akh.livejournal.com]

I'm seconding Lupa's statements here strongly (especially the parts about how elders technically don't exist in this culture or environment), because I'm way too tired and burnt out/focused on other things to get into another protracted internet debate with you.

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

[per-akh.livejournal.com]

"I don't want to be an Elder. That's a tree, and we all know what coyotes do on trees."

Haha. Very well-put. I'd never want to be a so-called 'elder' either--I prefer being the coyote *wink*

~Solo

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

See, I've seen plenty of situations in which a venerated member of the pagan community was set up as a supposedly flawless elder (without wanting it in the first place), adn then when they displayed some modicum of humanity they were chastised.

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.

The problem with the pagan and Otherkin communities is that we're basically trying to figure out this whole organization things for ourselves; in the case of pagans, you have people raised in a primarily middle class semi-suburban situation trying to recreate a social structure found in small, relatively spread out pockets.

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.

Elders in traditional societies are *family*, as well as being dependent on other people for survival. Some societies killed their elders if they could no longer provide (or at least had a cultural tradition of the elders committing suicide at some point). In societies where elders were valued even beyond their productive years, it was for information necessary for the society to survive.

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)

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

You're very welcome.

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.

[ebonhost.livejournal.com]

I think it's totally my week to agree with Solo. *grins* What is being said here is not at -all- agreement with rialian's comments on needing "more cowled figures that walk unnoticed, but energise and comfort". You're actively seeking a title and acknowledgment. You're loudly proclaiming the things that you have done in seeking this recognition. It makes me wonder -why- you are doing so, and I'm going to be very blunt here: Is there something in your life that you think you are missing, that you feel you need to have this kind of acknowledgement?

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.

[ebonhost.livejournal.com]

Coyotes of the world unite!

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

I think you make a few leaps of logic here. For one thing, everyone seems to be making the automatic leap from acknowledging that the role of elder exists in the community, to the idea that these elders are somehow higher-up in some sort of heirarchy. I don't believe anything I said implies that, and I think it directly goes against some of what I wrote about real elders treating everyone as equals. It honestly makes me wonder if the people arguing most strenuously against the use of the term elder aren't the ones who have bought most strongly into the definition provided by the dysfunctional wanna-be elders, since there seems to be a level of conscious rejection of alternative, functional definitions of the term.

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.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

I don't understand why you guys want so badly to strip people of that title. It's one that has been used in english to describe this role for a very long time. Choosing not to use it makes me feel much the same way choosing not to use the term "marriage" to apply to gay unions does; it gives sole ownership of the term to the people most likely to abuse it. "Elders" does not belong to the false elders, any more than "marriage" belongs to the Dominionists. Using a different term is the "civil unions" comprimise; it creates a directly analogous word to replace a term we already have, but strip it of its historic and cultural significance. Using no term at all is equivalent to telling elders to just "stay in the closet"; it suggests that being the role is fine, but talking about it and how to do it better and how to get more people to fill it so there are actually enough people with enough skills to really help others is somehow forbidden.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'm loudly proclaiming the things others I consider Elders have done which makes me consider them elders. My description of my own efforts was confined to a single sentence, and I stated quite plainly in that paragraph that I don't know yet if I've accomplished the goal of embodying what a community elder should be, or even if that goal is one that can be "accomplished" in a static sense, rather than an ongoing dynamic sense.

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...

[ebonhost.livejournal.com]

Okay, the thing I am wondering here is why should people -want- to be elders? I have no such desires, and most of the others against the concept of it have no such desires either. There should be no compulsion, no sense that 'this is the path you should walk'. Everyone should be free to walk their own paths, to reach their own destinations. Not everyone's goals need to be exactly the same. Promoting growth of a community or relationship does not, and should not, confer some sort of status. That -is- creating a hierarchy and a 'reward system', whether you admit it or not. The very basis of 'aspiring to be an elder someday' implies that until a person reaches that state, you are somehow lesser.

