[Mid] Re: "growth" and reformation

Thought I'd stir up a little hornet's nest by forwarding my rant from the
sca-reform list...

(BTW: don't get the impression that I am totally down on the SCA. I am not.
The depth of sincerity, the courtesy and humanity and grace, that I
encounter still occaisionally manages to leave me breathless. I am in awe of
the skills that we continue to develop and improve and add to our
repertoire, and I am still very much in love with our Knowne Worlde.
However, like any long term relationship, the honeymoon must end sometime
and after the first rush - or is that blush? - of love, I have become aware
of my lover's faults. I've ranted like this before; I'll do it again, it
seems to happen every six months, as as set by clockwork. I hope it sparks
some discussion. I'd be interested to hear other opinions.)

>At 12:38 22/01/98 +0200, you wrote:
>
>>> membership has been steadily declining for the last few years. we are now
>at around 23000
>>> members. declining about 1000 members per year every year since 1994.
>
>>If this is true, there is definitively something wrong with the society..
>> ..and there is some serious talking we have to do on this list.

(here's where I jumped in)

>At the risk of incurring comments like "if you don't like something...change
>it yourself!" or "ask yourself what YOU are doing wrong," here are the
>things that have made me distance myself from the SCA in recent years (quite
>apart from mundane concerns like poverty, working two jobs, college courses,
>etc)
>
>1) It's gotten too big. Way too big. When I first joined as a member of the
>Marche of the Thistle, our group had maybe ten or fifteen regulars and then
>about the same number of occaisional attendees. We were a *family.* New
>members were instantly embraced; I hate to use the negative term "love
>bombing," because that makes us sound like a cult, but something like that
>did go on. Furthermore, Thistle was *organized* - instead of just sitting
>around at meetings chatting, and letting guilds decide if or when they
>wanted to meet to do activities, we had regular activities planned. Fight
>practice was always separate, on Sundays; Wednesdays were reserved for
>softer activities. One night per month was always Bardic Circle, one night
>was always Dance Practice. The other two nights were up for grabs but
>regularly had speakers scheduled to give talks on history or A&S topics, or
>we'd do persona work, or hold dessert revels. We were ALWAYS doing
>something. It was always easy for a newbie to get involved fast, and learn
>what the SCA was all about and what we did. Even those of us who couldn't go
>to regular events usually had a lot of fun.
>
>Hardly any of the shires, certainly none of the Baronies, I have ever been
>in recently can say the same thing. Some baronies (Flaming Gryphon, for
>example) are still extraordinarily friendly and active, but this should not be
>extraordinary. This should be the norm. And groups should schedule regular
>activities into their meetings. Even large baronies can schedule bardic
>nights, A&S lectures, and dance practices. Splitting up and "letting the
>guilds and households handle it" encourages cliquishness. Guilds should
>exist because people are in love with an activity and want more time to
>pursue it; not because the guild is the only way to get involved at all. And
>households should be groups of people united by a single purpose or mutual
>love, rather than the only way new members can get to know people and join
>up. It seems that in many large baronies, the household fulfills the
>function that sororities and fraternities fulfill on large university
>campuses. And there is just as much pressure involved in "rushing."
>
>2) Courtesy. Or, Let's remember that this is what separates us from the
>mundanes. I suppose it's a good thing that we are hearing more about things
>like theft and rape and bad behaviour in the SCA, because it means victims
>are not afraid to speak up (I can't believe that there was a golden age when
>"none of this ever happened," because I know of one peer who beat his wife
>regularly, and that happened more than ten years ago, before I even joined.
>I have lots of Jurassic friends who tell me these things.) However. It seems
>like these things are happening more and more often...and not only are they
>criminal, they are NOT NICE.
>
>On a more everyday level, I think we are failing to teach new members
>courtesy rules; and we are failing to remember to be courteous ourselves. I
>have heard people from other historical-reenactment organizations in England
>denounce the SCA as being "too political," "full of backstabbing," "catty,"
>etc. Obviously there is something wrong.
>
>3) Medieval atmosphere is sometimes lacking. People no longer make much
>effort to stay in persona (or stay medieval, for those who have a less
>fleshed-out persona or don't like role-playing) at events. I keep
>overhearing people talking about mundania: computers, work hassles, car
>problems top the list. I performed in a Renaissance fair this summer because
>I wanted to get away from that and into a more medieval environment...and
>fairs are not at all period, most of them are little more than Renaissance
>or medieval theme parks! this is sad. When I joined the SCA we used to make
>an attempt to talk forsoothly; and we tried to avoid mentioning mundania
