An important intent of the gathering was to address changing the Principles of Unity, principles I was part of creating, to be more inclusive and gender fluid. I trusted that this would turn out okay, and it did. I like the changes, and honor the hard work that went into creating them.
I was reading David Richo's book, The Five Things We Cannot Change, on the flight up to Portland. This proved to be incredibly helpful when I found out on arriving that there was no pool. One of the five givens is that things do not always go according to plan. The gift of that given is that this we can grow from dealing with the unexpected. I dealt with the bitter disappointment of no pool with maturity. I had good books, a nice chair, and the weather was beautiful. I also had read his book, How To be an Adult in Faith and Spirituality. I felt grounded and prepared for Dandelion and happy to see my friends.
Soon after arriving, I went on a walk with Macha to look for the swimming hole. I quickly lost any interest in finding it. Macha immediantly rocked my roots by complaining about the waiver we had signed at registration. I hadn't really looked at what I signed, assuming it was some standard waiver releasing the organizers or hosts from being sued. According to Macha, I had instead signed away my right to talk about anything that happened at Dandelion. I had signed away my right to gossip. I found myself barking at her asking why in all the Gods names she signed it. Macha didn't have a good answer except she didn't want to make a fuss on coming in. I know the feeling, but there is no way in hell or heaven I could willingly sign my name to such a thing.
Cult, much?
The gossip issue is an old one. Paradoxically, I have been trashed in Reclaiming for being a gossip because I have spoken out so publicly on the dangers of secrets and keeping silent. Those who speak out openly and name group dysfunction, as in many dysfunctional groups, are often targeted as gossips, troublemakers, racists/classists/and or homophobes and yep, bullies. I am a psychotherapist, skilled at the uses of confidentiality. In my home community of Reclaiming, I have seen confidentiality invoked inappropriately to silence any talk of the elephant in the living room or to "make it safe" to say something horrible and even untrue about other community members.
My heart sank at Macha's news.
We walked back and I asked around until I found an organizer of the event to talk to. In true dreamlike fashion, her name was Serenity. A perfect name! The Serenity Prayer has been instrumental in me detaching from dysfunctional struggles in my home community and accepting that some things we just can't change, despite our good intentions. Serenity found the waiver I had signed and on my asking, found out how it came to be at Dandelion. It was taken from the waiver from my home community's witch camp. Of course. The organizers being somewhat new to Reclaiming, wouldn't it make perfect sense to use a waiver from the community that birthed Reclaiming?
"The adult undersigned fully agrees to hold confidential all information
regarding other participants, especially the emotional process of other
individuals, and lifestyle choices of D5 participants. Confidential
means to refrain from gossip or commenting on other participant's
behavior/personal process. This is to create a safe environment for
people to do deep work, and is part of our commitment to eliminate
gossip in the Reclaiming Community. Gossip is not supported at any
Reclaiming events."
Read that again, slowly.
What mature adult can take a waiver like this seriously, much less sign it? What community commits to eliminate gossip? Is such a thing even possible or even desirable in human community? Does this not scream, yell and holler red flag?
Serenity assured me I could stay, even though I crossed off that part, along with Macha, Dawn, Donald and Mark. They, other than the organizers, are the only people I complained to. I was determined not to make a fuss, it would not serve the community or myself. I stayed for the rest of the day, but part of me continued to be shocked that so many in my home community sign this year after year. It literally boggled my mind. To add insult to injury, I was told by several people it was put into use around the same time as I wrote the article on gossip for the Reclaiming Quarterly.
Mark spoke up about the waiver the next day at a feedback meeting, and pretty much everyone agreed that it was ridiculous. Outside of my home community, that waiver makes no sense. Why I can't participate in Reclaiming anymore is because in my home community, it does.
And that's just something I can't change.
Accepting that, I had two great days in Portland on my own, exploring book stores and food trucks and hearing tales each night of what was happening at Dandelion from Donald, Dawn, Mark and Jim. I felt at peace that I couldn't participate. I trusted the people there to come up with good changes to the principles of unity. I did wrestle some with the gathering working towards being more inclusive, yet the very fact of that waiver's continued existence in my home community excludes me from fully participating in Reclaiming. The Serenity Prayer helped calm me down. Acceptance is the solution to this problem.
