Winifred Hodge Rose
Frith is often translated as “peace”. The full meaning of frith encompasses peace but extends well beyond it, to cover a large portion of the most meaningful and essential foundations of human social life. A full understanding of the concept of frith will show that “peace” is not identical to frith; rather, peace is generally an outgrowth of frith, resulting from the conditions of frith being met. When frith has been achieved, usually peace is there too, though that is not always the case, as I shall show. Frith is the ethical value which underlies the successful establishment and maintenance of healthy families, groups, communities and societies.
Here I will summarize the ancient roots of frith, and then go on to write about a newer source of frith in the modern world: a shared loyalty towards ideals and principles, as distinct from ancient Heathen loyalty to kin and lord. I also discuss the role of frith in religious conversion, the rise of the medieval frithguilds, and the gradual transformation of the roots of frith that took place between elder times and today. Finally, I turn to another aspect of frith: its pitfalls or downsides. Frith, while an excellent thing, like all human endeavors has its own pitfalls. Awareness of these pitfalls allows us to avoid or work around them, rather than being unwittingly sucked into them. The two main pitfalls that I discuss here concern the dynamics of group behavior, and some dilemmas relating to tolerance of differences.
Our forebears perceived three primary focuses or centers of frith. The first—and surely the original—wellspring of frith was kinship and kindreds. The second was the web of loyalty created among a leader, lord or chieftain and his (occasionally her) folk. The third wellspring of frith arose from the relationships between the folk and their Gods, Goddesses and other holy wights, as well as between individuals of the folk who had come together in the presence of their Deities. (I am indebted to Vilhelm Grønbech’s volumes on The Culture of the Teutons for parts of these discussions on ancient frith.)
Frith and Kinship
The idea of frith is very closely tied to kinship—blood kinship in particular—and then to kinship by marriage, adoption and fostering. The words frith and sib were often used interchangeably to describe the state of people involved in a kindred relationship, and we can easily see the connection in the modern use of the term sibling to indicate a brother or sister. The term frith did not merely indicate the material fact of blood relationship. Rather, it described the essence of the relationship itself: the joys, responsibilities, interdependence, burdens, and benefits that characterized it.
The word frith is related to the words for friend and free. Frith was to our forebears the “power that makes them ‘friends’ towards one another, and free men towards the rest of the world.” (Grønbech, Vol. I, p. 32.) In their minds, “freedom” did not mean freedom from responsibility toward others. “Freedom” meant being strong enough to face the ill-happenings of the world and being able to overcome or survive them. For this, one depended on one’s kindred. Surrounded by a numerous kindred cognizant of the requirements of frith, the Germanic man or woman was well-armored against many misfortunes the world could cast, whether poverty, threats of violence, legal troubles, or other difficulties. Not woven into a web of frith, the lonely wretch had nothing either material or spiritual upon which to rest life and welfare. This also was the bitter lot of thralls.
One can read again and again in the Icelandic Sagas of a worthless, trouble-making person whose actions bring disgrace and disaster on the whole kindred, but who, nevertheless, is supported, helped and defended by other members of the kindred who are committed to upholding frith no matter what the consequences. Grønbech notes the “absolute character of frith, its freedom from all reservation”(Vol. I, p. 36). This absolute, uncompromising character of kindred-oriented frith actually contributed significantly to the pursuit of feuds and strife within the larger community, at the same time that it reduced strife within the kindred, inside the pale of frith.
Frith was nothing if not partisan: focused on security and stability of the kindred, it had no application to those individuals and groups who lay outside the boundaries when it came to a conflict of interest between them. Nor could any notion of absolute, unbiased justice make a dent in it: defending one’s kindred was always right, no matter how wrong their actions were. Frith was the paramount virtue, taking precedence over all others.
Often women, as brides, were meant to serve as frithweavers between warring clans. When, as too often happened, the frith thus woven broke down, the effect on women of the conflict between loyalty to lord (husband) versus kin was severe. As far as I am aware, though, there seems to have been no question in our forebears’ minds that a woman’s loyalty belonged first to her kin. Gudrun of the Volsunga Saga is a perfect example: she could not allow herself to take vengeance on her brothers for their murder of her husband Sigurd, in spite of her bitter grief at his death. Though she loved her husband dearly, that love could not outweigh the demands of kin-frith. Yet she had no hesitation enacting vengeance on her next husband, the Hun leader Atli, for her brothers’ deaths. This was done in order to keep frith — kin-frith — whole.
Women indeed acted as peace weavers, not only within the kindred but also in the community, and inspiring examples of their deeds can be found in the literature. The same, of course, can be said for many men. Yet women sometimes acted against peace, as we would see it today, by being the keepers of the family frith and honor, and ensuring that vengeance was taken when one of their own had been injured. The Icelandic and Germanic Sagas give many instances of women who prodded their more peaceable or just lazy or feckless (in the mindset of the times) menfolk into taking vengeance when the men perhaps would not have chosen to do so, if they had been left alone.
