Significators

[katrinka]

I noticed in one of the exchange threads that there seems to be some uncertainty about significators in line spreads. (They're doing 3 cards over there, but this would also apply to lines of five, seven, etc.)

Normally I don't preselect the Significator and put it in between the other two cards since I find that limiting. You certainly can if you want to, but I prefer having the whole deck available for the draw. It's possible the cards will talk about a situation that requires all three cards, or one that puts the Significator first or last, not in the middle. It would be very difficult to ascertain that the company you work for is cooking the books, or your cat needs to be checked by a vet promptly, without having all three cards describing the situation. With your card sitting in the middle, the spread is about you and you might miss something important.

And every card is some kind of significator. If you were reading a GT, for instance, you'd look at the cards around the Fish to see what's impacting your cash flow. For a health reading, the Tree. And so on. Every card signifies something.

None of this is intended as a rule for the exchange threads, it's just something that's served me well over the years.

[WizardintheWoods]

 Have to say, and not bashing anyone for doing it, I never understood choosing and placing the Significator in spreads. It seems to me if your focus and concentration is clear when shuffling you should already have the issue well in hand to be able to use, as Katrinka said, all the cards then in play. My 2 cents for what it’s worth. 
 

[joy]

So if I read for a woman and I do a 3-line reading the cards pulled are:

Tower - Lady - Bouqet

 

So the Lady just appeared in the middle, like where one could have the significator. Does this become now more significant?

[Guest]

If left in the pack, the appearance is about impact and involvement in relation to context (i.e. the question at hand).

As she appeared, she is either involved and/or strongly impacted by what is to come.

Whether to place any significator or not depends on what you are looking for.

It does limit - at the same time, it has its uses when you are looking for specific content (ring, fishes, etc.).

Doing both certainly helps to familiarize yourself with your cards.

 

[DanielJUK]

thanks for clarifying this @katrinka because it's been a hot debate in both my circles so far 🙂

it seems a shame to lose a position to a significator in the smaller spreads laid out. But I am always looking for related cards to the matter at hand in the reading.

So I had started to do this approach.

 

I find it useful to ask the other person with which significator do they see themselves, in case it's not Gentleman or Lady and then see if that appears in the spread. I don't always want to be represented by Gentleman as a Non-binary person. and my sitter might have another card they represent themselves with. I want to know to look out if it is in the reading but I wouldn't use it other than that.

[katrinka]

Yes. I agree the Significator should be chosen according to gender rather than sex at birth!
But even that is limiting if the person identifies as non-binary. With a deck like the Green Glyphs, you get a non-binary card. With the others, it's useful if the deck includes a blank card. (That's perfectly traditional, the Livre du Destin contains a blank Significator, IIRC.) Otherwise, one of the other people cards would have to be put to use.

[katrinka]

6 hours ago, joy said:

So if I read for a woman and I do a 3-line reading the cards pulled are:

Tower - Lady - Bouqet

 

So the Lady just appeared in the middle, like where one could have the significator. Does this become now more significant?

I think it does, in the sense that it's more significant than if you had preselected her and put her there. The cards did that "on their own."
But in another way, no, no more significant than if you'd gotten a different card in the middle. Any cards you get are important.

[Guest]

Over time the role and utilisation of significator cards do seem to throw people.  

As @katrinka stated, each picture could be used as a significator (Ring for a contract or the Book for a kindle) .  Often these are referred to as master, topic or theme cards to differentiate them from the Child, the Lady and the Gentleman cards.  
 

We use master cards as markers to identify cards to be read.  For example, one would consider the Ring (and the Heart and Anchor) to analyse a relationship's outlook in a GT.  Other spreads using master cards are the four aces, dame's nowl and the lost man.

In these readings, the significator is passive. 

 

Lines, squares and stars and so on do not generally require master cards.  All cards are active.  
 

Consequently, if one happens to appear, it is not treated as a master card and will be read according to its essence.  
 

So, if you do a line of three or Basil Ivan Rakczi's coven of thirteen spread, on work, and you see the Fox or Anchor (or whatever card you prefer), you do not read it as work. It is not functioning as a master card.  It takes its essence. 

Similarly, the Gentleman or Lady’s appearance or absence tells you if the Querent is a passive bystander  (absent) or active (player).  

 

The difference between cards 28 and 29 and the master cards is that Gentleman and the Lady are men and women at their core.  The master cards are chosen based on a perceived analogy. 
 

There are spreads when I remove the Gentleman and Lady cards: the French Cross, the Wheel (Mary Marco), couples spread, and the astrological wheel (it goes in the first house as card 1 of 3).  

Edited July 14, 2021 by Guest

[joy]

15 hours ago, katrinka said:

I think it does, in the sense that it's more significant than if you had preselected her and put her there. The cards did that "on their own."
But in another way, no, no more significant than if you'd gotten a different card in the middle. Any cards you get are important.

Right understood. So it still does make sense to ask the sitter as who they see themselves?

[joy]

1 hour ago, timtoldrum said:

Over time the role and utilisation of significator cards do seem to throw people.  