If Macha hadn't made such a dramatic exit, I would not be writing this post. I can't change my home community and I am no longer trying. However, losing Macha and there being no mention of it on the big Reclaiming listserve, only congratulatory e-mails about the changes to the Principles of Unity, compelled me to say something. Which led to hours of reflection on how to be in healthy relation to the tradition I helped create and what was and is my responsibility as an older adult who in my younger and middle years helped birth this tradition. A tradition that I can't really participate in fully any more.
I can't change that. But, I can keep loving the people that I love, which really is the heart of any spiritual path. And, I can still use the principles of unity as organizing principles of my life. And, I can very simply tell my story. I think this is what elders or whatever you call people who have been around for many decades should do. Tell their stories.
So, I am.
I can't change that. But, I can keep loving the people that I love, which really is the heart of any spiritual path. And, I can still use the principles of unity as organizing principles of my life. And, I can very simply tell my story. I think this is what elders or whatever you call people who have been around for many decades should do. Tell their stories.
So, I am.
18 comments:
Well said, Oak. What really turns my stomach in the waiver is the statement that speaking of "the emotional process of other individuals, and lifestyle choices of D5 participants" is completely off-limits.
I'm a mandated reporter, have been since getting a teaching credential in 1985. That means if I see or hear something that is questionable or clearly abusive to minors, I am mandated to report it. Full stop. Because of that early training, I have also developed a pretty accurate sense of when that is happening to adults, even if they call it something else.
This waiver clause, along with being completely unenforceable, points like a blinking neon sign to the fact that this community condones borderline behavior. We will accept the language each person uses to name her/his behavior, regardless of whether that doesn't feel accurate. If someone has a concern about what they see, first and foremost we don't want to hear it. Second, we definitely don't want it getting out beyond the confines of our sworn-to-secrecy community.
It's a lifestyle choice, after all, and everything is relative. All predators are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and above all we must respect their emotional process. To prove that anything is an abuse of power subjects the concerned party to a campaign of shaming, trashing, and lies. The predator remains the victim in the eyes of the community because they are being "gossiped" about.
Did I miss anything? How badly do we crave community, that we will accept it under these circumstances?
Anne Hill, I tip my point black hat to you!
Macha
Anne, you did not miss a thing. Nailed it, in fact.
You are right. The waiver's importance goes well beyond trying to squelch "gossip". It codifies condoning borderline behavior and makes it impossible to address.
If I was a researcher with a bunch of grant money, I'd love to interview all those who have been knowingly signing that waiver and ask why.
Yes, I do wonder how many of us simply signed the waiver without reading it? I am still embarrassed that I did not read the document all of the way through.
Deborah, thank you for telling your story.
Anne, thank you for your brilliant analysis.
Donald
Bravo to both Oak and Anne. No wonder I love you both!
Oh my goodness!
I'm so far out of the energy field of Reclaiming, I've got no dog in this fight, but good lord!
Like so many things about Reclaiming, the waiver is ... what is the word? ... amateur. It is not well thought out or carefully worded. No one could ever enforce this thing legally because it's so vague. It reads, to me, like a document intended to shame. That's never a good idea.
But I get what they're trying to do - they're trying to ask people to be thoughtful, to observe healthy boundaries and basically be nice.
I guess they could have said that, hey? Except thoughtfulness and healthy boundaries, not to mention niceness, is not part of Reclaiming's curriculum, so how could they have asked for such a thing?
When I heard about the kerfuffle, I wrote the administrator of the Reclaiming Facebook page to ask for a copy of the waiver. But that person told me a copy was not available and I should check with the Portland Reclaiming people. Made me laugh. It was a SECRET.
Ah the cult. I do not miss it. But I do miss many individuals I met through Reclaiming, such as you, Deborah, and Macha and Anne Hill (bless your brilliant mind). There are more of course, but no need to name them here.
I love you women so so much!
Shalom.
And you too Donald!
What I like about Reclaiming and the other Craft Trads that hold a piece of me is--Magic and Doing Magic!