This clearly illustrates some of the underlying differences between the concept of frith, and the modern idea of peace—a word which is often used to translate ‘frith.’ Elder folk regarded the courageous act of marrying into an enemy clan as frithweaving, which we would indeed regard as ‘peaceweaving’ today. But they also saw vengeance against those who broke through the boundaries of frith—outsiders who damaged their kindred in some way—as being properly supportive of frith. This willingness to take vengeance would not be described as ‘peaceful’ behavior today!
The Bond between Leaders and Folk
Due most likely to the violent, insecure and threatening world in which they lived, our Germanic forebears in many, though not all, places and times of their history laid great emphasis on a close and loyal relationship between leader and folk. This reached its highest expression in the oathed relationship between a war leader and war band, though it also applied to peacetime chieftains, kings and other leaders. This relationship between lord and sworn man was frequently extolled in the heroic poetry and sagas of the age, so that we have good records of what it ideally involved.
Frith between lord and man was expressed much as the frith of kinship: there were mutual obligations and benefits, including the requirement for the man not to raise hand or voice against his lord, and the lord not to punish or deprive his man and the man’s dependents unjustly. In essence, the lord owed the man his livelihood, while the man owed the lord his life and service. Under the social conditions present in those times, neither could survive safely or comfortably without the other; thus the importance of making and maintaining bonds of trust and frith between them. This was often strengthened by the fact that there were kin relationships within these groups, also. This gave a double foundation for frith: it was both oath-bound and kinship-bound.
The men sworn to a lord were likewise expected to keep peace and trust among themselves. Anglo-Saxon literature is rich in references to the healldream, the “joys of the hall,” where the deep frith between members of a war band or other oathed group, seated blithely in the lord’s hall, closely matched the gladness and security ideally available within the homes of families and kindreds.
The strong attachment to a lord could, on occasion, create a conflict between kinship-frith and oath-frith. For example, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for the year 755 C.E. has a complicated account of fighting between Cynewulf and Cyneheard. Cynewulf attacked and killed Cyneheard; Cyneheard’s thanes were determined to protect his body and avenge him. When these thanes were offered money and safe-conduct by kinsmen who were in the opposing force, they answered that “no kinsman was dearer to them than their lord, and they would never follow his slayer.” The Laws of Alfred (late 800’s) state that a lord and his follower may each fight on each other’s behalf without penalty of law, and a man may so fight on behalf of a blood relative, but a man “may not take the side of a kinsman against his lord — that we do not permit.” (Griffiths p. 73-74)
It appears that among the Anglo-Saxons and most likely their continental Germanic forebears, the oathed frith-relationship between lord and sworn man stood highest of all values, while among the Icelanders and their Scandinavian forebears, the frith of kinship was paramount. This difference had, I believe, complex implications regarding the extent of feuding, strife and litigation present within the larger communities of these two cultural groups (Icelandic and Anglo-Saxon), but this is a large topic outside the scope of this article.
Frith between Folk and the Holy Ones
Frithful behavior was a highly important sign of respect and troth on the part of our forebears toward their Gods, Goddesses, land-wights, and their ancestral Disir and Alfar. This is attested to by the prevalence of “frithyards” found everywhere that Germanic peoples settled, and often mentioned in the literature of the time. Frithyards were enclosures or areas of land, including those around temples and outdoor harrows or altars, where all present were required to keep frith in the sense of abstaining from violence and from instigating violence by uncivil behavior.
Frithyards were to be kept holy in several respects, the primary one being that no bloodshed, fighting or severe quarreling were allowed. One well-known example of the required behavior in a frithyard is given in Eyrbyggja Saga, Chapter 4, about the Thor’s-Godhi Thorolf Mostur-Beard and his holy mountain Helgafell. Things (assemblies) were held at the foot of the mountain, at the place where Thorolf’s Thor’s-pillar had first come to land. No bloodshed nor excrement were allowed in the area—folk had to go off to a rock in the sea to relieve themselves! (Indeed, the very term used for “to relieve oneself” meant literally “to go drive out the alfs.”) Chapter 9 of the same Saga tells of the deliberate desecration of the frithstead by the Kjallekling clan, and the resulting bloodshed as Thorolf’s kin tried to defend the land they regarded as holy.
Again, as we see in the context of kin-frith and oath-frith, the establishment and defense of frithsteads holy to the Gods could also result in violence and death. As an interesting aside, the fight over Thorolf’s frithstead was finally broken up by a team of respected peacemakers who, when they were at first unsuccessful, threatened to join the fighting on the side of whichever clan first agreed to listen to them. This immediately broke up the fight. Something to keep in mind, perhaps!
Both temporary and permanent frithsteads were used by our forebears. Temporary frithsteads were usually the Thingsteads or places of assembly: meeting-places. Frith was kept there both to honor the Deities and as a practical matter, in that the business of the Thing could not properly be conducted if frith were not maintained. Permanent frithsteads, often called frithyards, were generally associated with a temple, shrine, or other holy spot such as a well or a sacred tree, or a boulder housing a local landwight. Frithyards were holy not only to major Deities, but also and perhaps even more commonly, to ‘minor’ holy wights such as landwights, well-wights, or family forebears (Disir and Alfar).
