Home

Advertisement

Previous Entry | Next Entry

The Clann-maker

  • Mar. 19th, 2009 at 11:24 PM
tree meditation
This is only the “short form” of what I would like to say about some of the matters that arose in the comments section of my blog this week. As long as I continued to think about it, the logic of the problem led to wider and larger questions concerning community. Is the pagan movement a community? What would it mean if we are? What would it mean if we are not? As I see it, the question is not as simple as a matter of whether a public speaker or a ritual performer should be paid in money.

Certainly there are precedents in ancient societies for the idea that people who contribute to their communities in certain specialized ways should be supported by the community. One need look no further than the Druids for an example: they were fed, clothed, and housed at public expense. But we do not live in a pre-literate Iron-age society. In fact I have serious doubts about whether the pagan movement is a community. Chas Clifton observed that we are not a community because it is possible for someone to leave the movement with few difficulties and consequences. I find this argument very convincing.

However, I hope that the movement could become a community, a real and live one, in my lifetime. Here I shall propose for all of you one way which I think may make this happen.



In 2007 I was exposed to First Nations culture for the first time. I met and personally interviewed around 50 traditional Elders for a research project I was doing, under contract with the federal government. In each case whenever I sought the advice and knowledge of an Elder, there was a little ritual I had to do, involving the gift of a tobacco pouch and the offering of a question, in a particular and sincerely respectful way. It was impressed upon me that part of the reason for the offering of the tobacco is not to ‘pay’ the Elder. The Elder who agrees to receive the gift shows, by his act of receiving the gift, that he is committing himself to helping the applicant for a little while. The point to be emphasized here is that the formalities and protocols of the tobacco offering are much less important than the sincerity, the respectfulness, and the goodwill of the person who seeks the Elder’s advice. Therefore, if a person is able to prepare a proper tobacco pouch, he should do so; but if by some circumstance he cannot, then he must find another appropriate way to show respect. As an afterthought, I should mention that at the end of every one-on-one meeting I had with an Elder, I gave him a thank-you card which contained $200 cash.

I propose that the pagan movement should adopt a custom very much like the custom for Elders in First Nations communities, and use it for the people who work for the sake of creating, maintaining, and enriching the pagan movement. I also propose to coin a name for these people. I wish to name them because if we have a name for such people, it may be easier to identify them, and easier to know the nature and kind of respect such people deserve. Moreover, the naming is important because the creation of a shared and distinct vocabulary is a significant cohesive force in a community. Many pagan traditions already have words that designate what I have in mind, but I think that a word shared by the entire movement, in every country, will benefit us all. I suggest the word: Clann-maker.

In selecting this word, I’m thinking of various things. One is the idea in old Irish culture of the Aes Dana, the ‘men of arts’, referring to artists, and in particular poets, who had independent legal standing. It was a definite caste, like a ‘club’ that one could join after doing an apprenticeship and then earning some work experience and a decent reputation. The Aes Dana were the transmitters of culture, the people who ensured the maintenance, innovation, and flourishing of the things of culture that matter most, as well as the smooth handing-down of culture from one generation to the next. Yet I have used the word ‘clann’, the Irish word for a family, instead of the word for the arts, nor the word for teacher. This is order to emphasise that we are perhaps not yet a Clann – but perhaps some day we will be, by means of the help of these people. A Clann-maker is a person who is involved in any kind of activity that could transform a group of vaguely connected people with a few ideas and interests in common into a fully flourishing community.

I’m also thinking of the Prize Women of the Athapaskan-Dene people of northern Canada. The Prize Women were knowledge-holding women, possessors and teachers of the most important skills and information. The standards were high: if the entire society was destroyed for whatever reason, the Prize Women had to be able to build it up again. These women were valuable people, and there are accounts of raiding parties abducting the prize-women of neighbouring settlements in order to benefit from her knowledge.

