Philosophical mutterings
When I was a young girl I had a teacher who urged me to study economics. Despite having a high regard for this teacher, I couldn't, because, as I told him "I can't get past the fact that it's all made up. It's a gang of people persuading each other what things are worth and the world falling into line with their valuations."
I still believe that, which is why I sometimes find myself wondering what the hell I am doing playing SCA.
I should preface the following with the facts that I genuinely enjoy much of the SCA. I find the skills fascinating, I love and like many people that I would never have met outside the game, I find value in the ethos of supporting the weak and demanding justice from the strong, I am grateful for everything I have learned and understood, from handstitching to John Dowland, from Elizabethan politics to English war techniques of the 14th century.
But I keep hitting a philosophical wall.
Are we a society (and I mean a group of people bound by common purpose) or are we a club?
Either we are a society bound by common values based on chivalry and courtly grace and common directions based on historic research, or we're a club of nutters playing who has the best frock or fastest stick.
And I find that, to me, the difference is crucial.
The former gives you all the things I love in the SCA. It gives you Rowan and Mouse sitting down with a newbie and explaining how frocks go together. It gives you Elfinn and Muirghein passing snacks to the broken girl napping behind the table. It gives you Gabrielle and Marguerite miming how different pleats fall and then providing lists of where to use each. It gives you AEdward giving all his fighter auction opponents best of three bouts. It gives you Batholomew and Katherine housing strangers and friends with equal warmth. It gives you Cornelius standing with a hose on his friend's roof against an oncoming fire. It gives you Bethan turning a ragtag crew of singers into a crack team of harmonists. It gives you Sara standing feeding her perfectly dressed baby while behind her Rodrigo sits on a hand-wrought stool stirring pottage in one of Alex's cooking pots. It gives you Tycho who points out fighting tips to young men while chopping carrots with a knife he wrought himself. It gives you Anton and Katherine debating transliterations and translations of Plato in the wee small hours.
These things capture the imagination; they give impetus to working well at one's own crafts, from garb to politics. They give meaning to status; if a Duchess's interest or thanks is given weight by people like this, then being a Duchess has worth in itself. At the same time these people and their acts (and many others, too) provide goals: if I work hard, I wil be like them; if I act in a lesser way, I will disappoint them, so I should not.
In a society without gods or mystic wonders, this secular grace stands as a way of directing purpose and the encouragement of the gracious becomes a sign of favour. It is our most authentically medieval artefact; the support of the ranking and powerful having real import.
On the other hand, the club model leads to all the things I truly hate. This is is the model that rewards the sport and boy scout badge approach, whose proponents claim that it is supporting meritocracy, but who really construct a group that values our least democratic elements.
Here winning is the mark of the great tournament fighter. Noblesse comes with entitlement, not oblige. Rank commands respect, and does not see fit to earn it. Skills and resources are used as a mark of superiority, not seen as a resource to teach and share. Power becomes a way of ensuring personal success, rather than a duty to work for the whole.
I was reminded of all these things sharply over the last two months. At Festival I had a number of discussions with some fairly fabulous new young people. Regular questions included why some peers were good and others obnoxious; I could only prevaricate when it came to named culprits and suggest that there may be other issues in their lives. But as a general rule, it was determined by the SCA model they worked to, with those who saw their peerage as a well-deserved 'win' being generally ghastly, while those who saw it as a duty (while still being able to be happy about it, of course) being generally good.
Then at Crown I met up with two fighters who were there because they disagreed with everything about the current system. One of them still believed in the worth of his consort and was fighting for her. The other was fighting for himself. Both lost, but they reminded me of other SCA kings in other times who had looked to the throne as some kind of personal vindication. And I did not like the thought of that style Crown at the head of a Kingdom I helped build.
Because there is enough of that in the mundane world, where we have substituted a warped idea of merit for things of actual worth.
And the reason for all of this weighing on me? I am not at all sure that my way of thinking is the majority way.
And if it's not, then I should let people have their style of fun and go back to theatre, where I can now add costume to my list of credentials.
I still believe that, which is why I sometimes find myself wondering what the hell I am doing playing SCA.
I should preface the following with the facts that I genuinely enjoy much of the SCA. I find the skills fascinating, I love and like many people that I would never have met outside the game, I find value in the ethos of supporting the weak and demanding justice from the strong, I am grateful for everything I have learned and understood, from handstitching to John Dowland, from Elizabethan politics to English war techniques of the 14th century.
But I keep hitting a philosophical wall.
Are we a society (and I mean a group of people bound by common purpose) or are we a club?