Holy beings, both high and low, for the most part love frith and demand it from their followers and their human neighbors. Landwights, well-wights, woodwives, house-wights, and most other beneficial nature spirits dislike strife, as is shown in many folktales of the Germanic peoples. They tend to leave their steads, taking their main, luck, and hamingja with them, if subjected to too much strife, bloodshed, or lack of respect on the part of quarrelsome or greedy humans. They will also leave if they feel betrayed by their human friends and neighbors, showing that frith comprises not only absence of strife, but also ties of loyalty. (On this subject, see also the section on “Guardian Spirits” in Davidson.)
The central importance of frithyards to Heathen worship is exemplified by the fact that centuries after Germanic countries were supposedly Christianized, kings and church leaders still found it necessary to promulgate strict laws and penalties against having and visiting ‘peace enclosures’ (frithyards) on one’s own property or anywhere else. One example is the 16th Canon Law enacted under England’s King Edgar (939-946), some 300 years into the period of Christian dominance: “And we enjoin that every priest…totally extinguish every heathenism, and forbid well-worshiping, and spiritualism, and divinations, and enchantments, and idol- worshiping, and the vain practices which are carried on with various spells, and with peace-enclosures, and with elders (the tree), and also with various other trees, and with stones….” (Linsell, p. 161.).
The main point to be made here is that the frithstead or frithyard was not only intended to be a place where peace was enforced. It was also a reminder and a commitment to the fact that Heathen folk are in a relationship with their Deities and friendly spirits: a relationship of frith, that involves trust, respect, mutual benefit, and mutual obligation, including but not limited to behaving in a peaceful manner toward one another.
Frithguilds
One of the best ways to gain a deeper understanding of the ancient concept of frith is by looking at the early medieval frithguilds. Frithguilds appeared during this time as a result of radical changes in social conditions and social structures. The original sources of frith (kin, oath-bonds, and Heathen faith and practice) were weakened by social changes such as Christianization, the growth of large, impersonal towns instead of small villages, movements of people away from their birthsteads and kinsteads, the growth of merchant and artisan classes of society, and the rise of competing focuses of loyalty.
These competing focuses included church hierarchies and a distant monarch with political bureaucracies who were not personally known to most individuals. These individuals and bodies with political power most certainly did not cleave to the responsibilities of frith owed by traditional chieftains and lords to their folk. The responsibilities of followers to their leaders, under these new regimes, seem to have been a good deal more heavily emphasized than the responsibilities of leader to folk, creating a fundamental breach of frith. To be fair, there were some notable exceptions, King Alfred the Great among them, who articulated a sincere and demanding vision of a king’s responsibilities to the folk, based on his Christian values, and who tried to live by his vision.
Frith was felt to be so essential in people’s lives, that those who were removed from the natural frith-garths of traditional kindreds, warbands and small communities during the Middle Ages felt the need to create new garths of frith for themselves: the frithguilds. Though these fell far short of the full frith of kinship and other traditional structures, they provided at least the minimal requirements of frith.
The general provisions of the frithguilds were as follows:
– Members of a guild were not to engage in strife with each other; but if they did do so, they were not allowed to bring it before any court for litigation, excepting the court of the Guild itself.
– If anyone killed a man who was not a member of the Guild, the Guild must help their fellow escape with such provision as they could manage for his well-being. Anyone who failed to help when they were able to do so was cast out as a nithing.
– Every brother of the Guild was obliged to help every other one in lawsuits (by being an oath-helper, by guarding him in court and out, and in other ways).
– If a Guild-brother was killed, other Guild members must refrain from eating, drinking, or having any social connections with his slayer, and must aid the dead man’s heirs in seeking vengeance or restitution. (See Grønbech, Vol. I, Ch. 1)
By these descriptions, we can gain a better understanding of our forebears’ expectations of frith, of its value to them and their dependence on it for support and safety. We must realize, however, how minimal these provisions of the frithguilds were in comparison to the full depth of traditional Heathen frith.
There is an idea among some modern Heathens that frithguilds were simply an early form of police force, but as far as I am aware, this was not their role. While policing frithbreakers was certainly a function of authority figures, when, if and how they chose to do so, there were not any actual guilds, in the strict medieval sense of the word, dedicated to this function. The frithguilds themselves were focused on providing their oathed members with at least some of the ‘services’ that the members would previously have found within the boundaries of their kindreds, warbands, or other traditional frith-bonded relationships.
The Role of Frith in Religious Conversion
An intriguing question asked by sociologists of religion is this: what conditions make people receptive or unreceptive to the message of a new religion? Why do some people willingly convert, while others resist to the death? Clearly, there are many factors involved in the complex phenomena of religious conversion and resistance to conversion, but one very important factor is the frith or lack thereof existing in a society at the time that conversion is attempted. (This section, in part, summarizes the findings of an excellent book, The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation, by James C. Russell.)