My proposition for all of you is that we should use this word to signify people who work to benefit the pagans of their immediate area, in whatever way appears good to the people who are so benefited. It obviously includes what we have hitherto meant by ‘teacher’, ‘organiser’, and even ‘leader’, but I have in mind something a little wider.

Clann-maker can mean someone who organizes or helps to organize a local pride day, or pub moot, or public pagan temple, or camping festival, or the like. It can signify those who lead open teaching circles, in any tradition, or who regularly perform public or semi-public pagan rituals, be they seasonal, like the Sabbats, or who do rites of passage like handfastings, wiccanings, or first blood ceremonies. It can include people who possess significant cultural and traditional knowledge, whether practical, as in the case of blacksmiths and carpenters, or spiritual, as in the case of teachers, counselors, and perhaps even seers and prophets. It can include musicians, artists, painters, storytellers, and artistic performers of just about any kind. It can also signify those who work for the whole tribe of pagans everywhere, on a national or international scale, for instance by writing well respected books, or managing organisations with hundreds of members, or regularly publishing a journal or magazine, or some online electronic equivalent.

These people need not do this kind of work full time. Indeed I like the idea that these people have regular jobs. I think that Gus DiZerega is correct when he says the contemporary pagan movement should not have 'clergy', in the Judeo-Christian and political sense of the word. But I think the idea of a Clann-maker can serve the purpose: and serve it better.


It appears that there should be a few grounding principles that would likely be needed to make this tradition work well. Here are a few that I propose, loosely based on what I experienced among the First Nations.

• There must be no specification of tradition, background, initiatory lineage, or institutional membership. People and their relationships should come first here. Formalities should come later.

• A Clann-maker can be of almost any age, although a certain amount of mature life-experience would seem to be important.

• A Clann-maker should be treated with respect. Don't interrupt them when they speak; don't jump the queue in front of them; don't speak poorly about them behind their backs. Of course I don't mean that they should be treated with the deference of royalty. Nor do I mean that they cannot be the subject of some good-natured practical joking or healthy satire once in a while.

• And someone should lose their standing as a Clann-maker if they let it go to their head.

• No one should claim to be a Clann-maker by their own declaration. The name should be granted to them by the people who surround them, as a form of respect and thanks. This is to emphasise that the work should matter more than the reputation one earns by doing the work.

• Having said that, the aspiration to become a Clann-maker should be seen as a legitimate goal for people. I see nothing particularly 'ulterior' about the desire to earn the praise and gainful reputation that may come from being a Clann-maker. My main concern is that the gainful reputation, if it happens, should be earned, and that the evidence for why someone deserves to be called a Clann-maker should be available for everyone to see.

• Nor is anyone under an obligation to call someone a Clann-maker, just because other people do. It is up to everyone on their own, and with the advice of those whose opinions they respect, to call someone a Clannmaker, or not, as they judge appropriate. In this way, the scale of values may be flexible, meeting the needs of each local area.

• Clann-makers can specialize. They don’t have to know everything, nor do everything. And they can certainly benefit from and learn from each other.

• It should be possible for someone to give up being a Clann-maker if he or she wants to. I’m well aware of how much hard work can often be involved in community organizing or in teaching, and it should be possible for someone to take time off once in a while.

• Someone who seeks the advice, the help, or the services of a Clann-maker, for more than just a casual question or two in a setting like a pub, should present his or her request in a formal and recognisable way. The request should be presented with deep respect, and with gift-giving. I suggest that a gift of something that the Clann-maker can use as a ritual offering should accompany the request.

• Although it may seem contrived, it may be very helpful if the request for the Clann-maker’s help included a formal statement. You might offer a flask of mead to your local gothi, or a pouch of acorns and some uisce-beatha to your local druid, and say, “Dear (name), I seek your help as a Clann-maker...” In that way, that everyone knows exactly what is going on and there are no doubts that a sacred activity is in progress.

