Ty'r Rigantona

What is the point?

To create ways for pagans to make a meaningful impact for social and planetary wellbeing: pagans playing a part in the emerging Wellbeing Economy.

The Wellbeing 'what'? Never heard of it!

Consumer economics is all about buy and sell, supply and demand, unviable growth and destructive consumption. Things which destroy the earth and turn humanity in on itself. Wellbeing Economics is an emergent alternative developing both at the grassoots of society as well as the corridors of power in countries and regions all around the world. Led by Wales, Scotland, New Zealand, Finland, Iceland and Canada (as the current members of WEGo) the Wellbeing Economy is when people think about the world in terms other than money alone: especially in terms of what is necessary for social and planetary wellbeing. Ty'r Rigantona works in support of this global movement.

But there's already hundreds of social and environmental groups pagans can join.

Good. So much the better. But there is also room for a different approach. See, people often consider politics and social engagement of this kind framed in one of two ways. Sometimes from a collectivist mindset, meaning the action is all about uniting together to act as one strong group. Other times from an individualist mindset, meaning the actions should be based on personal beliefs and choices, unfettered by communality. Whilst these approaches often overlap, how a person acts at any one point in time normally falls into one of these two camps.

Both of these ways have their advocates and challengers. People like Naomi Klein, Machael Sandel, Rutger Bregman and Zygmunt Bauman argue that individual actions alone are poor levers of change. They believe that modern individualism keeps our actions unhelpfully tiny, preventing people from making significant impact together. They also see individualism as a tool used by powerful groups to maintain control and suppress change.

On the other hand, there are those like Ayn Rand, Steven Pinker and Jordan Peterson who argue that collectivism undermines personal responsibility and creativity. They believe that even though individual actions may not always seem coordinated, they are essential for innovation, progress, and protecting personal freedoms. They argue that individualism, in this way, is crucial for driving forward long-lasting and meaningful change.

And most of us know this. Even if we never explore the ins-and-outs to the extent of the authors above there is an instinctive and intuitive feeling of truth to these framings. So, when people do act, we generally opt for a sort of 'pix-n-mix', dibbing in and out of a combination of individualist and collectivist action trying to get 'the best of both worlds'.

But in so doing, we tend to contain our actions within these 'boxes'. Seldom do we look outside of these paradigms to consider alternative ways of thinking about how we might make an impact. Too regularly what might be described as a 'third way' is neglected as a consequence.

A third way?

It is interesting that sociologists and change thinkers—those who engage in the science behind social and behavioural change—when explaining how humans act and interact, and how humans can realistically make impact, generally describe mechanisms much less archetypally than the ideas given above. Rather than Left Vs Right, Red vs Blue, Collectivism vs Individualism, they discuss ideas such as 'Social Network Theory', and complimentary ideas such as, 'Resilience Theory', 'Swarm Theory' ' and 'Social Ecology'. Thinkers such as Jean Lave, Etienne Wenger, Bethany Wiggin, Murray Bookchin, Adrienne Maree Brown, Mark Granovetter, Stanley Milgarm or Duncan Watts have shown that meaningful change is commonly positioned as neither an entirely individualist nor an entirely collectivist thing. The discussions, instead, centre around concepts such as 'clustered networks of people', 'communities of practice', 'the global village' and social constructs analogous to networks such as the mycelium in nature. Here, human-scale connections of individuals bound by social ties and organised interactions are seen to be the most adept means of impact with a potential far exceeding their sum: a re-interpretation of the age-old saying, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

As pagans, we are particularly well-suited to these interconnected, community-based networks. And we deserve to have that platform.

Wow, that's a huge head-rush. Help me out here...

OK. Fair enough. Let's break it down. As a pagan, you can be part of your own coven, hearth, grove, moot etc, and, at the same time, freely join organisations like Greenpeace, XR, Sea Shepherd, Oxfam, the Labour Party, the Green Party, and many others. By doing so, you can compartmentalise your engagements and actions depending on how they align with your values. This means you can maintain clear boundaries within your spirituality, keeping it apart from your other free choices, following your personal beliefs and choices at will without denying yourselves the freedom to join various other collective efforts also. Importantly, it is not necessary to compromise one by blending it with another.