In the Mediterranean cultures at the beginning of the Christian era, the expansion and then the social decline of the Roman Empire brought about huge areas of cultural decay. People of many cultures within the Roman Empire had been uprooted from their places, religions, social structures and social status as a result of imposing and maintaining the Imperium. Slavery and serfdom, poverty, helplessness and hopelessness were widespread. These people had no bonds of frith to sustain them; they were adrift in a sea of meaninglessness and helplessness.
In these circumstances, the Christian message of universal love and salvation was welcome to many people who felt disempowered and worthless in the overall scheme of things. The new religion gave their lives meaning and purpose, and gave them a sense of place in the world. The Christian churches welcomed them regardless of their social status, and gave them a real frithstead to replace their rootlessness. There was no need, at the beginning, for Christians to pursue forcible conversion since their message was a powerful one among a good number of people in that time and place.
Some centuries later, as the Christians of the Middle Sea cultures attempted to extend their message northward into the rest of Europe, the picture was a very different one. Instead of rootless people whose culture and sense of self-worth had been eroded by conditions in the Empire, Christian missionaries faced people who were solidly rooted in the social contexts of pagan Indo-European frith relationships. The message of “salvation” was not very impressive when Heathens did not feel they really needed to be saved from anything by some foreigner who stood outside their own webs of frith and troth. Any ‘salvation’ needed – and this would have been interpreted in very practical, mundane ways like overcoming their opponents – could be supplied by their own kindreds, leaders, social structures, and their own Holy Ones.
The message of universal love and acceptance was likewise less than impressive, when compared to the strength and reliability of the age-old frith structures in which these people were imbedded. Charity, the support of orphans and widows, kindliness to the stranger and the poor? These values were already present in Heathen culture, though surely not always practiced as they should have been. A place to belong, the knowledge that you are reliably supported by others both human and divine, and owe them your support in turn? This is Heathen frith; they did not need Christians to teach them about this.
In a nutshell, the Christian message of personal salvation – so powerful when offered to rootless, unconnected, helpless individuals – seemed unimpressive and pointless to most Germanic Heathens, as long as they retained their traditional structures of frith. In the face of such ingrained resistance, such a different philosophy and world-view as they faced among the Germanic peoples, the Christian missionaries and their political backers had to resort to political, economic, military, legal, and physical coercion, along with skillful spin-doctoring and obfuscation, in order to forcibly convert these people. The basic message of Russell’s book is that all of the accommodations and other efforts that Christians had to make, in order to make Christianity appealing and comprehensible to the Germanic peoples, actually backfired and resulted just as much in Christianity being ‘Germanized’ as in Germanic peoples being ‘Christianized.’
The Christianity that came out at the other end of the Germanic Christianization process bore, in many ways, little resemblance to the Middle Sea Christianity that went into it at the beginning. The legacy of this outcome resulted in many Christian schisms and struggles, extending to the present day, as Christians tried to figure out and return to ‘true’ (i.e. pre-Germanic pagan) Christianity. Ironically, by undermining and redirecting pagan Germanic frith, Christians introduced more seeds of unfrithfulness within their own structure. We can see in many ways how less-than-successful this was, even by looking at the many pagan elements of modern holiday customs surrounding Christmas, Easter (named after a Germanic Goddess), Halloween and other seasonal customs.
A crucial factor in this resilience and resistance to conversion on the part of Germanic culture was their strength of frith in the overall scheme of things. People simply cannot survive and thrive without frith, the fabric of family and society: neither physically, socially, emotionally nor spiritually. A person who lacks any context of frith in their life, the lost and seeking person, will give all their loyalty to the ones who offer them a structure of frith. Here lies the appeal of any cult or any religion, including ours, which will offer a home of the heart to those who seek.
From Elder Days to Today
Thus we have seen that the ancient concept of frith was powerful and deep among our elder kin, and was based upon three fundamental roots: kinship, the loyal commitments between leaders and folk, and the relationship between folk and the Holy Ones.
After conversion of the Germanic peoples to Christianity, a hybrid form of frith arose that was expressed during the Middle Ages as militant Christianity. The Heathen frith-loyalty between lord and sworn warrior, and between humans and Holy Ones, was transformed into frith-loyalty of warriors and knights to the Christian God as directed by the Church, to whom they swore their lives and service. This development supported the various Crusades, not only in the Middle East but also in eastern and northern Europe, and the Inquisition, where Pagans, Muslims, Jews, and even Orthodox Christians and other Christian ‘heretics’ were considered ‘enemies of God’, outside the pale of frith and fair game for conquest. (I might note that the same attitude was held by leaders of other faiths and tribal beliefs as well. These attitudes have led followers of many religions toward efforts to conquer followers of other religions and their lands, over many centuries.)
The only way for ‘outsiders’ to save themselves from this situation was to convert to the version of Christianity that held the reins of this power, thus entering their ‘frith-garth’, and even then, the converts were regarded with suspicion.