• The request should be presented in such a way that the Clann-maker can decline the request without making the petitioner feel snubbed or brushed off. After all, these are people, not gods, and if they have a headache that day, then they should be able to gently refuse the gift. The Clann-maker could suggest a future time, or another person better qualified to answer the petitioner’s question, or briefly explain the reason he is unable to help at that time.

• Acceptance of the gift would impose some moral obligations on the Clann-maker to teach and to share, to the best of his or her ability, and with the highest standards of honour and integrity in mind. But these direct obligations need not last longer than a few hours. The Clann-maker to seeker relationship need not be as life-long and intense as the teacher to student relationship. Similarly, acceptance of the gift imposes some moral obligation on the petitioner to listen well and to perhaps do a few things at the Clann-maker’s request.

• This also gives the Clann-maker some flexibility to decline requests for help from people who seem insufficiently respectful, or unlikely to listen, or for whatever reason unlikely to benefit from what the Clann-maker might say or do.

• Finally, if the petitioner feels that whatever service or help the Clann-maker provided was beneficial, and of excellent quality, she should offer another gift, perhaps a few hours or a few days later. I think the second gift can be a sum of money, the amount to be determined by local precedents, the petitioner’s ability to pay, and his or her assessment of how good a job the Clann-maker did. But I am also happy with the thought that it could be a material service too. Why not make dinner for her that night, or weed her garden, or even plant new flowers there for her?

Finally, I think it most important, above almost all other criteria, that the word Clann-maker should designate someone who does this kind of community-building work consistently, effectively, and in accord with the very best of virtues, over the space of several years.

I further propose that someone who does the work of a Clann-maker over the space of many decades, indeed over a whole lifetime, should be called an Elder. The respect due to the Elder should be a step or two above that which is offered the Clann-maker.

So there you have it.
As some of you may have already guessed, much of this text was copied from the book that I’m currently writing. It’s still in progress, so I will be reading all comments and criticisms carefully. If you like this idea, I will refine this into a proper essay, and get it published in PanGaia or some other appropriate organ.

Bren

Comments

( 24 comments — Leave a comment )
[info]minniemoonshine wrote:
Mar. 20th, 2009 04:15 am (UTC)
I haven't read this whole post yet - it is way past my bed time, but the introduction I did read - and I want to respond now while it is fresh in my mind. I agree with you that we are not a "community" (although I admit I have thrown that term around on occasion.) I agree with your evidence for this, ability to leave the "community" without consequence.

Greater than this though I feel is the lack of accountability. Can one have a "community" without collective accountability for actions, words and deeds? Who do we answer to? Often times not even the same gods, let alone mere mortals within "the community".

(this sounds cynical!) More tomorrow after a thorough read, maybe I will change my mind ;)

Minnie
[info]northwestpass wrote:
Mar. 20th, 2009 04:34 am (UTC)
Hi Minnie,
Nice to hear from you. The question "Who do we answer to?" is a very important one. I think that we will mature as a movement when we make ourselves mutually accountable to each other, and also accountable to a shared model of integrity; and I'm proposing this tradition of the Clann-maker, as a model for respecting and rewarding people who benefit the community, as a practical experiment in a sort of accountability.

The word 'accountability' sometimes implies a supervisor, and the need for the accountable person to be constantly under a kind of microscope, constantly scrutinised by that supervisor.

What I'm suggesting is a reward-based approach, in which the evidence of one's works, and respect earned on the basis of those works, serves that function. Those who do good things for the community could gain people's respect, in an organised yet not institutionalised fashion. Those who take on positions of leadership or prominence without doing the work might eventually be overshadowed.
[info]minniemoonshine wrote:
Mar. 20th, 2009 06:17 pm (UTC)
* "I think that we will mature as a movement when we make ourselves mutually accountable to each other, and also accountable to a shared model of integrity;"

This is a noble, (and I hope not too lofty) goal. The difficulty for me is figuring out the necessary steps to get us from here to there. What can we do to nudge the larger group towards a reality like this? Perhaps your idea about the Clann-maker is one such step, even if it was adopted only by a subset of pagans it would contribute to moving us in that direction. So I think it is a valid idea.

