On Source and Sourcekeeping
A Woven Fragment from a lived inquiry in the Matriarch’s current...
This post is sourced by Christiane Seuhs-Schoeller 🪶
The Sourcekeepers Guild will occasionally feature essays, poems, art, music, and research from sourcekeepers across the metamodern network 🐝
We do so in the spirit of an emerging online magazine, in service to culture-building Sacred World ❤️🔥
Written by Christiane Seuhs-Schoeller
I’m offering this as a woven fragment. It arises from years of experience, from many others’ inquiries, and from my own path of listening. Lately, that listening has been shaped by the Matriarch’s current—an archetypal presence inviting me to embody what she carries, and to let that life move through me. My hope is that it can contribute to the resonant field between us, where Source can be encountered as a living stream we can accompany and be accompanied by.
Source: Beyond Role, Beyond Self
Source, in its deepest register, is a relationship—a fidelity to what is seeking to become through and among us. To engage with Source is to attune to an originating impulse that doesn’t belong to us yet calls for our unique care.
Unlike conventional leadership frameworks that center vision, clarity, or control, in this perspective Sourcekeeping invites a quality of listening that precedes articulation. Source does not demand to be defined. It asks to be kept company. It invites us into coherence with that which is emerging through deep attunement to life.
To be a Sourcekeeper is to carry this impulse without owning it. It means living with the question of what wants to be born—not for me, but through us.
Hooks of Modernity
Without feeling the need to anchor my musings in any particular framework, be it “metamodern”, “integral”, etc., I have recently felt very drawn to and inspired by Vanessa Machado de Oliveira’s work (Hospicing Modernity, Overcoming Modernity, Burnout from Humanity, Meta-Relationality, and many of her lectures and podcast), specifically her questions and inquiries about how we may be complicit with holding the systems and patterns of modernity in place.
Here are a few potential “Hooks of Modernity” that I would love to further explore in our field:
Leadership-as-identity: Since I heard about the Source principle, first of course through Peter Koenig’s work many years ago, I felt, and still feel, a lingering unease with the pull to make Source a personal brand or role to inhabit. My concern is the potential (and also perceived) way of translating it so that it aligns with the power-over patterns of modernity. This also leads me to the second point.
Heroic narratives: Lately I have been both part of and witness to a process that feels like a good example of what I mean by “heroic narrative”. It was part of the process of a newly forming collective. The inquiry to find more clarity about what the role/vision/purpose (whatever term you want to use) of the collective is, had taken quite some time and for me and some others it felt exactly like what is needed – time for emergence. Eventually, for some the uncertainty became too difficult to be with and hold, and the call for clarifying the question about “Who is the Source here?” led to discussions, which soon didn’t feel like emergent and generative dialogue anymore. To me it felt more like the need to implement the concept of Source to help the collective step out of the uncertainty, inviting a framing of the Source as a lone originator or genius—what I call the “heroic narrative”. Not surprisingly in that context, nobody felt comfortable to either name someone or be named, let alone step into such a “role”. The process is still unfolding, and I am curious what we all will learn from it. This experience also points towards the next potential “hook” I am curious about.
Scarcity framing: The concept that there can only be one Source, or sometimes even that the Source energy is limited, reminds me of the scarcity mindset that is so prevalent in modernity. It triggers a sense of unease in me not only because of the general topic of the scarcity mindset, but also because I clearly can feel that hook within myself, which to me is quite unsettling.
Linear causality: I am curious to explore an impression the I have also sometimes had when following the conversation and that is an underlying assumption that somewhat in a linear cause and effect way, Source precedes everything else and must be protected or obeyed.
Sourcekeeping as a Relational Praxis
If Source is an impulse, Sourcekeeping is a relational discipline. It is not a solo endeavor. The field that surrounds the Source impulse is not secondary; it is constitutive. Sourcekeeping is kept alive not only by the one who bears the first glimpse, but by those who surround, echo, question, challenge, and extend the impulse.
In this view, Sourcekeeping is:
A practice of coherence, inviting us to stay close to the pulse of emergence.
A field phenomenon that is co-held across roles and bodies, not managed by one.
A sacred responsibility, because it is alive.
This shifts our attention from ownership to custodianship. From execution to tending. From outcome to ongoing unfolding.
Collective Impulse, Singular Responsibility?
Tensions naturally arise. What happens when one person begins to carry the impulse more clearly than others? What if their clarity is needed—but so is the surrounding field? What if divergence appears between the impulse and its interpretation?
Meta-relationally, we do not resolve these tensions—we compost them. We learn to sit with the edge between clarity and co-creation. We invite feedback not as resistance to Source, but as nourishment for it.
This requires maturity, both in the Sourcekeeper and the surrounding field. It asks for:
-Language that allows for incompleteness.
-Structures that allow for rhythm, not rigidity.
-Companions who tend to Source, not to the Sourcekeeper.
Power: From Force to Fertility
The Source impulse is powerful—not in the sense of control, but of generativity. To be attuned to Source offers no room for dominance patterns and invites the process of midwifing. To let something ancient and future move through us, even if it undoes our identities, structures, or plans.
This is where Sourcekeeping departs from the heroic. It is not about having the answers. It is about stewarding the questions that will outlive us.
Source and the Unknown
Perhaps most radically, meta-relational Sourcekeeping is a surrender. A willingness to dwell in the unknown with integrity. To resist the urge to translate everything into outcomes. To be available to that which cannot yet be named.
In this way, Source is not a principle to be applied, but a life pattern—emergent processes that Sourcekeepers sense through being present, curious, and humble. It’s a current to walk with, hands open, heart cracked, timing unforced.
What does it mean to follow Source in this way? To let go of protection and projection? To be shaped in the keeping, and to let ourselves be kept?
These are the questions this piece does not answer. They are the ones we can carry forward—together.
This piece was shaped by the voices of many—living and ancestral, written and spoken. May it be met as an invitation, not a conclusion.
Follow Christiane Seuhs-Schoeller to learn more about The Matriarch’s Tour.
Read Christiane’s latest essays via What Is Emerging and on Conscious Collaboration.