After centuries of European crusades and wars, the seeds of a different view of frith began to sprout, in Europe and in the land across the sea. These ideas were influenced not only by European and new American philosophers, but also by contact with Native American tribal customs. These seeds sprouted into the Constitution of the United States, which presented a new view of how frith can be established and maintained on a national level, though the older roots of frith still continue.
This new view presented ideals and principles as the core of loyalty around which a folk in frith with one another could gather. Frith-oaths were not sworn to a king or other person, nor to an office such as ‘the president’, but to the ideals and principles upon which the new nation was founded. This was truly a new thing, a whole new vision and foundation for the establishment and practice of national frith.
Unfortunately, though in principle all people were covered under the Constitution, in practice some people were included in the Constitutional frith-garth, and others were not, leading to struggle, strife, injustice and bitterness throughout the centuries of USA existence and continuing into today. The idea of basing frith upon a social contract, as we do in this country, creates an inspiring ideal for some, and a sense of insecurity for others. In practice, there are different interpretations of what a given culture’s or country’s social contract is, who is included in it, how it should be maintained and defended, how it should be implemented, how it should be modified or replaced as needed, and who is in charge of all these things.
We can see in the events of the last several years, culminating in the Capitol riot of January 6, 2021, a clash between two different concepts of frith-loyalty. One group held fierce loyalty toward a specific person, Donald Trump. Abstract national ideals and principles were used in service to their leader, his power, and through him to their own power. Their passion of frith-loyalty was constellated around this person.
The other group did the opposite: their frith-loyalty was to the norms of the US Constitution. Any leader they elected was expected promote these norms, and if he or she did not, they were argued with and voted out of office. Their leader is replaceable, and is considered as a representative of our governing ideals, not as a person in a position of sovereignty. Their passion of frith is constellated around the ideals themselves.
It is obvious that I am greatly oversimplifying the situation; there are many other complicating and contradictory elements. I am doing so to illustrate my point: the strife in our country is based on differing ideas about frith, what frith is based on and how it is maintained. Frith contains within it some basic contradictions that can drive frith-seekers toward conflict as well as toward peace.
I think that a deep understanding of these complexities of frith is necessary for any group of people who truly want to maintain frith. It is not a simple process with clear and obvious measures to be taken. Frith, like all human undertakings, has its own pitfalls, and we need to understand them in order to work successfully toward frith at all levels, including our practice of Heathenry.
Frith-Pitfall 1: Group Dynamics
There are a number of pitfalls as well as many benefits of frith, but I am going to mention only two of them here, that are of sharp relevance to today’s circumstances. One is the fact that, whether we like it or not, one of the strongest ways to create frith within a group is to set it against another group, or against outsiders generally. The more strongly people are identified with their own group, and contrast themselves with other groups and outsiders, the stronger the frith is likely to be, within that group. It becomes clear to this group that the more ‘outsiders’ are regarded as ‘enemies’, the more essential it is to be able to depend on the frith and loyalty of your own group in order to survive. This is a time-honored and popular tactic of politicians around the world, to distract their people from internal problems by focusing on external threats (real or imagined) against their country or group, which fans the flames of group-loyalty. This is also the dynamic that plays in developing stereotypes and prejudices against people who are different in any way from your own in-group.
Some people who have had experience of such tightly-knit ‘us versus them’ groups find that the strong degree of frith that exists within the group is very attractive and reassuring, and the apparently looser degree of commitment and loyalty outside such groups is lacking in strength and meaning for them. This occurs among religious groups, for example the Amish and other plain folk, who set themselves apart from others in many different details of their lives, in a very peaceful way. They are not hostile toward outsiders, but their ways of maintaining frith and conformity within their group are very strong and sometimes difficult to follow.
Many religious groups have their own ways of creating an in-culture, such as dietary rules, clothing, religious practices, even language, that distinguish them from others. Most of these are examples of normally harmless ways to create the strong frith of an in-group, without creating much or any hostility toward out-groups. These methods create ‘characteristic and treasured distinctions’ as opposed to ‘prejudice and hostility.’ And of course, there are many non-religious examples of different cultures and languages that can do the same: maintain ‘treasured distinctions’ within their own group, without directing hostility to those outside their groups.
Unfortunately, any distinctions and differences can be used to create hostility and attitudes of superiority / inferiority, if people are determined to do that. In reaction, many well-intentioned modern Westerners feel that distinctions between people should be denied, ignored, or downplayed, so as to remove these sources of hostility and social friction. Many people feel very much at home in this more loose and open environment, while others feel that their roots of individual and group identity are erased thereby, and become angry and defensive.
Some people want and value the very strong frith and loyalty that can occur within an in-group, however that group is defined. When the values upon which their in-group is based are threatened, they draw together defensively, reacting with hostility towards outsiders, and with stronger loyalty toward their own. The outsiders then mass against the in-group because of its increased hostility, and escalation ensues. We are all experiencing this collective social misery and anger very widely in today’s world, and in my view, the unexamined or unconscious dynamics of frith are a primary driver of this phenomenon.