*"The word 'accountability' sometimes implies a supervisor, and the need for the accountable person to be constantly under a kind of microscope, constantly scrutinised by that supervisor."

Yes, it does have that connotation. I think for many pagans trying to escape hierarchy, dogma and power structures, "accountability" leaves a bad taste in the mouth. But accountability can also be shared responsibility to a group, integrity, accountability to self or gods etc. It need not necessarily be about watchdogs and supervision. Again, the place where I get frustrated is determining how these goals and ideas can be implemented while still respecting the diversity of larger pagan movement.

This connects with my general thoughts after reading your posting in more detail... I think our challenge in organizing the pagan movement is two-fold. 1) the diversity of beliefs and practice and the sheer number of sub-groups within the pagan movement make it extremely hard to agree upon leadership, structure, values, codes etc. without stepping on toes, becoming dogmatic or alienating some individuals or groups. Perhaps it would be better for leadership, accountability and conduct to be determined by each sub-group (as it somewhat is currently) and have these decisions feed back into a more generalized council of leaders and codes of conduct...(?democracy?) But then we come to the second challenge 2) I do not believe that the relatively small size of the pagan movement does not yet allow for adequate representation, renewal of leaders to prevent burn-out, etc. Of course, there is also the point made earlier that, in general, the pagan movement seems opposed to anything that looks too much like structure or hierarchy.

Your posting is definite food for thought, and I wonder what prompted you to think about this? I would like to think that any person seeking personal or spiritual advice or services from someone they view as an elder would do so with deep respect and some token of gratitude and compensation (material or not), but perhaps this is not being done, or perhaps pagans aren't participating in this kind of exchange simply because we don't see it out in the open.


[info]kallisti wrote:
Mar. 20th, 2009 04:28 am (UTC)
I already do this for the Ottawa Pagan community. Most people in the community couldn't afford to pay the $50-200/hour I can get commercially, but most people can afford a pizza. So, for the cost of a pizza, I will work on your computer. It doesn't pay for my time, but it shows that the person respects my skill, and feeds me. I return the favour by working on, and usually, fixing their computer. It's one of the ways I try to give back into the community.

ttyl
[info]heartsease wrote:
Mar. 20th, 2009 04:41 am (UTC)
I'll need to sleep on it to gather my thoughts further, but my first impression is that you are saying something rather eloquently that I've had trouble putting into words. Thank the gods we have good writers in out midst. ;)

I especially like this:

"There must be no specification of tradition, background, initiatory lineage, or institutional membership. People and their relationships should come first here. Formalities should come later."




[info]alfrecht wrote:
Mar. 20th, 2009 04:41 am (UTC)
It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure that it will necessarily play out in practice; I'm also not certain that the terminology is exactly what you're looking for/intending. The idea of "We Are Family!" that one hears at pagan gatherings (and also at things like LGBTQ Pride events) is superficial at best--even some of my best friends and co-religionists, who understand me and my religious affiliations the best and most thoroughly, won't put themselves out for me in the way that my blood family often will when necessary, because ultimately they have no obligation to do so in the way that one's actual family does. But anyway...

I'm also a little uncertain about a few of your assertions and suggestions above...

1) What makes you think that druids were maintained at public expense? That certainly wasn't the case in Ireland and Scotland, as far as we can tell; one of the most famous druids of Irish tradition, Cathbad (who you should certainly know!) seemed to live the life of a fénnid at least for a while, and that was not a life lived at public expense, and certainly wasn't particularly honorable or noteworthy. In any case, I'd be interested in what sources you're getting that information from.