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.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

Your question is answered by the final lines of my essay. Without elders, without people who take the time and effort to create environments like Thresholds, to run our mailing lists and just generally build the community up, there would be no community. They're "keystones" for a reason... without the keystone, the arch would collapse. If you want to be part of the community, there needs to be a community around for you to be part of. Shouldn't that be incentive enough for people to get off their asses and build something of community themselves, rather than expecting a free ride on something others are building?

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.

[netdancer.livejournal.com]

The problem is, I'm not talking about hypothetical things here. I'm talking about things I saw, things I was at Ground Zero for. Groups I've seen implode and die. People I've seen get hurt - real things, not 'what-if'. Actual history that I saw.

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.

[netdancer.livejournal.com]

I should add: my skillset/training/mindset is very heavy on Sociology and I've got some heavy-duty anthropology in my background. So I've kind of specialized in a study of groups and group dynamics, and that knowledge base + history is what I draw on.

[ebonhost.livejournal.com]

We're just going to have to end this discussion, because we keep going around in circles. How you can possibly -honestly- believe that labeling people as 'are' and 'are-not' promotes equality is beyond me. Nothing you can say will convince me otherwise. I would be offended by being labeled. Being Corey is quite enough for me, thank you very much.

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.

[netdancer.livejournal.com]

I read it all. But what you're proposing is very much like Chivalry.

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.

[netdancer.livejournal.com]

I would hold my hand in a fire for Rialian. But not because of any perception that he's a bigger or better man then I am.

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.

[per-akh.livejournal.com]

Uhm. Wow. Lets not stray off the topic here--we're talking about the use of the word 'elder' in this day and age--not marriages or civil unions. This is not an issue of replacing one title with another, but the use of a title in a community where that title not only would not be applicable, but could cause considerable damage if it where. Maybe the fact that the only people who seem to use it these days are cultists should tell you something. 'Marriages' and 'civil unions' are entirely different animals, and you know I already agree with you on the issue of which should be used in place of the other. Not every person who considers themselves otherkin is pagan, nor has origins from tribal societies. Technically speaking, I do and I still refuse to agree with you on this topic.

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

[per-akh.livejournal.com]

There are people in the community I consider elders.

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

[per-akh.livejournal.com]

Most people who display the qualities of eldership tend not to want to be associated with the title.

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

[per-akh.livejournal.com]

Coyotes of the world unite!

Amen brutha!

~Solo

[per-akh.livejournal.com]

Promoting growth of a community or relationship does not, and should not, confer some sort of status. That -is- creating a hierarchy and a 'reward system', whether you admit it or not. The very basis of 'aspiring to be an elder someday' implies that until a person reaches that state, you are somehow lesser.

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

[draerendi.livejournal.com]

Elders speak of age to me. Some one who has been a round a long time. Not all elders are wise. I don't think of it as a title at all. while they may have influence they have no power except what is given to them by others. A matter of respect for a person because of who they are not what they have done. I have met a few that are active but I can't say I respect them. I have met a few I respect that have done very little. *shrugs* I think like everything else it all comes down to perspective. Some folks comand respect and some folks demand it.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

It says I'm pragmatic enough to realize that elders are needed in any community. It says I'm pragmatic enough to realize that most of the real elders in the otherkin community are getting burnt out by having to shoulder the weight alone, and that they need help. It says I'm pragmatic enough to realize that the only way to get this help for them is to encourage more people to become elders.

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.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

Advantage? Power over people? I'm not even sure how to respond to this, since I have no idea how you're getting that from the concept of elder as I have expressed it. I've explicitly said that elders are human too. That their mistakes should be learned from as much as their positive examples. Considering people elders does not mean I've given up my capacity for reason, nor that I follow them in any sense, much less follow them blindly. Rialian, who IS one person I consider an elder in the community, can attest to how many arguments he and I have had over the years. For that matter, I'd think you'd know me well enough by now to know that I don't give anyone I respect power over me.

[per-akh.livejournal.com]

Pragmatic? I don't think so. Not every person in the otherkin community WANTS elders, or wants the term, or will even recognize these people as elders. This is a COMMUNITY Jarin, not a cult.