One example of this which especially comes to mind is the Q-Anon cult, with their powerful motto of in-group frith: “Where we go one, we go all.” Interviews with many members, and studies of this phenomenon, point out the importance of group cohesion, of belonging and support, that followers feel they gain from this cult, and which was missing for them before they encountered the cult. Their in-group frith is very strong and rewarding to its members, and is their primary reason for belonging. It is rigidly maintained through hostility of attitude and action toward out-groups. The impenetrability of the frith-barrier (in the form of rigid and baffling beliefs) between this group and the outside world is a great source of frustration and concern for the rest of society. This is a textbook example of the power and dynamics of in-group frith, and of frith’s pitfalls.
The need for frith-groups is something that is based in human nature and survival. Our physical survival and social needs are dependent upon our groups: our family and community, our society and economy, and various other imbedded or nested groups that we are a part of. We’ve evolved to engage in cooperative behavior, but also to draw together in solidarity with those we trust, those who are ‘like us’, when we, or our values, feel threatened. I think that our modern efforts to create and extend frith through our society need to take that into account. The larger and more diffuse the group is, the harder it is to maintain the level of personal frith, loyalty, trust, interaction, self-sacrifice, help and support that a tightly knit small group can give: the core of frith itself. When this core of frith is missing, many people seek it out in ways that increase unfrith in society as a whole, for example, disadvantaged and rootless youths who join gangs so as to have a place to belong and people they hope will support and defend them.
It’s really interesting to see the phenomenon playing out today, of the strong shift between the older form of frith as personal relationships and personal loyalty, into this relatively newer form of frith as adherence to an ideal, to principles, and to people’s view of what the social contract is. The result is that frith is spread much more widely than it could be when it depends on face to face personal relationships. “People who agree with my ideals and principles” can be found around the world, people whom I will never meet and who may be very different from me in a number of ways, but still a frith-garth develops among us. This is a great feeling, a great and hopeful change in human behavior.
Unfortunately, the pitfalls of frith also grow larger and wider in this environment. Even though the groups within a frith-garth have grown exponentially larger, more encompassing of different people living in different places, the coagulating principle of the group still acts as an in-group trigger. The expansion of the frith-garth, but in a way that adds to unfrith, can also be seen in the expression of kin-frith. Nowadays, kindreds and clans in our society seldom feud with each other, but groups that perceive their members as being racially or ethnically related, and outsiders as being unrelated to them, unfortunately do so, all around the world.
In other words, the issues around racial / ethnic stereotypes and attitudes are an expansion of older kin-frith attitudes, where all one’s loyalty belongs to kin, and ‘outsiders’ don’t count. Nowadays, for many people of different races / ethnicities around the world, ‘my kin’ has been expanded to ‘my race / ethnicity’, but it still maintains the ‘us versus them’ in-group frith dynamic. It would seem that expanding the frith-garth to include more people within it should improve frith and tolerance overall, but it doesn’t always turn out that way.
Every frith-group coagulates around a set of values that are of great, overriding importance to them. And when they perceive those values to be threatened, they instinctively bunch together and react with hostility, in the time-honored way it’s been done for millennia. The opposing group, in turn, feels threatened by the insults and challenges to their own values, and reacts the same way, and again, escalation ensues. In-group frith, again and unfortunately, leads to inter-group hostility.
Then, in an effort to maintain ever-stronger bonds of in-group frith, the group exerts more pressure toward group-think, or at least, pressure to not talk about your ideas if they question any of the values of the group. Eventually this pressure builds, and leads to friction and unfrith within the group, and often to separation or breakup. We’ve all seen many instances of this happening in our own experiences, I’m sure, including within families, religious groups, political parties, and many other types of groups.
Frith-Pitfall 2: The Tolerance Dilemma
So, that’s one of the pitfalls I want to highlight: the natural dynamic of groups which creates in-group frith and inter-group unfrith or active hostility. The other is a very difficult existential dilemma. Tolerance for opposing viewpoints and for behavior, appearance, etc. that is different from oneself is, in principle, a strong promoter of frith. It’s something that many modern cultures and societies are trying to move toward, for that reason: it promotes frith, and when frith prevails, many other crucial social benefits follow. So, tolerance in principle is frith-promoting and social-benefit promoting. Tolerance is built into the USA Constitution, as an example of an honored social contract: tolerance of free speech, freedom of conscience (religion), public assembly, etc. These are foundational values for Americans.
But what about tolerance of unfrithful words or behavior, tolerance of intolerance? These things could promote unfrith and disrupt the hoped-for social benefits of frith, and many feel that intolerance should not be tolerated because of the perceived dangers and unfrith arising from it. Our laws attempt to address intolerant behavior that results in violence or criminal actions, and the recent unrest in our country is prompting evaluations of these laws and their enforcement, to further improve and, more importantly, implement them fairly and consistently.
But there is a large and difficult gray area, that lies between “outright criminal action and physical harm” on one end, and “frithful tolerance of differences” on the other end. Laws and their enforcement deal, or should deal, with one end of this spectrum, while our Constitutional freedoms address the other end. That leaves a large gray area in the middle, that is a subject of much strife and disagreement in our society today. Much of that disagreement involves interpretations of all these matters: how far do personal freedoms extend, what constitutes ‘criminal harm’ to another person, how should tolerance and rights be enforced when they conflict with each other?