Either we are a society bound by common values based on chivalry and courtly grace and common directions based on historic research, or we're a club of nutters playing who has the best frock or fastest stick.
And I find that, to me, the difference is crucial.
The former gives you all the things I love in the SCA. It gives you Rowan and Mouse sitting down with a newbie and explaining how frocks go together. It gives you Elfinn and Muirghein passing snacks to the broken girl napping behind the table. It gives you Gabrielle and Marguerite miming how different pleats fall and then providing lists of where to use each. It gives you AEdward giving all his fighter auction opponents best of three bouts. It gives you Batholomew and Katherine housing strangers and friends with equal warmth. It gives you Cornelius standing with a hose on his friend's roof against an oncoming fire. It gives you Bethan turning a ragtag crew of singers into a crack team of harmonists. It gives you Sara standing feeding her perfectly dressed baby while behind her Rodrigo sits on a hand-wrought stool stirring pottage in one of Alex's cooking pots. It gives you Tycho who points out fighting tips to young men while chopping carrots with a knife he wrought himself. It gives you Anton and Katherine debating transliterations and translations of Plato in the wee small hours.
These things capture the imagination; they give impetus to working well at one's own crafts, from garb to politics. They give meaning to status; if a Duchess's interest or thanks is given weight by people like this, then being a Duchess has worth in itself. At the same time these people and their acts (and many others, too) provide goals: if I work hard, I wil be like them; if I act in a lesser way, I will disappoint them, so I should not.
In a society without gods or mystic wonders, this secular grace stands as a way of directing purpose and the encouragement of the gracious becomes a sign of favour. It is our most authentically medieval artefact; the support of the ranking and powerful having real import.
On the other hand, the club model leads to all the things I truly hate. This is is the model that rewards the sport and boy scout badge approach, whose proponents claim that it is supporting meritocracy, but who really construct a group that values our least democratic elements.
Here winning is the mark of the great tournament fighter. Noblesse comes with entitlement, not oblige. Rank commands respect, and does not see fit to earn it. Skills and resources are used as a mark of superiority, not seen as a resource to teach and share. Power becomes a way of ensuring personal success, rather than a duty to work for the whole.
I was reminded of all these things sharply over the last two months. At Festival I had a number of discussions with some fairly fabulous new young people. Regular questions included why some peers were good and others obnoxious; I could only prevaricate when it came to named culprits and suggest that there may be other issues in their lives. But as a general rule, it was determined by the SCA model they worked to, with those who saw their peerage as a well-deserved 'win' being generally ghastly, while those who saw it as a duty (while still being able to be happy about it, of course) being generally good.
Then at Crown I met up with two fighters who were there because they disagreed with everything about the current system. One of them still believed in the worth of his consort and was fighting for her. The other was fighting for himself. Both lost, but they reminded me of other SCA kings in other times who had looked to the throne as some kind of personal vindication. And I did not like the thought of that style Crown at the head of a Kingdom I helped build.
Because there is enough of that in the mundane world, where we have substituted a warped idea of merit for things of actual worth.
And the reason for all of this weighing on me? I am not at all sure that my way of thinking is the majority way.
And if it's not, then I should let people have their style of fun and go back to theatre, where I can now add costume to my list of credentials.
posted by Miss D at 3:14 pm
16 Comments:
Here's what I think, and it won't have the quality of your comments so I'll try to reduce the quantity to match.
The SCA-as-club is the canvas. Without it we don't have the structure on which everything else sits. It's the club that keeps the regnum ticking over with new officers and gives the newcomers something to schedule for their free time. It's the baseline.
The SCA-as-Society is what happens when the baseline is working. It's like the way a lump of meat inside a skull can suddenly compose Mozart's Requiem or Leary's Asshole; it's an emergent phenomenon.
I don't think the Society aspect will ever go away, but we do need to do more to promote it. I'm on the watch now for the people I call the Lord McGees, who are the anti-Dream as far as I'm concerned. We need to stamp them out -- and yes, some of them are peers, which sucks.
The price of yada yada yada is eternal vigilance, etc etc ad infinitum.
I had something intelligent and articulate to say, but I like eric tf bat's answer better.
Still it was a beautiful post.
I have only been in the SCA only a short period of time compared to yourself. While I have been coming along to events I have met people who will only do what they need to, to gain rank or prestige but I have met more people who help out where they can simply because they see a need.
To me the people who are in it just for themselves seem to be the 'minority' and the people who are willing to help out just because they see a need for their time and knowledge are in the 'majority'.
I did have a lot more to say but as javaira said "I like eric tf bat's answer better'.
