Sannion recently posted an article addressing an aspect of the recent talk of leadership that is sorely missing from polytheist and pagan conversations about leadership. Namely... what makes a leader? Specifically, he asked:
What makes a good leader? Is this primarily a religious or social role,
and what’s involved in it? Specifically what tasks should leaders be
performing? What special qualifications should a leader have? What
ethical and other considerations are involved in the role? What kind of
power and authority should we invest our leaders with and to what ends?
How should leaders be appointed and more importantly removed from
office? Are leaders accountable to their people and if so in what areas?
Do we even need leaders?
I wanted to take the time to actually respond to this in full, instead of giving some canned answer out of a textbook or workshop.
Ironically, the dictionary definition of "leader" isn't exactly helpful (from Miriam Webster's English Dictionary):
- a person who leads
All right, well, let's look at "to lead":
- a : to guide on a way especially by going in advance b : to direct on a course or in a directionc : to serve as a channel for <a pipe leads water to the house>
So maybe one of the first discussions we should have is WHY someone should be a leader. Why should someone lead? Why should someone not lead? I'm not talking about qualifications, either: I'm talking about motivations. What are some good motivations, and some bad motivations?
I was fortunate enough a couple of weeks ago to go to a professional conference where we discussed qualities of leadership and ways of becoming a leader. This particular organization is professional, not religious, in nature, but a lot of the discussion around motivations for, and against, leadership. So I want to touch on a few of those motivations here:
Why should someone be a leader?
- To further the goals of the organization
- To bring outreach on behalf of the organization at a higher level
- To give back to a community which has given to them, donating time and money for the cause
- To use the title to advocate for the community and the folks the community serves in the public sphere, influencing legislation and other areas where the community as a whole is impacted
Why should someone NOT be a leader?
- For the sense of power or prestige
- For the money
- To gain followers or to force personal ideas at an organizational level
This isn't a comprehensive list, by any means, but a few key patterns can be seen:
A good leader is someone who gives of themselves for the betterment of the community.
A bad "leader" is someone who takes of the community for the enforcement of their ideals.
Again, this isn't a COMPREHENSIVE definition, by any means, just a theme I've noticed in my own personal discussions regarding leadership (I should mention, as well, that this particular organization, as a professional one, is democratic in nature, with all offices elected at a local or national level).
So wrapping back around to Sannion's original question: What makes a good leader? A good leader is someone who gives and leads by example, who advocates for real changes and makes a difference in their community based on the community's needs.
I would even go so far as to argue that leaders don't need to be recognized with titles or positions to BE leaders. I can think, within my own communities, of at least ten individuals who have no special title, but whom I consider to be leaders because of their example. A friend of mine has amazing personal devotion, and a wonderful ability to critically self-examine while maintaining self-love. This friend has no title, has completed no study programs (yet), has no national recognition... but I still consider her a leader, because her example inspires our community towards devotion and piety.
This view makes the rest of Sannion's questions exceedingly difficult to answer, because the answers are going to change depending on the organization or community. So I'm going to try and tackle this from a personal view of society as a whole, and again: PERSONAL view here.
So, question two: is this a primarily religious or social role, and what's involved in it?
Ask three groups of pagans that question, and you're going to get 16 different answers. Seriously.
Here, in my own life, are two distinctly different answers, based on views of two distinctly different communities: ADF is headed by the Mother Grove, which is elected, but also has ordained clergy, who serve as spiritual leaders for the community, and have undergone special training to be such. I would define ADF's clergy as primarily religious, not social leaders, but I would define the Mother Grove the opposite way: as primarily social, not religious. The difference to me is more about function than anything else. A large number of current and past members of ADF's mother grove are clergy, and as such, fill both roles, but not everyone does. But the Mother Grove tends to deal with bylaws, money, and technology, whereas clergy tend to be ritually-based at their core.
The Thiasos, on the other hand, is run by five folks who fell into that position by accident, and are still trying to figure out where we're going and what we're doing. Right now, the leadership is organizing calendars, chats, and encouraging discussion between members, but have not defined any dogma or anything of a religious nature FOR anyone but themselves (with one notable difference, the idea of animal sacrifice, which was touched on in a previous post), and the community as a whole doesn't even HAVE a predetermined ritual structure, or a current need for things like weddings or funerals which may require an officiant. Eventually, the Thiasos may have clergy. The Thiasos may have initiates. Maybe not--maybe it will remain a social group, focused on learning and teaching one another without any kind of deeper involvement. Time will tell--ADF has had 30 years to figure this out, the Thiasos has had... one. One year. We're getting there.
So, the social versus religious leader is a tricky subject, and depends on organization. I don't think there's a SINGLE correct definition--there are as many definitions as their are gods (see what I did there?). For the rest of the questions then, I'm going to stick to Sannion's words: social leaders, and religious leaders.
So the next few questions deal with tasks and qualifications.
Again, this is going to be defined by the community served, so I'm going to be pretty general. I would say that the primary tasks of social leaders deal with community management and involvement. Dispute resolution, organizational structure, logistics and planning, communications, advocacy and social justice, etc. Religious leaders, on the other hand, are responsible for the religious and spiritual well-being of the community. This is going to take different forms depending on the community, but for me, my religious leaders do such things as lead rites, officiate at weddings, funerals, etc., make a point of inquiring as to the spiritual well-being of individuals in the community, and make offerings and pray on behalf of the community. Again, there can be a lot of overlap between social and religious leaders, so I think the difference falls into where the RESPONSIBILITY lays. If the person in charge of managing a group's money is AMAZING at personal devotion, is incredibly caring and kind, looks out for members spiritually, but never bothers to check the bank account balance... then they are a poor social leader, and are not fulfilling their responsibilities. That doesn't make them a bad person, or a poor leader in general, just maybe they're not in the RIGHT leadership role for their style.