2) "Nor do I mean that they cannot be the subject of some good-natured practical joking or healthy satire once in a while." How can I put this--NO! There is a very big difference between taking oneself less seriously and having a good sense of self-deprecating humor and self-irony, and good-natured joshing with one's friends and family and neighbors and casual acquaintances, and SATIRE. It was the obligation of every warrior, king, and person of any standing whatsoever in Irish society, at least, to do praiseworthy things and avoid satire; if the threat of satire was brought to a noble person's attention, they were to avoid it at every cost or else forfeit their honor price entirely. I think the word "satire" has to be understood not in the Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert sense, and instead in the sense that made the satirist a feared and reviled, but supremely powerful, person in many ancient societies.

If you're going to use an Irish word, it would be good to use it in full knowledge of what it might have implied in Irish society, for starters...

Anyway...
[info]northwestpass wrote:
Mar. 20th, 2009 04:46 am (UTC)

It would not be difficult for me to remove the word 'satire' from the entry. :-)
[info]hth_the_first wrote:
Mar. 21st, 2009 05:08 pm (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but for the kind of multi-tradition work that Brendan is talking about here, you need to use a common language. Our common language is contemporary English, and satire *does* mean something quite different from what it meant in Iron Age Ireland. To say that someone is "immune from satire" is now unacceptable, because it means that they should be protected from SNL skits, not that they should be protected from being stripped of all honor. Within a specific reconstructed cultural tradition, you're free to resurrect the older sense of the word, but I think you have to assume that people without that acculturation will use the word as it's commonly used in the larger society.
[info]alfrecht wrote:
Mar. 21st, 2009 09:49 pm (UTC)
Even if that is the case, and the more modern understanding does prevail, I think the point stands. These people should not be doing things that others feel they can easily lampoon. The reason that people like George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and--well, every president and a ton of political figures since 1975--get spoofed on SNL is because they're doing things that are ridiculous. If one of the clann-makers that [info]northwestpass is talking about were to be made fun of by someone, it should be for utterly trivial things, like what they're wearing that day or their silly hairstyle, not because they've done something foolish and ill-advised...

If the work [info]northwestpass is doing is wider, multi-traditional and more culturally diverse than just Irish society (and, incidentally, these rules on satire prevailed up through the collapse of the old Gaelic order, c. early 17th century--clearly much longer than the Iron Age), then perhaps using a term like clann, which has very specific and detailed valences in the cultures from which it is derived, is inappropriate, and would be better to abandon in the present case. To ignore those valences could be inadvisable at best, and cultural appropriation at worst...
[info]darakat_ewr wrote:
Mar. 20th, 2009 04:55 am (UTC)
I agree with the concept, but I am not sure of how exactly it would work in practice. Can you explain the way the practice of this would work better? Its just that with the way the "pagan community" works at current I don't see this working, especially for smaller towns/cities.

[info]uncledark wrote:
Mar. 20th, 2009 05:10 am (UTC)
I would love to see this as an essay. Just let us know where it's going to show up.

I do not believe that we have a Pagan community. What we have is a subculture, which includes a loose network of small communities. Which brings me to my concern.

Clann-maker is an excellent term, but there's not an overall community to accept it. Of those within the sound of your voice, some will like it and use it. Others won't.

Our subculture has a tendency to start arguments, flame wars, and mutual excomunication over lesser differences of terminology. I expect that there will be a certain percetnage of folks who don't adopt this idea simply because it isn't theirs.

What I would also expect is that the folks who do take to it won't be a coherent community, either. They'll add the Clann-maker to their other bits and pieces. We won't see a coherent body of lore, ritual, or the other cultural markers of community arise with the Clann-makers.

On the other hand, what we might see is the rise of a network of communications, through the Clann-makers. Folks who draw those small communities who accept them into a tighter web.
[info]abbadie wrote:
Mar. 20th, 2009 05:53 am (UTC)
You beat me to most of what I was going to say.

Still, I do not think this can be a true community precisely because of the lack of common ground, lore and/or markers, and I'm not even sure it should ever become a community.