I'm terribly sorry that recent events have left you feeling particularly disillusioned with the Society. Whilst I have been privy to (and yes, foolishly part of, for which I am ALSO heartily sorry) some of the nastiness of which you speak, I have honestly found the Society to, by and large, be a beacon on the hills.
I look at membership in the SCA as a kind of yardstick measurement: in more than 90% of the cases of people I've met as part of the Society, both here and overseas, they have been the first, best sort of people you describe. They inspire me, they make ME want to be a better person, and feel like a better person, simply for being around them. Art & Blayney have been doing that down here for years. Art in particularly, and Eadie and Killian have been simply MARVELLOUS over the past few difficult months of my life. In Thamesreach, Alaric, Nerissa, Genevieve and Robert were very much part of what kept me going at the end, the constant contact, the inspiration and encouragement, the reminder that there were things I loved, and that there were truly wonderful people who wanted to share their love of those same things with me.
I love that SCA members tend to be generous, kind, compassionate people, yourself included, and if you're recruiting for "Yolande's Army" (or perhaps 'Take Back The Knight'?) I'm here, and ready to screenprint t-shirts for us all. ;)
People are apes. (other people would say 'people are people', but I'm with the Librarian here.) What this means is that in any group of people, whatever the group does, some of us will operate according to our brains, and some of us will operate according to ape heirachy rules, which is easier than using our brains. Regrettably, none of us can say we don't mix and match these systems.
Many of the things that break the SCA (or any other medievalist, or for that matter, human, group I've been in) are people who don't understand when they're operating as apes, and when they're not. So when ape status/reward/power games are being played with either the SCA Dream, _or_ the SCA Club, or both, things break.
I don't play much of the SCA Dream, or the SCA Club, any more, specifically because I've seen people break things because they applied aspects of the Dream to the running of the Club, when they should not have done. The results you know, and thats why I don't do fealty.
What's left? Making stuff and personal contacts. That's a bit bleak, but it keeps me saner than I otherwise would.
That and I'm such a naturally lazy sod with respect to paperwork that I should not be let near either of the organisational bits of Dream or Club.
All the cool people you describe doing cool stuff would still be cool people doing cool stuff were they outside the SCA. I still play the SCA simply because it gives me a higher incidence of cool people doing cool stuff that I like.
ARGH! He said Dream! I'm allergic to The Dream! And even if I could live with the Dream part, the The part has to go!
It's not about The Dream, I'm actually OK with the SCA being a bunch of period fascists, or being a bunch of friends who drink too much but are thoughtful to each other and those around them while wearing silly frocks, and every iteration in between. And The Dream does nothing for the political good of the society, which is one of my major concerns.
But I think that both Bat and Vikes are partially using The Dream as a shorthand for the civility of community that I am looking to, and the community of purpose that I used to have more of a sense of.
Of course, I used to have more of a sense of that in the normal world, too.
Aphie, there is no way on earth that you are a part of the bundle of people who piss me off. You're part of the good, especially because you laugh at my why my boyfriend is hung like a pony gags.
Er, that may be oversharing for the rest of you ...
I think that on a basic level, I do keep playing for the same reason as Mr Viking, but I think, too, that I like Bat's direction of thought. I would finesse it a little, though. I think that SCA-as-club gives us numbers. The best structural policy has always come about when we are being run by people who look to creating something that is a worthy thing in itself, rather than to big-noting themselves for taking on the responsibilities.
Which of cause brings us back to Master Viking, and I start to wonder if there is a simpler breakdown for what I'm feeling with regards to the whole game:
Is it just that I like the parts of the SCA that function as artistry (whether that be political, artefact-based, physical or social artistry) and am utterly peeved by the parts that function as philistines?
BTW, Aphie: Take back the Knight? Genius!
I also like what the fruitbat has said. Being a recent arrival and experiencing generally good stuff, I cannot philosophise if there is a difference of feeling - maybe it has to do with length of time in SCA??, size of group and its cohesiveness or nice (which is usually something to avoided - the word not the meaning),nasty or naughty peerage - I have only seen or met nice..or lovely and timegiving..
too late in the night for me - brain fried..any sense come out of all that wah-wah??
Er, of cause should of course be of course... damn that aphasic brain of mine!
And Aminah and Aphie are both right in that there are an awful lot of brilliant people. I just need to detox a bit from the crappy bits.
I think I'll work on my Canty Faire III post next, that's mostly cheerful ...
I don't think that society and club are mutually exclusive.
Tom Lehrer once said "Life is like a sewer... what you get out of it depends on what you put into it."
I think the SCA is the same, it is what we each make of it for ourselves. This is why I think households are so important, they give us a society-within-the-club in which we can surround ourselves with the kind of people who share our idea of what the SCA should be and a place in which we can take refuge from the crappy bits and just spend some time doin' medieval shit for fun.
