Advertisement
Missionary Impossible
File 4: Strategic Ambiguity
By Mike the FOol
Diplomacy sometimes sheds light on Druidism
One interesting diplomatic skill that you learn quickly is the ability to talk for hours without actually commit to anything. In some of the most delicate issues, there are even times when you go out of your way to avoid accidentally turning a de-facto policy into a de-jure one, by saying what your side really wishes to do. Take for instance the U.S. policy towards the Republic of China (i.e. Taiwan). Nearly every government in the world has knuckled down under pressure from the People’s Republic of China (i.e. mainland China) to state that Taiwan is part of China, and then to withdraw diplomatic recognition of Taiwan. The U.S. tends to claim that Taiwan is part of “one China”, but that doesn’t apparently, in practice, mean that extends to a full political dimension, remaining in a quasi-philosophical principle level only now. What you have is three sides agreeing to one statement but interpreting the statement in very, very different ways. This is generally known as “strategic ambiguity”, with inherent advantages when a side has internal contradictions and doesn’t really know what its policy is, but has risks, in that other sides may misunderstand what you’re saying.
Now go back to Reformed Druidism. We, as a group, are rather noteworthy for our avoidance of policy or strict definitions. While individuals, or possibly even a grove, may have strong opinions or even policy on politics, membership, theology or what not; the Reform (as a whole) does not generally take sides. As an example, do we believe in Celtic gods, Jehovah, universal Creator, etc? We don’t say. I have my own personal preferences, which may be quite different from other members of my grove, and my grove may be quite different from the next grove. As I wrote in “Less is More” about a decade ago, Reformed Druidism is often better explained by what we don’t do that by what we do do, when comparing with other types of Druidism, which often explicitly state what they believe, how they make decisions official and define their terms.
Why do we tend to avoid defining things? That’s a hard thing to explain. Probably because it is divisive, in that anytime you take an official position, those who disagree will be disgruntled, and feel put upon to support that definition as part of the group’s new identity. In general, most of the founders believed the membership had diversive opinions, so it was best to accept that was the case, and concentrate their energy on spiritual development and noting the lessons of Nature; rather than organizational development and policy polishing. As you can tell from the Isaac Affair in the 1970s, when a policy position is brought up, it may lead to interesting and expressive conversation and different final interpretations by many individuals or groves, but rarely to adoption on the total level of the Reform.
One area that came to mind is how we approach the Order of Worship, our standard liturgy. As any actor can tell you, a script is a script, but how you read or perform it makes a big difference in the end result. Why do we enact this liturgy, what is its “tone” or purpose? When newcomers or concerned parents of Reformed Druids ask what you do during a reading of the liturgy, how do you describe it to them in the initial 20-30 seconds that people are most receptive to a nutshell explanation? Do you call it a “rite”, a “ritual”, a “service,” a “worship,” a “ceremony”, a “meeting” or a “celebration”? Each of these words carries a different connotation, but are often carelessly used interchangeably. A reading of the liturgy may be approached by a grove as very still and literal with few flourishes, no mention of deities, no theological insertions, very dry and cerebral, and thus they may prefer to term it a “meeting” or “service”. Other times “worship” may carry the right implication, as deities are brought up, beseeched, thanked, addressed and honored. Sometimes the liturgy may be shift to different tones in the course of the enactment, based on the section you are in, and several factors like; the leading members personality, number of members, season, weather, purpose of meeting, the group’s present mood, and just plain Fate.
So what this means, that when describing what Reformed Druids do and don’t do; it’s usually a very good idea to use a few qualifying words like; “most of us”, “often, but not always”, “depending on”, “prefer”, “we tend to”, “in a few groves,” “I’m not sure as a group, but our grove....” and so on to leave the impression that while sub-sets of Reformed Druidism follow this or that, we acknowledge that other sub-sets do not follow this, and that we respect that divergence of opinion in many areas of contention, and that we are not “more proper” or “better” Reformed Druids, just different. That built-in ambiguity of Reformed Druidism allows Christians, Atheists, Neo-Pagans, ascetics, ritualists, ceremonalists, etc. to be part of a movement that explores Nature, raising questions together, but coming to spiritual answers individually.
This strategic ambiguity is often a difficult path, as is seen by the many schisms in the Reform, when you want to give a quick decisive reply to a posed question, and don’t want to appear wishy-washy. I wish you good fortune in dealing with this sometimes liberating sometimes vexing characteristic of Reformed Druidism, and hope you become adept in handling the issue when it appears.