In spite of that, I really like this concept... I don't see it working as it is ideally presented because of the points you make. Also, there is another matter... this completely depends on the criteria of the, well, of the "community", such as it is. Somebody pointed out commenting on the post that originated this debate that Silver RavenWolf might be considered agroundbreaker simply because of the sheer number of people she has influenced. Now, Silver may not be as bad as she is usually considered (she was quite helpful and insightful waaaay back when I was a confused youth asking silly questions)... but I know some weirdos who teach "paleolithic-rooted celtic Wicca", organize rituals to contact alien teachers, and worse... obviously, such folks appeal to the New Age-loving masses, and should the Clann-Maker concept become well-known, said masses would no doubt jump at the chance of labeling such folks clann-makers.

Of course, criteria may, and should, vary; but what if many of the best-known clann-makers turned out to be precisely folks who, no matter how many events they're organizing, are responsible for teaching their own far-fetched hoaxes and polluting pagan beliefs with nonsense? What then? I can already see people saying, "they call those clann-makers? Don't you dare use that word on me!" How many times have we seen that already with different concepts?
[info]uncledark wrote:
Mar. 20th, 2009 06:00 am (UTC)
It is hard to see how this would work in the absence of community standards by which to judge who is experienced enough to call a Clann-maker.
[info]greycat_uk wrote:
Mar. 20th, 2009 08:58 am (UTC)
This has been raised in groups I have been part of, in terms of accountability. 'Regular' priests (whatever denomination) are accredited by their training establishment or qualifications help. 'We' have nothing really similar, given the apparent freedom of worthless qualifications available on the Interweb.

Good ideas, but perhaps the first step is establishing that our 'community' is by its very nature different to anything already going, but that we still need something to prove our worth to others...?
[info]wisewomanjudith wrote:
Mar. 20th, 2009 02:28 pm (UTC)
I've read these connected posts with great interest but I keep having to work or sleep rather than responding.

Firstly, I have to say "To whom do we answer?"

Grammar aside, it's a valid question, as is "who is experienced enough to call a Clann-maker"?

Without external qualifications or accountability, it then becomes (partly) a question of charisma. Not that charisma is bad, but it's neither knowledge nor wisdom.

I do divinations professionally and get paid. It's an exchange; the querants acknowledge that I have ability and I explain what their messages are. I also granny for a number of people, Pagan and not. In support of your hypothesis, people (even the least spiritual) appear to understand and employ your template. Without my setting any standards, people ask, "Are you busy?...... I would like some advice" which echoes “Dear (name), I seek your help as a Clann-maker...” and permits me to gently refuse ("Now is not a good time").

Grannying is my Spiritual Gease, and yes people give me presents for it.
[info]eumelosdrizzle wrote:
Mar. 20th, 2009 02:29 pm (UTC)
I'm not really convinced that there is a problem to be honest. Paganism is a loosely defined term for a disparate group of people with similar (but not identical) beliefs. As one person said, its more of an identifier for a subculture than a distinct religious community.

I think its appropriate to support leaders, writers, artists, and the like. Other more coherent (or perhaps just larger) religious groups have enough of a need for dedicated clergy and other community supported people. Paganism (as a collective body) doesn't - unless we assume that we are all part of the same group, which like I said I don't think we are. Its like saying all Monotheists should band together and support each other because they share a similar kind of belief.

I know your post is about more than financial support for members of the community mind you. I think what is really needed is more of the kind of thing we see at the Toronto Pagan Pub Moots and the Toronto Pagan Conferences - Networking, sharing, and fundraising for multi-faith Pagan events. If we are going to start talking about things like dedicated clergy and leaders they should ideally be support by their specific sub-group. I.e. Wiccan Priest/Priestesses shoudl be suppoted by the Wiccan community they represent. Not by an Asatruar say, who may share certain beliefs in common, but is not a part of that religious group.

Just some thoughts. Again, I try my best to support the larger Pagan community. Does this make sense?



[info]marytek wrote:
Mar. 20th, 2009 05:05 pm (UTC)
ya beat me too it.