I find that the strength of my adherence with a Trad exists in direct proportion to the Magic and Doing Magic.
Honestly, I do not find it Magical to be entangled through a Trad with the creation and maintenance of somebody else's or some other category's identity or cultural ambitions. By waiver. Or fiat.
What's there to feel any solidarity with here? What's there to raise any energy? FWIW, I read this waiver to say--STFU!
heh,this reflect back on your piece about reclaiming feri.
It's not just in reclaiming either.
It's changing things for the sake of change, as if 'new'is always improved. Change, to be stable,often requires a continuity. What happens nowdays is folks just bring the bulldozers in and level everything.
A small point - the waiver I signed at this year's CA witchcamp was not worded in the same way that the D5 waiver you quoted. They were similair, yes. W/ clear intention (to quote Reya above) " trying to ask people to be thoughtful, to observe healthy boundaries and basically be nice."
This, of course, is my memory of that waiver (which I did read), not from a copy. I suspect what happened is someone expanded upon your "home" witchamp's attempt to remind folks of boundries. A small point (assuming my memory is correct of wording from 2012 CAWitchcamp) that doesn't negate your larger point in this essay.
Thanks for publishing the waiver, Deborah. I've seen mention of it and wondered what the issue was.
When I read it I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. So silly -- precisely how does one prevent folks from commenting on someone's "process?" And so appalling: it reads like something straight out of Cult Alert 101.
I've been a Reclaiming Witch since the mid-'80s, but I left San Francisco and moved back to the Northeast in 2000 and have never attended a Dandelion gathering (or witchcamp, for that matter). Is it possible the D5 organizers were attempting to create safe space and just overreached with the waiver's language?
I am wondering if any of the persons who felt the waiver was a concern attempted to understand why the waiver was put in place, what the intended precaution was, or attempted to seek guidance on what was okay to discuss outside of the gathering?
As a sometimes facilitator and sometimes participant of queer support groups in a large city, I follow group agreements and often make use of a spoken agreement to keep confidential the identity of any other participants and the personal stories they have come to share there. I have heard some facilitators say, "please, no gossip."
Why? Because some of the participants may find safety only within this group, be open about who they are and how they identify, where they cannot be themselves out in the world with their families or at their workplace. Some participants fear being outed and may suffer greatly. For example. if they work for an employer who may discriminate against them, or where being gay may take away child custody.
In some such groups we have a simple example, "If you see so-and-so from the queer support group eating in the food court at the mall with a group of people you don't know, don't walk up to them and say "Hey, Its me, Robbie from the queer support group. That story you shared about your experience at the bathhouse last week inspired me so much. I really want to go to a bathhouse now too. Thanks so much!"
Some people don't want others sharing their personal stories with people they don't know, because their livelihoods and community, family or relationships might be catastrophically effected.
Gossip can do this, ruin peoples lives.
We also have an additional group agreement which we share with every participant, that of "non-harm:" -the confidentiality agreement is null where a person discloses and intent to do harm to them self or another. Thus, such waivers in my opinion do not protect anyone who is predatory or up to questionable or abusive activities, because they have limitations. I read the D5 waiver the same way.
On the issue of how to talk about things you hear at a gathering without violating the confidentiality agreement: in our meetings we can take stories home. I can talk with my partner about a story I heard from someone at the meeting, about the challenges they are going through, about how a persons father, for example reacted to hearing that they were gay. I can do this without violating the agreement because I do not disclose the identity of the person telling the story. I have found myself saying to peers before, "Oh, I am sorry. I just realized that I can NOT tell you anything more about this, because 'you' know the person I am speaking of, or might be able to figure out who I am talking about from parts of the story."
One of the biggest red flags for me, sadly (because I do not know those who have posted on this blog personally, I wish that I did, I am sorry for calling this as questionable) is that I wonder if the persons listed as having been 'able to stay' after crossing off the point of concern in the waiver, wanted everyone with an internet connection to know they were at Dandelion, or that they had issue with the waiver. (Full names were not given of course, but even a partial name can be used to identify someone.) It would seem to me that the potential of a breach of confidentiality here might also do some harm. Especially where an article posted internationally on the Huffington post identifies specific people as participants of Dandelion.