Qualifications are a little more clear-cut for me. Social leaders need to have social skills: the person in charge of money needs to be able to understand budgeting and tax law, for example. The person in charge of social media management should probably use social media regularly, and have knowledge of various platforms. Can someone be a social leader without an actual position title? Absolutely, but they're still performing the same sorts of tasks: communicating with everyone, volunteering time and money/services, checking in on quiet or withdrawn members to ensure all voices are heard. A title isn't necessary to lead in that sphere.
Religious leaders' qualifications, then, start with a personal religious devotion. If you cannot maintain your own devotion and piety, then you cannot maintain group devotion and piety, period (hence why I'm not personally cut out to be any form of religious leader). Beyond that, I would LIKE to see religious leaders go through pretty rigorous training before they are recognized publicly as such: either self-lead training, or the completion of pre-approved study programs (like seminary type education, tailored for polytheists and pagans). I'm trying to intentionally avoid using words like "clergy" and "priests/priestesses" here, because those terms are very weighted based on the background of the individuals reading them.
The most important, and only universal, qualifier of what makes a leader is this: that your community recognizes you as one. The term leader implies the "followers" correlate: if no one follows, one cannot lead, if no one leads, one cannot follow. This is not to imply that non-leaders are all sheep lead to the slaughter; by NO means should anyone reading this take that away from what I'm seeing. But in order to be a leader, at least some segment of your community must recognize you as one.
Next up: Ethics.
Hoo boy. Guys, I'm a counselor trainee. We have a 23-PAGE long code of ethics we are required to follow in our practice. We have to have months of training during school, and continued training each year after we graduate to maintain our license. Ethics is NOT AN EASY SUBJECT TO DISCUSS. So you know what? I'm saving that for later. Sorry, but this post is long enough as it is.
MOVING ON... power and authority, appointing and removing leaders, and accountability.
Again, specific procedures are going to be determined by the community, what we would call "stakeholders." Not touching on specifics.
As far as power and authority, this is where I feel a community can turn into a cult (and I mean that in the Americanized, modern way, which is to imply a dangerous and controlling community). How do you know if you're in a cult? Well, Isaac Bonewits came up with one way. And yes, a lot of it has to do with power. If your personal power to do what you wish is EVER taken away by a leader, then that leader has too much power. Now, I don't mean that anyone can do what they want at any time, and still say "I'm with this group." I mean, if your ability to LEAVE the group is taken away... then you should leave the group. Seek help, seek shelter, GET THE FUCK OUT (pardon my French). Communities can define their own rules for what is acceptable behavior, though, and anyone failing to conform to that behavior has, by definition, distanced themselves from the community (the Thiasos ran into this with animal sacrifice: you cannot be part of this particular religious group if you're not okay with animal sacrifice being done humanely and on behalf of everyone in the group, including you. That doesn't mean you can't worship Dionysos, or call yourself an Orphic, you just can't claim to be a member of the Thiasos of the Starry Bull, sort of like how someone who hasn't done ADF's clergy training and isn't even a member of ADF according to ADF's rules can't call themselves an ADF priest).
Appointing and removing leaders: see above. Personally, I think social leaders, board members, etc. should be democractically elected, and the eligibility of sanctioned religious leaders should be determined by a set of bylaws applied across the board to everyone who wishes to be a sanctioned religious leader. But that's just me.
Accountability though... are leaders accountable to their followers? Abso-fucking-lutely. A leader is not made of their own power. See above: you cannot be a leader if your community does not recognize you as such. Period. Leaders are MADE by the community, and are accountable in that the community has the power to remove the mantle of leadership FROM the person, in a number of ways (officially, or by mass exodus, if for some reason the "rules" don't allow for the removal of a leader who is not fulfilling their duties or has committed a gross wrongdoing to the community).
So, now that I've talked too much, the last question of the night.
Do we need leaders?
Even if the answer to that question is no, we will still have them. We will always have folks who act when others do not. We will always have folks who go above and beyond in giving to their community. We will always have folks who advocate for growth and exploration, when others are okay with maintaining the status quo. We will always have folks whose personal devotion extends to devotion on behalf of their community. We will never stop that, even if we wanted to, even if we refuse to hand out titles and have official ceremonies. Any time there is a gap, any time there is a need, someone will step up and fill that need. In that moment, the person is a leader, as ther est of the community watches them fill that need.
Do we need titles and ceremony and garb? To each their own. I like having that, especially in larger organizations, because it allows me a way of knowing that a person has been vetted, even if I don't know them personally, and I will afford them a measure of trust because they HAVE been vetted by the community. I like it. I value it. I might even say I need it, because without those leaders, I don't think my communities would grow and thrive the way they have been.
I can't answer that question for anyone but myself. And my answer is yes: I need leaders in my community, at least my primary religious community. Not to tell me what to do, but to do the things I cannot, or would not, or should not.
No comments:
Post a Comment