Bren's idea of Clann-makers is interesting, but I don't think it would work as we are not a community nor shall we ever be. We are a collection of smaller communities, or as Shelley Rabinovich says - communitas. The only similarity between myself and a wiccan or a druid or an asatru individual is that I don't follow a judeo-christian path. There is some wonderful stuff happening in Eastern Europe where the "clann makers" (or Senunai and the Krivis) do have the support of their communites, organise events, host international events, even hold funeral rites for Marija Gimbutas.

I do not expect a Wiccan to share my ideas, beliefs or whatnot nor do I expect any sort of "support" other than for my accounting/tax abilities. Much like Farrell above, I will do taxes for either a nominal fee or a meal as I have found that if an individual gets something for free they don't value it as much... there has to be some sort of physical exchange, much like the touted "equal exchange of energies". With regards to the Wiccans and other neo-pagans, I show them respect and by the same token I expect the same -- a bit of civility.

I always get amused by individuals in the southern ontario communities wondering why we can't be a community. "Paganism" as currently expressed in North America and Western Europe is relatively young and is still going through growing pains -- one of the biggest is the inflated egos of "witch queens", "witch kings" and what have you. I think in about 100 years or so the various communities could get together without too much back-biting and work something out. But I don't think it will happen in this life time... not when my own back gets riled over individuals demanding that I accept that the Sun is Male :-) .. respect, that is what is lacking.
[info]pombagira wrote:
Mar. 20th, 2009 10:18 pm (UTC)
i love this idea, and really hope that it takes off, that people understand where it is coming from and why it can be an important step for the Pagan community, or not community, so to speak. where i live there are quite a few people who could be classed as Clan Makers, as they have expertise in various areas and are not attached to any particular tradition...

i figure that more people have read this than have replied, and have taken this idea and are now pondering it, and then start using it,there might be a change in name or title, however i concept will still be the same... *beams*

Please and thank you..

*beams*

[info]dmiley wrote:
Mar. 21st, 2009 12:58 pm (UTC)
As I read this, I think of Chris Turner's (Coifi) Druid Prayer at Ancient Places which begins -

A DRUID'S PRAYER AT ANCIENT PLACES

You who made these ancient monuments,
You who raised these ancient stones,
We acknowledge you
We honour you
We respect you

This prayer petitions an elder race for the use of their space for spiritual purposes. It is relevant in that it describes a spiritual connection in steps. Translated into your essay it reads "hello Elder" acknowledgement, "I am honored that you will work with me, Elder" honor and "Elder, your help has made a significant change in my life" respect. As I see it, this connection is the important part. The rest depends on the Elder (provider) and the future Elder (petitioner).

There is a long tradition involving the Other Crowd that "thanking" by humans breaks a relationship , but honor and respect does not. "Here's your gold, now we're even" is an endpoint to be avoided. I believe that your essay could be read as having a mechanistic slant which might replace honor and respect with formalized offerings. This can get in the way of weaving the types of relationships you have as a goal.

So from the future Elder's standpoint, the objective should be to honor and respect the Elder as well as the receive help or instruction. This may not be tangible honor and respect but could be a song, poem, drawing or blog entry. Or, with care, it could be a gift of food, transportation, housing or money - the danger there being that attitude of giving is critical.

The Elder's role is to make sure that the future Elder is also honored and respected and that the relationship does not devolve into an exchange. This is actually the hard part since a)they are in a power position and b) may actually need tangible payments for day to day living expenses. While I don't have anything specific, separating things that are payment-like in time and space from the place of the work itself may help.