Yours in the Mother,
Mike the FOol
File 4: Strategic Ambiguity
By Mike the FOol
Diplomacy sometimes sheds light on Druidism
One interesting diplomatic skill that you learn quickly is the ability to talk for hours without actually commit to anything. In some of the most delicate issues, there are even times when you go out of your way to avoid accidentally turning a de-facto policy into a de-jure one, by saying what your side really wishes to do. Take for instance the U.S. policy towards the Republic of China (i.e. Taiwan). Nearly every government in the world has knuckled down under pressure from the People’s Republic of China (i.e. mainland China) to state that Taiwan is part of China, and then to withdraw diplomatic recognition of Taiwan. The U.S. tends to claim that Taiwan is part of “one China”, but that doesn’t apparently, in practice, mean that extends to a full political dimension, remaining in a quasi-philosophical principle level only now. What you have is three sides agreeing to one statement but interpreting the statement in very, very different ways. This is generally known as “strategic ambiguity”, with inherent advantages when a side has internal contradictions and doesn’t really know what its policy is, but has risks, in that other sides may misunderstand what you’re saying.
Now go back to Reformed Druidism. We, as a group, are rather noteworthy for our avoidance of policy or strict definitions. While individuals, or possibly even a grove, may have strong opinions or even policy on politics, membership, theology or what not; the Reform (as a whole) does not generally take sides. As an example, do we believe in Celtic gods, Jehovah, universal Creator, etc? We don’t say. I have my own personal preferences, which may be quite different from other members of my grove, and my grove may be quite different from the next grove. As I wrote in “Less is More” about a decade ago, Reformed Druidism is often better explained by what we don’t do that by what we do do, when comparing with other types of Druidism, which often explicitly state what they believe, how they make decisions official and define their terms.
Why do we tend to avoid defining things? That’s a hard thing to explain. Probably because it is divisive, in that anytime you take an official position, those who disagree will be disgruntled, and feel put upon to support that definition as part of the group’s new identity. In general, most of the founders believed the membership had diversive opinions, so it was best to accept that was the case, and concentrate their energy on spiritual development and noting the lessons of Nature; rather than organizational development and policy polishing. As you can tell from the Isaac Affair in the 1970s, when a policy position is brought up, it may lead to interesting and expressive conversation and different final interpretations by many individuals or groves, but rarely to adoption on the total level of the Reform.
One area that came to mind is how we approach the Order of Worship, our standard liturgy. As any actor can tell you, a script is a script, but how you read or perform it makes a big difference in the end result. Why do we enact this liturgy, what is its “tone” or purpose? When newcomers or concerned parents of Reformed Druids ask what you do during a reading of the liturgy, how do you describe it to them in the initial 20-30 seconds that people are most receptive to a nutshell explanation? Do you call it a “rite”, a “ritual”, a “service,” a “worship,” a “ceremony”, a “meeting” or a “celebration”? Each of these words carries a different connotation, but are often carelessly used interchangeably. A reading of the liturgy may be approached by a grove as very still and literal with few flourishes, no mention of deities, no theological insertions, very dry and cerebral, and thus they may prefer to term it a “meeting” or “service”. Other times “worship” may carry the right implication, as deities are brought up, beseeched, thanked, addressed and honored. Sometimes the liturgy may be shift to different tones in the course of the enactment, based on the section you are in, and several factors like; the leading members personality, number of members, season, weather, purpose of meeting, the group’s present mood, and just plain Fate.
So what this means, that when describing what Reformed Druids do and don’t do; it’s usually a very good idea to use a few qualifying words like; “most of us”, “often, but not always”, “depending on”, “prefer”, “we tend to”, “in a few groves,” “I’m not sure as a group, but our grove....” and so on to leave the impression that while sub-sets of Reformed Druidism follow this or that, we acknowledge that other sub-sets do not follow this, and that we respect that divergence of opinion in many areas of contention, and that we are not “more proper” or “better” Reformed Druids, just different. That built-in ambiguity of Reformed Druidism allows Christians, Atheists, Neo-Pagans, ascetics, ritualists, ceremonalists, etc. to be part of a movement that explores Nature, raising questions together, but coming to spiritual answers individually.
This strategic ambiguity is often a difficult path, as is seen by the many schisms in the Reform, when you want to give a quick decisive reply to a posed question, and don’t want to appear wishy-washy. I wish you good fortune in dealing with this sometimes liberating sometimes vexing characteristic of Reformed Druidism, and hope you become adept in handling the issue when it appears.
Yours in the Mother,
Mike the FOol
posted by:
|
Unsubscribed |
Advertisement
Advertisement