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

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

I know. But I'm telling you that in my experience I've seen people react the same way even when people expressly disavow the title of elder, or any similar title. If people are dead-set upon considering someone an infallable, enlightened guru of some sort, ultimately they're not going to care what word is used to define that person, they're still going to put him or her up on a pedastal even if no word at all is used. And they're still going to crucify that person when he or she falls off of it again. This tendency of people is not a good argument against the use of the term, in my opinion. I'd rather work with the term... spread the meme that elders are human too, that elders are fallible, and teach people how to still learn from them without expecting them to be more than that or giving up their own free will and capacity for rational thought. Spread the meme that more people should be trying to be elders in this sense, that it's something we should all be working for rather than assuming it to be the province of the enlightened few. That we should be picking up the slack, rather than leaving it all to these keystones. That's easiest to do with the term in place, since having a familiar term such as elder allows those ideas to be expressed in a way which is accessible to most people.

[per-akh.livejournal.com]

Yes, and humans tend to have this instinctual need to want to dominate over others, wether they realize it or not.

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

Fucking internet

[per-akh.livejournal.com]

You know what? I'm not getting into this with you anymore. As was said by someone else, we'll keep going around in circles, and I've not the time or patience for it. Nothing you say will convince me otherwise of your position.

Go ahead. Make your comment, I'm not responding to you anymore. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over.

~Solo

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

More, I think, like Knightly Virtues... one aspect of Chivalry. The rest of Chivalry gets a bit too much into formal codes of conduct, and systems of honor as "face".

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.

[per-akh.livejournal.com]

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.

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

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

Alright. This will be my final response to you, if that's what you desire.

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 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

[per-akh.livejournal.com]

Neither he nor I where attacking you. Only expressing an opinion laced with extreme concern. We've been through too many bad experiences with self-proclaimed 'elders' to go through it again.

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

[ebonhost.livejournal.com]

For the record, I was not attacking you. I was speaking out of concern for you as a friend, when you were setting off serious warning bells in my head. I was trying to get you to -think- about what I still see as faulty logic. I'm sorry you didn't see it as such. (Edited so that I don't sound like I'm being sarcastic when that wasn't my intention.)

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

I told you that the individual in question had a habit of shutting down your disagreements with him by comparing you to the other nasty individual. The implication was that by trying to make me shut up by comparing me to him, you were acting like him yourself. I did not say that you were acting like the other individual.

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.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

By definition, the arguments you were making regarding my supposed motives were ad hominem arguments... they were against me as the holder of the position, rather than against the logic of the position itself. So yes, I do see them as personal attacks rather than as getting me to think about faulty logic, since the arguments you were using are actually logical fallacies.

[per-akh.livejournal.com]

I wasn't thinking straight. I already offered an apology for both actions. I understand why it was wrong--I wasn't trying to silence you because we all disagree, I was doing so because I just wanted everyone to agree to disagree--the discussion in general was getting to me, not who was right or wrong. In retrospect it was a bad move, especially since you feel the need to drag all of this public and make a public display of my inappropriate behavior. I would offer a pound of flesh, but I'm too damn skinny.

~Duo

[ebonhost.livejournal.com]

*sighs and rubs temples* Yes, I was questioning your motives, your personal reasons for actively seeking a title. I was asking you if there was some reason you were doing so, some lack in your life. Why? -I have seen it happen before, with other people.- I was doing this out of concern for you. It was not then, and never meant as an attack.

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.

[ebonhost.livejournal.com]

The thing is, Jarin, I don't consider anyone in the community as 'elders'. I never will, not by any definition of the term. Rialian and Helen are great -positive- contributors to the community, yes. However, the two do not equate in my mind. (Which is why I've said we just need to agree to disagree.) I find that labels tend to come with certain expectations, and I prefer to avoid those expectations- either others expecting things of me, or me expecting things of them. I prefer to take people as is. Does that make sense?

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*

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, maybe I am overreacting to this. I've had bad experiences with this sort of thing in the past; not just with the individual you compared me to, but in other circumstances before I ever met you.

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.