As @katrinka stated, each picture could be used as a significator (Ring for a contract or the Book for a kindle) .  Often these are referred to as master, topic or theme cards to differentiate them from the Child, the Lady and the Gentleman cards.  
 

We use master cards as markers to identify cards to be read.  For example, one would consider the Ring (and the Heart and Anchor) to analyse a relationship's outlook in a GT.  Other spreads using master cards are the four aces, dame's nowl and the lost man.

In these readings, the significator is passive. 

 

Lines, squares and stars and so on do not generally require master cards.  All cards are active.  Consequently, if one happens to appear, it is not treated as a master card and will be read according to its essence.  
 

So, if you do a line of three or Basil Ivan Rakczi's coven of thirteen spread, on work, and you see the Fox or Anchor (or whatever card you prefer), you do not read it as work. It is not functioning as a master card.  It takes its essence. 

Similarly, the Gentleman or Lady’s appearance or absence tells you if the Querent is a passive bystander  (absent) or active (player).  

 

The difference between cards 28 and 29 and the master cards is that Gentleman and the Lady are men and women at their core.  The master cards are chosen based on a perceived analogy. 
 

There are spreads when I remove the Gentleman and Lady cards: the French Cross, the Wheel (Mary Marco), couples spread, and the astrological wheel (it goes in the first house as card 1 of 3).  

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense!

[Guest]

2 hours ago, joy said:

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense!

Just my thoughts.

 

Some of the confusion regarding the role of significators and master cards stem from the early literature.  
 

Mario dos Ventos (Game of Destiny, Feb 2007) did discuss master cards but did not describe their usage. In contrast, Sylvie Steinbach’s (Secrets of the Lenormand Oracle, August 2007) entire “system” is built around the master cards.

 

Consequently, a lot of people assumed that the master cards refer to inherent meanings. But this is not so.  Outside of specific usage —  as an anchor point — these cards do not mean a job or relationship, et cetera.

 

The Child card is sometimes classified as both a significator and master card. I see it as a significator, as it is essentially a child or young person of either gender. 

 

I ask my clients for their gender identity and pronouns. 
 

For non-binary clients, I use the Child. However, some non-binary and gender-queer querents, do select either the Gentleman or Lady. It is whatever feels right to them.

 

Unfortunately, the debate around both same-gender relationships and gender-queer significations has been dominated by cis-gender and heterosexual cartomantes. I had a straight cis-gendered reader tell me I was wrong to use the Cavalier as a male partner. 
 

But this is a matter for LGBTQ+ Readers and Querents to lead. 

Edited July 14, 2021 by Guest

[katrinka]

5 hours ago, timtoldrum said:

Unfortunately, the debate around both same-gender relationships and gender-queer significations has been dominated by cis-gender and heterosexual cartomantes. I had a straight cis-gendered reader tell me I was wrong to use the Cavalier as a male partner. 
 

But this is a matter for LGBTQ+ Readers and Querents to lead. 

This. Self-determination. It's not for anyone to impose rules on another group from the outside.
Occasionally, mistakes will be made, and the most graceful way for a cis person to deal with that is to apologize and move on rather than digging one's heels in.

It's telling that the debate is even happening. LGBTQ+ make up a good percentage of card readers. I think some of the others are being too strident in a misguided attempt to attain Grand Poobah status.

[euripides]

1 hour ago, katrinka said:

 

It's telling that the debate is even happening.

I'm astounded that there's a debate. To me the querent chooses the significator they identify best with. And I think that's important both in terms of respecting someone's identity and not making assumptions, and because as a reader that energy is going to impact my response to the cards.  I'm cishet but for me in some decks that will more likely be a 'masculine' card as I simply don't connect to the feminine archetypes.

 

(Though I've only been reading (Tarot) - what, 15 years or so? Cripes, almost 20. So not that long really. And not professionally - so that's very much just my personal take of course).

Edited July 14, 2021 by euripides

[WizardintheWoods]

I can only speak for myself as a gay man who reads cards, I have always given the option to the client to choose between the Male and Female Significator. I will say I now will add Child to that, this discussion opened my eyes to that option, thank you. 

[Guest]

23 hours ago, katrinka said:

This. Self-determination. It's not for anyone to impose rules on another group from the outside.
Occasionally, mistakes will be made, and the most graceful way for a cis person to deal with that is to apologize and move on rather than digging one's heels in.

Yes. That recognition can mean so much.

 

23 hours ago, katrinka said:

It's telling that the debate is even happening. LGBTQ+ make up a good percentage of card readers. I think some of the others are being too strident in a misguided attempt to attain Grand Poobah status.

Over time I have found that the  neotraditionalists are the most vociferous. 
 

However a lot comes down to perspective. Offering readings with an extra Gentleman or Lady card looks inclusive and, therefore, good. But it is tokenism.
 

How many of these extra Gentlemen and Lady cards reverse the suits and numbers?  What do we do for bisexual or pansexual Querents? And do Queer people have no members of the opposite gender in their lives? 