There truly are no easy answers to any of these questions, and those of us who try to think deeply and seriously about these matters often feel we are being thrown into a state of cognitive dissonance or impossible contradictions. For those who highly value tolerance, how far can intolerance be tolerated? How can conflicting personal and constitutional rights be balanced against each other, in a way that promotes the greatest level of frith within society? How can we form frith-groups which highly value tolerance, without triggering the group dynamics I mentioned earlier, which lead groups to bunch up into tighter and tighter group-think when confronted with non-conforming ideas, resulting in an in-group state of idea-intolerance and unfrithfulness? Contradictions and dissonances run rife here, within our frith-garths and within our country and our world as a whole.
Respecting All Differences
Here are a few very simple thoughts about this, thoughts which many people share and are working hard to implement. How do we approach a frithful understanding of ‘differences’? The cohesion of frith-garths, or of any kind and size of groups, fundamentally depends on ‘defining who we are’, what our basic values and identifiers are, that bring us together as a group. In the process of doing that, it’s tempting to think that whatever ‘who we are’ consists of, it’s better in some way than ‘who we are not’. This in turn sets up a dynamic that leads to unfrith toward outsiders. Group dynamics can lead to us making the definition of ‘who we are’ tighter and tighter, and to the ones who get to define ‘who we are’ becoming a smaller and more authoritarian subset of the group.
All of this arises from devaluing ‘who we are not’, not wanting to be ‘like them’, whatever that involves. In order to defend against becoming ‘like those others, not-us’, the group is willing to compromise in-group frith and out-group frith, and become rigidified. To counteract this dynamic, it’s necessary to shift our attitude toward ‘differences’, and the only way to do that is to do two things: seek a true, respectful, and nonjudgmental understanding of those differences, and allow that to lead us toward not fearing those differences, or fearing them less.
This whole dynamic of ‘differences’ is rooted in fear: a powerful, primal emotion that can overwhelm all other considerations when it takes over. ‘Distrusting those who are different from us,’ and distinguishing between ‘us’ and ‘not-us’ (whatever cues we use to make this distinction), are instinctive survival strategies, present in animals as well as humans. Changing such instinctive behavior is truly difficult for all of us; we are working against our instincts and evolutionary behavior, working against certain strong group dynamics, going against peer pressure, going out on a limb, struggling with contradictory values and viewpoints. This is so difficult, involves so much work, and is so threatening to our internal equilibrium, that many don’t feel like even dealing with it, and would rather stick with the status quo.
So, if we take the challenge, then we seek to understand the different ‘others’ and where they are coming from, and we seek to reduce our fear of what they represent. And we hope and encourage those who are different from us to take the same approach toward us. But there is yet another big pitfall here that many of us fall into: we mistake “understanding the ways and reasons that others are different from us” to mean “trying to erase or deny differences between us.” The people whose different values and identities are thus being erased or denied by well-meaning frith-ambassadors understandably feel that they themselves are being personally rejected and even threatened.
The message that is being sent (by both / all sides) is often along the lines of: “I ‘understand’ where you’re coming from, and you’re forgiven for that, but really once you understand where I’m coming from, you’ll see the light and never look back.” This is not true, nonjudgmental understanding at all, and neither is it ‘respect’. It is an attitude of superiority and an effort to manipulate people, however well-intended it is. It’s the ‘missionary approach’, which missionaries (religious and secular) very sincerely believe in, and we can see the impacts of that by looking at the long histories of conversion and colonialism around the world. I think this dynamic explains so many failures of frithweaving. None of us takes well to having our treasured identities, values and beliefs erased, denied, or ‘cancelled’, whatever they are. Fear of having this happen drives a great deal of unfrith, strife and friction on all sides of our society, and leads to people and groups taking defensive and hostile positions against each other.
Differences between people are not going to go away, whether it’s differences of ideas, lifestyles, appearance, physical nature, gender, ability, behavior, beliefs, politics, language, culture, religion, or any other differences. People base their identities on these differences, among other things. They want to be accepted for them, and fear being denied, rejected or erased because of them. This includes every single person on this planet.
Thus, I believe that the frithful way of approaching differences is to respect and acknowledge their existence and the importance they have for others, even when they seem alien or meaningless to us. Even further, even more big-hearted, is to appreciate and even cherish the differences, when at all possible, as being something that adds richness, interest, depth and strength to our society, our culture, our life.
The celebration of many forms of diversity is something that has grown greatly in the last few decades, providing us all with great enrichment. Yet some areas of diversity are still excluded from acceptance by many; in fact, they are not recognized as having ‘diversity-value’, they are regarded as nuisances, crimes, or ‘sins’. During the last few decades, ‘ideas, values, political positions, beliefs’ are among the major differences between people that have been pushed into the area of ‘major crimes and sins’ that ‘the other side is committing against us’, rather than being seen by both / all sides as the kind of diversity that can be recognized and accepted as part of a balanced and flexible society, a diverse social ecosystem, that is trying to step back from an overabundance of group-think and ‘mono-culture’.