The original post, from my distant perspective, potentially does exactly the kind of harm the waiver was hoping to ward against. The gossipy outing of a specific third person's personal moments shared with the author at camp are now available for everyone in the world the hear about, whether or not that third person consented to it.
Please accept my deepest apologies if I am misunderstanding this. If there was consent and I missed it then I have less of an issue here.
Sincerely,
Robbie Sea
Robbie,
I have a pretty in-depth understanding of confidentiality, having been a therapist for over 30 years now. I am extremely conscious of not "outing" people and believe me, there was no danger of that in my post. The misuse of confidentiality can and has been extremely damaging in my local Reclaiming community. Several times I have personally been impacted by hearing that confidentiality was invoked in a circle/group and then someone else in the community was trashed. Years back a community member let slip to me that she had been in on a "listening circle" focused on complaints about me - which she could not tell me about as sworn to confidentiality. Not healthy.
I write about this in my article on gossip. In the Bay Area confidentiality has a long history of being invoked to protect abuses of power and bad boundaries. I made this mistake years ago, swearing silence to cover up bad behavior. And..this mistake continues to get made.
I don't quite understand the Huffington post reference, as haven't posted there, but do understand, given religious oppression, the need to not out other Witches. Maybe it's just a Bay Area phenomenon, but here, the danger isn't so much in outing, it is in keeping silent about bad behavior.
So, I guess I am not clear on where the bad behavior is that is being protected. But, no worries. I don't need to know.
I trust your judgement on this. Sorry to hear about the slip of confidentiality that happened to you.
Thanks for clarifying my concern.
Thank you, Robbie, for trusting me on this. Recently I heard "don't fix the blame, fix the system". The trick with naming the behavior here is that it becomes the focus - me accusing - rather than focusing on the dynamic. Someday I will write in depth the long ago story, of which I was a major character, of the core of Bay Area Reclaiming agreeing to keep "confidential" abusive behavior. I take responsibility personally for being a part of creating the culture I am critiquing. I played a part. And I know from long time experience just how unhealthy it is, and I know the dynamic continues. The waiver is part of it. There are many who have named bad behaviors in my region. Most no longer are a part of Bay Area Reclaiming, as they get pathologized and trashed... which I describe in my column on dissent. Anne has brilliant blog on this too - leadership, care taking and community, at gnosis cafe.
Did they mean "gossip" very broadly, or something more specific like "backbiting"?
I don't have anything against striving to overcome gossip -- I think gossip is a form of social control and usually a sign of being far too nosey. But I think "gossip" is a bit broad a category and some effort could be made to rename the aspects of gossip that are actually harmful--not to police and "eliminate," but to be more conscious of.
We stare into very muddy waters here, I feel that the whole process could do with simplifying to a few simple boundaries. A discussion on etiqete, at the begining of camp/class or in the community feels essential but hours of navel gazing trying to include every single issue wasteful of our energies. When I reflect on gossip, I see the aspect where it can become destructive & suppressive, used as power over by individuals or cliques within the group; it can also be a way of supporting each other, the mention of ........ to someone who maybe able to offer what is needed at that time can be enabling.
As I see it why tie ourselves up in knots, with all this signing of stuff, rules rules rules, what happened to Integrity, Responsibility, Truth & Love. Sounds simple but come on guys how we going to have the energy to do Magick when we accept manipulation/loss of our basic rights in the guise of being kept safe...... now where have I heard that before :-) Yes I want to be in a safe space when working in a group, I want to feel hounoured & accepted, I want to be/feel enabled to give/receive these gifts to/from the group in order to work Magick. What I really dont want is to spend all my time talking shite about process of group, which brings me to the basic tenets of my own training, which are. To Know, To Dare, To Will & to Keep Silent. I have never taken that to mean I cannot speak out if I wish to rather I believe that a spell/magicks energy can dissipate when discussed too much, that I still have free will to speak when I feel it's appropriate but also I have the right to remain silent, still & seeking my own truth.
Blessings from the UK
Post a Comment