So what I'm getting at is that there is an obligation on both sides of the equation with the hardest role given to the Elder.
David
(I'm depressed to say that with the shutdown of AOL Hometown the only place this prayer seems to exist on the web is a copy on my blog http://dmiley.livejournal.com/2313.html- at least until now:-)

A DRUID'S PRAYER AT ANCIENT PLACES

You who made these ancient monuments,
You who raised these ancient stones,
We acknowledge you
We honour you
We respect you.
Your names are lost
Your faces are forgotten
Your bones are scattered,
But Spirit calls to Spirit
From your unimaginable future
To our unfathomable past.
See us in the visions of your young people
And in the fireside dreams of your old folk.
Know we are here
And know we walk with you in the far fields.
Blessings of the Spirit to you
Peace of the Spirit to you
Joy of the Spirit to you
From place to place and time to time
In the One Eternal Light.

coifi (Chris Turner)
[info]the_exclamation wrote:
Mar. 22nd, 2009 06:38 pm (UTC)
Short version, because I regret having to post something this negative: Years of presumptive behaviour (assuming I'm Wiccan is way up there, as is use of British Isles pantheons and imagery) has me very sensitive to behaviour which excludes me. People are human, I understand where the behaviour comes from, but I, too, am human, and after 1) hearing things like "Everybody uses the pentacle" or 2) getting jarred out of the right headspace in public ritual because no context has been presented for a god I don't follow, often enough, there are behaviours which get my back up. Your choice of an Irish word is such a behaviour. I have no connection to the Irish, and so before I even read the rest of your post, this word made me feel like a second-class citizen in the community to which I would like to belong. Surely there is a word used everywhere in the English-speaking world that will have the same power as "clann" (even dropping one "n" would suffice). I would gladly adopt and promote such a word.

Thanks for another excellent post.
t!
(Anonymous) wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2009 04:58 pm (UTC)
I'm always grimly amused at how eager pagans are to denounce the idea that they have anything in common with each other, or that having something in common is even desirable. We cherish our distinctiveness, from each other as much as from the monotheistic masses, maybe a little too much. Enough that we take our differences as a good reason not to have much to do with each other.

Paganism has spun itself, particularly on this side of the pond, as the ultimate religion(s) for non-joiners; you don't need to accommodate or compromise with anyone else if you don't want to, because you can do everything needful by yourself. Which, I grant, has its good points. But I wonder about it's durability. The old saying is wrong; there are indeed atheists in foxholes, but what there are few of are loners, because loners do badly in difficult times. A pagan, no less than anyone else (however much we protest), is a social and political animal.

The non-Neo- varieties of paganism I'm personally familiar with from my far-traveled youth have this in common: they really, truly are either mostly oblivious or indifferent to the division between creeds. They see no problem with belonging to six or seven different religions at once (or combining them omnivorously), with practicing alongside people with whom they have not a single belief in common, even with the majority of their membership ignoring 'belief' entirely in favour of big, loud public festivals and idiosyncratic private devotions. They are 'lumpers' as enthusiastically as Neo-pagans are 'splitters'. And you know, it works, because two people can happily participate in the same activity together even if they privately understand the meaning of the activity in completely different ways. I dearly wish that attitude, of friendship and mutual participation across boundaries, would take root here. That's why I think your clan-maker idea is an excellent one; it's what I aspire to myself, though without expectation of pouches of tobacco (though I'd appreciate the thought).

Meg
[info]northwestpass wrote:
Mar. 25th, 2009 01:47 am (UTC)

I appreciate this observation. Thank you.
(Anonymous) wrote:
Apr. 9th, 2009 07:36 pm (UTC)
Thank you
Dr. Myers,

Thank you for this excellent article on one way of not only building a stronger community, but of also honoring our Pagan leader's and elder's.

Peace,
Pax
http://chrysalis1witchesjourney.wordpress.com/
(Anonymous) wrote:
Apr. 14th, 2009 05:33 am (UTC)
Ghosti
I believe this is more of a "food for thought" piece than something that will become a widespread standard for pagans. Some of the comments already cover a few of my reservations. Dr. Myers as definatly taken the first step; awareness. I believe the essence of what needs to be practiced, by everyone is a more "formal" appreciation and respect. In short, GHOSTI! Ghosti "is the Proto-Indo-European word which refers to the reciprocal relationships of hospitality." I believe it extends farther than mere hospitality, but to all relations involving mutual respect.

( 24 comments — Leave a comment )