Whilst the advantages to this are clear, and, of course, this is why it is the chosen norm for many, there are also distinct disadvantages to this kind of separation or compartmentalisation of our interests. Essentially, when we compartmentalise our relationships we throw up artificial and unnecessary walls. For example, from a pagan orientation even when there may be a deliberate level of networking toward a shared theme (e.g., coven members from an an extended tradition undertake an environmental project in common or casually share resources on a common theme) there is little to no systemic organisation to that activity or any intention of how that activity may play an active role in a larger scene. And, vice versa, from the organisational orientation (eg joining Greenpeace) little to no active relationship between that activity and, for example, your spiritual learnings, values and competence. Yet, if we were to compare these human, social norms with exemplars from nature we are able to see that nature truly laughs in the face of our actions. Watch, for example, the sublime efficiency of a mycelium network, your brain cells or the roots of a tree. Mother Nature knows how to create networks that not only connect but truly empower and nourish one and other.

And, to be fair, human activity does too. If we look at our non-political or more regular social constructs—friends, families and community groupings—we normally don't opt for the individualist/collectivist pattern as we do with political activity either. It's almost as though socio-political behaviour has become its own cliché. Therefore, thinking that actions to save the planet and be kind to one another is all about choosing between our own individual actions or joining in collective effort is, in reality, a complete red herring. 'Third way' thinking is not about dogmatic individuality or committing to a collective. It is simply an organised way to simultaneously integrate all of what we do in an impactful, joined up and organised way.

Ty'r Rigantona positions itself to be the 'front-door' for pagans to access and enter this world of interconnection and provides a space where individual pagan actions are not isolated but are part of a broader, supportive matrix of activity, making our individual contributions more meaningful.

I'm starting to get it. So, explain a model for 'third way' thinking.

At its heart we are talking about two things. Firstly, a version of the "six degrees of separation" phenomenon. In that, though we may often feel disconnected, and so much like a drop in the ocean, we are, in fact, more closely connected to someone, via a someone, via a someone, who can and will make use of our work, information, knowledge, or thoughts than we normally assume. Secondly, this also suggests that the more we actively and consciously go out of our way to create strong, social connections and space within those connections for 'communities of practice'—via, say, close friends, family, or, in our case, our pagan brothers and sisters—the more we foster space for experimentation and implementation toward change. We impact our personal world, we create a ripple through our layers of contacts and this, like the proverbial 'butterfly' can manifest as a great 'storm' somewhere. Essentially the discussion moves from one of being about what you do as in individual, or what you do as part of a collective, to what your social 'bubble' does to build and rebuild, fashion and refashion itself. The greater we all apply effort to these 'bubbles', and the more we are able to co-create solutions for greater social and planetary wellbeing, the more shift to that end goal will happen. Importantly, this change also isn't a dogma or cult-like observance from outside but simply the mutual learning and experimentation of what fits right and feels appropriate to the individuals within.

Is that what is meant by a 'community of practice'?

Yes, this is a key thing to understand. Ideologies often rely on division and dogma, where everyone thinks and believes the same thing, creating polarities and a my-way-is-better-than-your-way mindset. In contrast, the 'third way' thinking described here is based on 'communities of practice'. This approach celebrates differences, much like we do in our pagan world! It means tolerating and supporting each other's personal circumstances and needs, without judging people's commitment or obliging them to contribute in specific ways. Instead, it's about being together with our differences and experimenting with ideas together. It's about supporting and valuing one another for who we are, the steps we take and generating solutions and ways forward together. The goal is to find common ground and to work for the greater good but from our own, personal circumstances. Understandably, this practice is often best done within our own traditions, moots, covens, or hearths as only in these familiar worlds do the necessary trusts and bonds exist to facilitate such experimentation. You understand the needs of your own 'bubbles'. In these places, we can share and think outside the box, using and relying on one another to make that journey together.

Is there a strategy?

The idea of having an all-encompassing strategy to decentralised ideas such as described here is the exact opposite of what is required. Humanity's problems are too complex, and the interactions required too layered, to allow for a something as a simple as a strategy to ever prevail. In other words, no person, or even a group of people, have so many of the answers figured out that they could ever create a comprehensive enough scheme of things that could be defined as a 'strategy for social networking to create social and planetary wellbeing'. Instead, the suggestion centres on creating structure instead of strategy, and in creating the required conditions that will allow the theory to play out to its fullest potential. The work at Ty'r Rigantona is, therefore, presently, a four-stage thing;

1. Establish the 'communities of practice' (COPs) —The groupings of people who have strong ties to one another, as friends or as fellows in a coven, grove, hearth, or a closely related grouping outside of this but familiar to each other.
2. Form up clusters — Link up the COPs which have shared connections already, or have other things in common into meaningful clusters.
3. Develop bridges — Creating the means not just for pagan COPs to share their learnings and experiences between one another but also to link up with COPs outside of the pagan world too - the key part to the 'six degrees of separation'.
4. Build infrastructure — such as libraries, discussion forums, IT back-end etc