 

21 hours ago, euripides said:

I'm astounded that there's a debate. To me the querent chooses the significator they identify best with. And I think that's important both in terms of respecting someone's identity and not making assumptions, and because as a reader that energy is going to impact my response to the cards.  I'm cishet but for me in some decks that will more likely be a 'masculine' card as I simply don't connect to the feminine archetypes.

This.
 

The cards are a reflection of our life. If we cannot see our own true reflection how can we see anything else? 

 

19 hours ago, WizardintheWoods said:

I can only speak for myself as a gay man who reads cards, I have always given the option to the client to choose between the Male and Female Significator. I will say I now will add Child to that, this discussion opened my eyes to that option, thank you

 

Fantastic.

 

I will say this is a topic that is quite important to me. A lot of people do not realise how offensive it is to deny someone accurate representation. Tradition is never an excuse for erasure.

 

[katrinka]

45 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

However a lot comes down to perspective. Offering readings with an extra Gentleman or Lady card looks inclusive and, therefore, good. But it is tokenism.
 

How many of these extra Gentlemen and Lady cards reverse the suits and numbers?  What do we do for bisexual or pansexual Querents? And do Queer people have no members of the opposite gender in their lives? 

Exactly. There's no thought put into those extra cards, at most they'll flip the images so one Gentleman faces right and the other left - and the same for the Lady. The insets and numbers remain untouched. It reminds me of the term "woke" that gets used in racial contexts, a word that used to be a good thing but now it refers more and more to people who do some little thing and pat themselves on the back, but are actually part of the problem. Wokeness is trendy now, which means at some point it will fall out of favor. Making the effort to understand others' perspectives should be sincere and it certainly shouldn't be a trend.

 

Gender is a spectrum, not a neat little set of "gay" and "straight" boxes that everyone can be sorted into. And yes, some things can be confusing from an outside perspective at times. But ultimately, it's people having human experiences - it's all relatable.

And yes - if one adds the extra Man card to the deck, does one take out the Lady? What about the sitter's mother? A female boss? These cards are someone important at the time of the reading, not necessarily partner cards. LGBTQ+ people certainly existed in the 19th century. And we readers are often privy to things our sitters don't even tell their families. People kept things quiet - they could be jailed - but other than that, I think it must have been the same then, hence Rider, etc. as gay partner cards. 
 

Edited July 15, 2021 by katrinka

[Wyrdkiss]

On 7/12/2021 at 3:29 PM, katrinka said:

I noticed in one of the exchange threads that there seems to be some uncertainty about significators in line spreads. (They're doing 3 cards over there, but this would also apply to lines of five, seven, etc.)

Normally I don't preselect the Significator and put it in between the other two cards since I find that limiting. You certainly can if you want to, but I prefer having the whole deck available for the draw. It's possible the cards will talk about a situation that requires all three cards, or one that puts the Significator first or last, not in the middle. It would be very difficult to ascertain that the company you work for is cooking the books, or your cat needs to be checked by a vet promptly, without having all three cards describing the situation. With your card sitting in the middle, the spread is about you and you might miss something important.

And every card is some kind of significator. If you were reading a GT, for instance, you'd look at the cards around the Fish to see what's impacting your cash flow. For a health reading, the Tree. And so on. Every card signifies something.

None of this is intended as a rule for the exchange threads, it's just something that's served me well over the years.

I'm relatively new to Lenormand, seasoned in Tarot.  I also prefer to be able to draw all cards from the pack. The twist is often relevant. Thanks for the reassurance that there is nothing, "wrong" with this approach. Cheers.

[Marina]

IMHO, in general, the reading (as an event, not only the spread) itself will provide a "significator" one way or another. I'm talking about significator cards for situations here (job, money, contracts etc.), not people.

 

If I ask a specific question, the significator is not useful because I am already saying in my question what the focus is. In fact, in a situation like this, the presence of a natural significator in the spread is very... well, significant in itself. If I ask about a love relationship and get the Heart card, that's communicating something. I don't need to separate the Heart card to mean that I'm focusing on the relationship, the question itself is doing that. 

 

If I do a general forecast reading about my month, then the spread itself will likely provide the significators on which I should focus. Certain cards themselves already signify certain areas in life, so you don't need to pre-assign them to mean such things. You do have to take into consideration the two aspects of the card - the passive (as a significator) and the active (as contingencies or possible developments). Even with playing cards, without even delving into individual card meaning, if I do a forecast and the majority of cards are Diamonds or Spade, I already have an idea of what the focus of the coming month will be, or what I need to be careful about.

 

The only case in which a significator is a must is in a Lost Man Spread. A Lost Man Spread is when you assign a card to signify something, place it back into the deck, shuffle and look for it in the deck. The cards that come right before and after it symbolise the possibilities surrounding the person or the situation. In this case, the spread cannot be done without a significator.

 

But aside from that, I don't really see the purpose of worrying so much about a significator and, I agree with Katrinka, I too prefer to have the whole deck available for the draw.

Edited September 9, 2021 by marinaoracles
typo!