We have, and are working on improving, laws and customs that are supposed to keep ‘differences’ from sliding into crime and serious harm toward others, whether physical, psychological, financial, reputation, or other types of harm. We need to keep close watch on how those laws and practices are formulated, enforced, respected, and improved as needed. We also have embedded in our social contract the freedoms that allow differences and allow the expression of those differences. Those too need to be respected, especially with regard to those who disagree with us, whose differences are in the form of ideas, thoughts and attitudes.
For all of us in the modern world, where a deep foundation of frith now lies in loyalty to ideas and ideals, this is a very challenging situation. The very foundation of this new frith, the frith of shared ideals, is challenged when people hold different ideals and inevitably make value judgements between them. Our struggles are similar to those of the past, when, I’m guessing, there were people who recognized that kin-frith and leader-follower frith often contributed to more strife outside the frith-garth than would have occurred without the rules of these frith-garths, but found it difficult to figure out what to do about it. I think that the solution which gradually evolved was indeed what we have now: frith based on ideas and ideals, where it is easier to include more people within the ‘ideals’ frith-garth than it is within kin-garths or oathed war-band garths. But even though this change expands the frith-garth in admirable ways, the dynamics of frith are still operational, its pitfalls and shortcomings as well as its strengths.
Heathen Frith
At its very simplest and most superficial, frith roughly equates to our modern idea of ‘peace’ in the sense of ‘lack of strife.’ At its deepest and most powerful, frith is the very fabric of the social bond itself. A community, however small or large, founded upon frith is not a loosely-tied conglomeration of individuals, but one which is truly functional as a coherent body, brought together by a common set of unifying principles, beliefs, customs and practices.
A core understanding about frith is that it is not ‘strife-free’. Strife can indeed occur between people who are in frith with each other, though there are limits to the severity of expression allowed. Strife is a natural component of existence: consider its linguistic connection to the word “strive,” a word that expresses part of Heathen values. Strife only becomes dangerous when there is no frith, no committed relationship with recognized rules and patterns of behavior, to control and counterbalance it.
Heated discussions and arguments about meaningful things actually support frith, if they are appropriately pursued, because they allow us to share with each other the things that matter most to us. They allow us to be seen as who we really are by our fellow Heathens, and be accepted and respected for who we are, even by those who disagree with us. And we can strive to do the same for others. We keep in mind that our thoughts and opinions are important to each of us, but so is the frith, the social bond we share. This bond is shallow, unless we share our deeper selves with each other, the deep thoughts of our Hugr-souls, even in the face of disagreement.
In summary, the woven fabric of frith is the foundation of all human relationships, of cooperative endeavors, and of society as a whole. It is essential for human wellbeing. All systems of ethics, laws, courtesy, diplomacy, customs, proper behavior and the like, are designed to support frith in some form. Frith nevertheless has its pitfalls; it can be both supported, and undermined, by group dynamics. My purpose in this article is not to provide any magical solutions (I wish it were that easy!), but to emphasize the importance of being aware of the powerful dynamics of frith, both positive and negative. Only by full awareness can we thoughtfully shape our own attitudes, behavior, words and deeds, and thus make a welcoming, respectful, frithful space for others to join us in the creation of true and stable frith-garths that bless this world of Midgard.
My work of mind and heart in this article is faithfully dedicated to Frigg and to Frey, promoters of deep frith, and to Vør, Goddess of Awareness, whose gifts are essential for living a life that truly expresses our values. Note that much of this article was written during the great conflicts that occurred in the USA during the summer and fall of 2020, and the winter of 2020-21.
Bookhoard
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. G.N. Garmonsway, translator. London, England: Everyman’s Library, 1972.
Davidson, Hilda Ellis. The Lost Beliefs of Modern Europe. New York: Routledge, 1993.
Eyrbyggja Saga. Hermann Palsson and Paul Edwards, translators, London, England: Penguin Books,1989.
Griffiths, Bill. An Introduction to Early English Law. Norfolk, England: Anglo-Saxon Books, 1995.
Griffiths, Bill. The Battle of Maldon. Middlesex, England: Anglo-Saxon Books, 1991.
Grønbech, Vilhelm. The Culture of the Teutons. Transl. Humphrey Milford. London, England: Oxford University Press, 1931.
Linsell, Tony. Anglo-Saxon Mythology, Migration and Magic. Middlesex, England: Anglo-Saxon Books, 1994.
Russell, James C. The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation. New York: Oxford University Press,1994.
An earlier version of this article was first published in Idunna: A Journal of Inclusive Heathenry, #125, Summer-Fall 2021, and also in my book Oaths, Shild, Frith, Luck & Wyrd. This article builds on several of my previous articles about Frith, published over more than two decades. Updated with the addition of the section on Frithguilds, May 2023, which was included in earlier writings on frith, but not in this more recent one, until now.