From: Antistoicus
Date: Sun Nov 19, 2000 6:58pm
Subject: Re: Invading Wiccan Elder Scenario
A few disjointed thoughts ...
With regard to a Wiccan group being invaded : in theory, this shouldn't be happening, because, I'm told, respect for the autonomy of the individual coven is supposed to be a fundamental craft principle. But, of course, it happens anyway.
In the case of Wicca, I think part of the problem is that the fundamental moral law hasn't been pinned down philosophically, yet, and that until it is, these problems will persist. Ok, let me try to clarify that cryptic sounding remark. We have the rede
"An ye harm none, do as thou wilt"
Non-Wiccan Pagans tend to be a bit uncomfortable with the rede, perhaps because of a worrisome ambiguity. What is harm?
For example, if I set a time bomb tied to a randomizing device under somebody's home, I think we could grant that in that very moment, I've done harm, even before we know whether or not the randomizer will trigger the bomb, because I've altered the probability that somebody will come to harm in a bad way. So, one possible definition of my doing harm, is my willful taking of a course of action, which I could reasonably expect to forsee would, if adopted as a general practice, stand a good chance of doing serious mischief.
Viewed from this perspective, the Rede will tell us that the invading priestess' actions are to be condemned, because
- Given the priestess' own fallibility, her undermining of freedom of choice makes it likelier that the membership of the hijacked group will end up being ill-served
- Her actions undermine the spirit of trust needed for people to work together effectively, and will do so severely, if the takeover is regreeted later.
But there is a second way of interpreting the Rede (and, no doubt, a third and a fourth ...)
An alternative way to interpret the Rede is this : "If, in your best judgement, the direct consequences of your actions will not be harmful to anybody, do as you wish". The difference is, do we make the assessment before the fallout from our actions, or after? Some may assert either that it is a small distinction, or that the second choice is clearly the more sensible one. But consider the as an example, the mother of a small child who has sucessfully dived off of a bridge, without getting even a scratch. The child might say "I felt that I wouldn't be hurt, and I was right". The mother might retort that the child overlooks the fact that it was not a sure thing, before he jumped, that this would be so. The only difference between the viewpoints of the two is that seemingly small matter of tense.
The first interpretation produces a highly Libertarian version of Modern Western Liberalism. The second leads to Utilitarianism (not to be mistaken with Rule Utilitarianism, the notion that one judges the rules of behavior we adopt, in terms of the consequences of the act of that adoption, as opposed to judging individual actions in that way). In other words, without hesitation, a supporter of the second position, believes that the ends justify the means, and if she feels that she means well, then all is well.
People who believe that, are a menace to all around them. Even the most fundamental Ethical norms go out the window, dismissed with a self-satisfied smile.
In the case of the inter-coven wars, I think that part of the problem is that there has been little effort to clear up this basic ambiguity. This leaves some of the less inspirational members of the community free to choose whichever interpretation seems to be the most convenient. Worse still, the ambiguity makes it very difficult for those who have been put upon, to point to an agreed upon principle that has been breeched, because there is a lack of agreement on what, precisely, the basic principles mean. Even the hijacked membership itself, may be left unsure of whether or not a wrong has been done to them.
So, I would say, that a necessary first step in dealing with this scenario, is to have strengthened one's coven's resistance to that sort of attack, by having that discussion. Build a consensus, through discussion, of precisely what it is that those principles mean, and extract oaths from those who would visit, to honor those meanings while they are there.
The moral of the story for Non-Wiccan Pagans?
There are probably a few, but here's one of them. Building on the Philosophical foundations of one's tradition may seem like a dry task. It may be tempting to ask, "Is all of this hairsplitting really necessary?" The answer is, I'm afraid so. Otherwise, the problems seen in the Wiccan community, may be mimicked in our own. There are other things to say, on this problem, and I don't mean to suggest that this is the whole answer, but I have to run.
............................................. Antistoicus
Click here to return.