People like Rowan and Mouse and Elfinn and Muirghein and you and AEdward and Art and Blayney and Llewelyn and Ulf and Alys and Marienna and Asbjorn and many others make the society we place so much value in. The fact that there are ETFB's "Lord McGees" at large in the club doesn't diminish that. It might make events irritating as hell sometimes, but it doesn't diminish the society that people have created out of themeselves.
Having personally got this wrong putting together paperwork for the SCA-as-club, I think an appropriate level of minimalism is a really important, especially when it comes to the club trying to legislate the society.
You can't prescribe the actions of a society without resort to force (though sadly Fox news seems to be an all too-effective alternative). People will do what they will, as they will, and all I think we can do is behave as best we can and be there to try and pick up the pieces left behind by the people who are either oblivious or uncaring about the damage they cause.
The problem with any attempt to exclude the dickheads is the question of who gets to decide who's a dickead and I quite like the fact that the SCA-as-club, over here at least, isn't trying to do that.
It means there are people at events I'd really rather weren't there, and it probably means there are people at events who would really rather I weren't there, but I'm Ok with that because the alternative is a whole lot worse and well, theatre never really did it for me.
I've been thinking about this side of things for a while myself. Now when I started playing back in uni, the stuff that interested me was the stuff I could get into right away, which just so happened to be the sports side of things (go rapier!). Now I also had a interest in history, but I knew next to nothing.
Over time I learnt more about the SCA, and what the SCA means and stands for. It was (and is) so much more than a sports club, that is just one very small aspect of what we do.
We are (at least imo) more than a history club, more than a scout group, more than any sporting club in australia (or anywhere for that matter) because a) you choose your own level on involvment, and b) you can choose which aspect you look into.
Now not everyone looks at things the same way (and if they did it would be very boring), some launch themselves in head first and fully immerse themselves in the SCA experience.
There is one other big stumbling block that a lot of people forget about. REAL LIFE COMES FIRST!
If someone is having a bad week, what sort of reaction do you expect!
There are a lot of wonderful people in the SCA and there are a handful of people who are pricks. Just like there are in the real world.
The best way to deal with pricks is the same way you deal with everyone else, uphold what you think the SCA stands for.
I started to post a comment, but it became a bit long, so I've posted on Ant Country instead.
I would comment except: the ant queen put it better; it will get very long; I'm at work.
In short Miss D: you are not in the minority, please don't go back to the theatre (at least not without taking me with you), these things/people are annoying.
I sometimes feel I give the impression that I am more "club" than "society". I blame the frequent attacks of life I have. Such is life - this is mine.
Mainly, what Bat said. But also these three words:
Get. More. Sleep.
It's not that your analysis is wrong -- it's just that I reckon you still haven't quite caught up on the sleep lost that night after CF. Hence the through-a-glass-darkly filter is in effect.
I have some thoughts about this, because I've spent some time (probably too much time) thinking about similar stuff. But I would rather spend some time talking with you over coffee.
For now, I'll just say "Keep it real" and leave it at that.
This is going to sound odd, but maybe you need the equivalent of a Church or a cult of courtly love in your game. Something that works to moderate the winner-takes-all aspects of the warrior ethos and makes a big deal of the seven acts of charity/caritas (still a worthy set of things to do) and forms of renown which value mercy, measure and gentilesse.
(Yes, I know the Church did other things as well: it's a club and a society too, and through the ages there have been people who felt about the Church much as it seems you're currently feeling about your game.)
I'm reminded that the ancient queenly role of peace-weaver and civilising influence wasn't always an easy one.
"I can't get past the fact that it's all made up. It's a gang of people persuading each other what things are worth and the world falling into line with their valuations."
That would make it a social system then :)
Are we a society (and I mean a group of people bound by common purpose) or are we a club?
If there are rules of entry and exit, then we are a club (people engaged in activities based around an excludable public good).
And Oakeshott would say that what differentiates a society from an organisation is that a society does not have common purposes and where politics goes wrong is acting as if it does. But he meant "society" in a rather more all encompassing sense :)
But your basic question is an excellent one. Are we in the SCA bound by the good things people can do, or the bad things? What is the balance between these things? Can we make it better?
Which is, of course, as most such things are, a dividing line within people even more than between them. So what can you do? Encourage the good and discourage the bad: all else is trying to be clever about it.
Which the eloquence of your post is :)
PS I have (belatedly!) friended you so now you can read my locked posts--I thought I already had, bad me.
Post a Comment
<< Home