Archeopolitical practice is only currently possible by intentionally disregarding social hegemonies of behaviour and in this way is a ‘dangerous practice’ in the sense that there are no stipulated rules. However, most practitioners agree that whilst freedom and exploration form the key concerns in the creation of the Archeopolitical encounter, co-responsibility and co-empathy and individual agency underpin the openness of the encounter.
Archeopolis is mycorrhizal in structure and normally located in the unconscious and conscious however, manifested through Thaumaturge, Archeopolis can inhabit physical reality, embodied in the space, actions and words of the manifesting Traumaturg engaged with any participating Habitué. Directed by their personal experience of the Archeopolis manifesting in their desires, fears and fantasies, the Traumaturg becomes a conduit through which the Habitué and themselves can directly experience the Archeopolis.
It would be wrong to consider the Traumaturg / Habitué relationship as being hierarchical in any sense and instead they should be perceived as co-contributors to the manifested experience of Archeopolis. One of the key principles of Archeopolitical practice is the de-authorisation of the Traumaturg role within the manifested experience. Certainly it is the Traumaturg that instigates the Archeopolitical encounter and it is their introspectivity that is the initial point of engagement. The underlying philosophy is that overtime, Habitués will instigate their own encounters and therefore take on the role of Traumaturg. Most Archeopolitical practitioners will not acknowledge any distinction between the two roles within the manifestation.
There is no specific aesthetic associated with Archeopolis except to say that the approaches and personalities of the traumaturgs often reference archetypal aesthetics in their manifestations. Certainly, the symbology of dreams occurs in many Archeopolitical encounters. Relationships are often orientated around archetypal roles, the servant, the master, the teacher, the counsellor, the bride, are all adopted as part of the manifested relationship. It should be noted that the inference of power inherent in some of the adopted roles is secondary to the equality of the meta-roles of the traumaturg and the habitué. The equality of understanding inherent in the Archeopolitical relationship allows the participants to explore hierarchical relationship structures in a manner that means allows the participants to return to a point of equality at the end of the manifestation. Some practitioners integrate a directed post-liminal phase into the process as a means of allowing space for discussion of the acquired knowledge gained from the Archeopolitical manifestation.