King of the castle: magical orders and internal schism
by Phil Hine
Anyone who has examined the history of occult movements in any
detail will realise that schism, disorder, and "magical
differences" are a regular occurrence. This is a fact much
lamented by contemporary magicians, and there is much wonderment
that it continues in the current occult milieu. In examining the
development of magical orders as form of social organization, it
is necessary to examine some of the predisposing factors which
tend to make internal problems almost inevitable.
The roots of the modern occult movement lie in the Nineteenth
Century, and it is unsurprising therefore, that some contemporary
magical orders style themselves according the 'traditional'
patterns established. Magical Orders such as the Hermetic Order
of the Golden Dawn and the Ordo Templis Orientis, owed much in
their organizational dynamic to Freemasonry. The Golden Dawn, in
particular, seems to have set the template for many magical
orders thereafter. The key element which should be understood, is
not particularly that the Golden Dawn was hierarchical, but that
the hierarchical grades came to reflect a kind of 'spiritual'
authority. The problem with 'spiritual' authority is that it is
rarely open to close inspection by others, and it is fairly easy
for a charismatic and forceful person to claim moral superiority
to others on the basis of a "higher initiation" which
is not, a priori, open to inspection. Such was the position of
Magregor Mathers and other leaders in the Golden Dawn, and many
of its imitators since. Anyone may make the claim that due to a
divine illumination, they have a mandate to lead and inform
others (I see a good few letter making such a claim every month),
but of course not everyone is in a position to carry it across in
a group. The magical order, of course, is often the ideal place
to make such a claim and make it stick, and so a good number of
would-be gurus and magi have managed to fool at least some
people, for quite a long period of time.
The problem with having, as it were, "God on your
side", is that it tends to inspire the leader with a
tendency towards absolutism. Paranoia is an inevitable
consequence, probably due to the feeling that anyone who dares to
criticise is also calling into question the very authenticity of
the leader's initiation, and therefore, authority. This tends to
lead to a direct polarisation of group members into followers and
"enemies" - who are not merely challenging the
leadership but the entire Order itself.
The cracks in the facade appear by a process of dissonance -
occultists participating in a shared belief-system tend to a
consensus on what kind of behaviour is consonant with a
particular "spiritual" grade. When the leader begins to
exhibit behaviour that calls into question his or her assumption
of that grade, then the dissatisfaction begins to build further.
Thus the leader feels his authority & authenticity are being
further challenged, and sooner or later, it will all end in
tears.
Internal schism within an order is, in a way, self-regulating, in
that it makes a further polarisation between 'followers' and
'enemies'. Having a group of ex-members that the order can
categorise now as 'enemies' tends to bond the members together,
again, using the glue of mutual paranoia and ruffled feathers.
The next course of action is all too familiar: psychic attack,
magical battles, sniping through the pages of the occult press
and so forth. If the members feel that they have
"Truth", "God", or "The Great Work"
on their side, then the perceived enemies automatically become
black magicians or satanists. Suddenly, the threat of dealing
with internal contradictions within the group can be brushed
aside as the membership roll their sleeves up for the important
task of defending Cosmic Truth against evil, just in the same way
that adroit politicians use wars to distract the populace from
trouble at home. Studies of groups such as religious cults
indicates that groups are remarkably resilient in upholding their
shared beliefs in the face of threats to their continued
existence.
Since the Sixties, there has been a backlash against the
spiritual hierarchy model so favoured by some occult orders. This
has led to the proposal that hierarchies are in themselves
flawed, and that no leaders are required to manage a group. This
view has both strengths and weaknesses, but unfortunately it has
received little in the way of critical analysis, and has become a
matter of dogmatic belief in the same way that the above model
has become an entrenched feature of occult belief - which tends
to devolve into absolutes.
While occultists have been apparently existing in a vacuum, the
borders of which have been defined by the limits of largely
incoherent theories parroted by successive authors - there has
been a good deal of research conducted into organizational
dynamics, in everything from small therapy groups to large
corporations, the outcome of which makes some interesting points
about both hierarchies, and leadership. The first point to make
about hierarchies is that for some tasks, they function very
efficiently - more so that systems where each person is assumed
to have equal status. A rather mundane example of this is the
so-called "Bystander Effect" - where a group of people
will not initiate any action in a situation until someone appears
to take charge and organise the group into performing tasks. This
is particularly important when decisions need to be taken and
acted upon effectively. However, this does not mean that a group
which assumes a hierarchical organization is therefore solely
limited to behaving as a hierarchy. At other times, members may
behave and interact in quite different ways. So hierarchy is a
form of organization which a group may use appropriately -
although care is required.
Similarly, the question of leadership is more complex than it
often appears. Modern texts on group dynamics refer to leadership
as a role. In so-called 'Consensus' groups, which outwardly at
least, have no leaders, there is no critical evaluation of how
the leadership role might appear. Often then, it is the case that
charismatic personalities become leaders, by virtue of their
ability to influence others, rather than being chosen on a
rational basis. It will be obvious to some people that leadership
on the basis of "spiritual" authority is not exactly
desirable. Equally, charismatic personalities, though they are
perceived as being effective leaders, have a tendency to regard
the position as their unalienable "right" - due to them
having written x number of books or appeared on television as a
spokesperson for an unquantified number of followers. The glamour
of being perceived as a "star" also tends to lead to
the feeling of having an absolute right to lead.
A more effective way to handle the question of leadership is to
treat it as a role. If leadership is a role, then it becomes
dependent on a definition, based on what it actually entails,
rather than being the province of one particular individual, with
no clear definition. If the qualities of leadership are explored
and defined by the group, then two key points emerge. The first
is that anyone may aspire to take on the role of leader in the
group - providing they can demonstrate (or acquire) the necessary
abilities. Secondly, that whoever takes on the role of leader is
accountable to the other members of the organization. If a
leaders' task is defined and known, then it is far easier for
others to call the leader to account if he or she is not acting
appropriately. Morever, since the leader is as much responsible
for the success of the group as any other member, then it is less
tempting for leaders to place themselves 'above' others in the
organization.
This has been a hard lesson for some forms of organization to
learn. Absence of clear definition and reliance on absolutist
authority which cannot be questioned or criticized tends to lead
to systems collapsing. Occultists are particularly prey to
problems when attempting to maintain group cohesion as there is a
tendency to absolute stances which quickly become entrenched
dogmas on the basis of "Truth" - be it legitimised from
a spiritual or 'politically correct' standpoint. If
"Truth" is treated as a relative rather than an
absolute, as in Hassan I Sabbah's dictum "Nothing is True,
Everything is Permitted", then the way can be cleared for
the modelling of the magical organizations of the next generation
on the basis of rational procedures and informed choices.