>when in earshot of other people. I'm not saying we have to make the SCA
>completely like Cariodoc's "Enchanted Ground" (although it certainly
>wouldn't hurt); many people are not able to get that far into persona.
>However, I do wish more people would make an attempt to leave mundania at
>the door (or in the changing room) when they arrive at an event. It doesn't
>mean not talking about family and friends - it just means remembering what
>it is that makes you want to escape mundania in the first place, so that you
>can put it aside for a few hours.
>
>4) Maybe my poverty is a bit of a problem. I think the SCA is too
>middle-class, these days. I can't afford to do much. I also think there is a
>serious double standard that we cling to - people who can afford to spend
>time/money on expensive, ornate, fitted court garb get treated a lot better
>than people who can still only afford variations on a t-tunic. People who
>have nicer garb, etc are seen as being more "committed," more "real
>SCAdians," because they are willing and able to spend more money on the SCA.
>They can also afford to get involved in fighting - I can't. I can't afford
>armour (I can't even afford the materials to make my own, nor do I have the
>time) and heavy weapons is right out. Fencing? (my real love anyway) Forget
>it. It costs MONEY to get a schlager or epee (schlagers are the only legal
>weapon in my kingdom; they appear to be more expensive, alas) plus a mask,
>gauntlets, gorget, doublet, boots, etc. It costs a few hundred pounds if you
>get good stuff that will last. Other activities? DIY brewing, vintning,
>needlework, pottery, stained glass, illumination, etc all require a little
>bit of money for materials. It all keeps adding up. If you do lots of
>activities, you are more "committed" - and look at all the money you have
>spent, too. "Pay to play" covers more than just the ever-increasing fees
>that we shell out each year to get all the publications that tell us, among
>other things, where the events are. Basically, it seems like if you are dirt
>poor (as many students are, as many many SCAdians are...who wouldn't want
>to escape to the Current Middle Ages if their mundane identity was that of
>an office temporary, clerk at a petrol station, etc!) you don't belong
>anymore. I've actually heard "gentles" say, "If you are too poor, you
>probably can't afford the SCA, and you should get a life and a (second) job
>anyway." These "gentles" ought to open their eyes. The SCA used to be at
>least half well-to-do and half struggling; I'd put it closer to 1/3 middle
>class (there don't seem to be any upper class sorts here, at least not in
>significant numbers) and 2/3 working class, student, transient, etc. Most of
>the adult members of my first shire lived in trailer homes or modest
>apartments or old houses. Only one was remotely middle class. these days, I
>do believe there is an actual class struggle going on, with the middle class
>people (many of them formerly impoverished students who are better off than
>they were when they joined ten years ago) struggling to preserve
>"authenticity" and so on in a way that marginalizes people who have little
>or no financial resources.
>
>Bitter? you better believe I am bitter. I am one of those people who has
>never risen above poverty-level wages (when in America, of which country I
>am a citizen, I probably would qualify for welfare except for the fact that
>my state refuses to give aid to the "working poor", and it cuts off aid
>after a short time for the people who aren't even that). Let's just say I
>have a rather interesting bias in this issue, and leave it at that.
>
>5)Awards. Or, popularity contests. Yes, a lot of people get awards who
>richly deserve them. In fact, I think most awards are deserved. However, I
>think most people who deserve awards do not get them, or at least have to
>wait a very long time before they are noticed...and the ones who do get them
>in a timely manner get them because they Know Somebody. And Play The Game
>Right. Okay, I'm bitter and feeling sorry for myself because after ten years
>of teaching classes, serving at events (after eight years of serving, I
>stopped doing it - it got too exhausting), helping clean up after events or
>take a turn in the kitchen, writing poetry and submitting it to A&S
>competitions (ditto research papers), etc I still have not gotten an AOA.
>(And I was told that part of it had to do with the fact that a few years ago
>I would sleep with anybody that moved, which is true, but I don't think it
>ought to disqualify anyone from getting an award...esp if one flatters
>oneself and thinks one is a basically courteous, helpful, chivalrous sort of
>person. You know, I was actually turned down when I tried to volunteer at
>events because I was an embarrassment...I'm ranting. I'll stop now).
>
>My point is that I am far from unique; I don't think I am at all singled
>out. I THINK MY STORY IS TYPICAL.
>
>This is another reason why everybody thinks the SCA is "too politicized." I
>betcha. I just betcha. Okay, if everybody gets a merit badge, it may seem to
>cheapen the award...trust me. It won't. even if everybody in the Knowne
>World were to receive an AOA, I would still be overjoyed to get my own. The
>same thing goes for higher awards, like Purple Frets, etc. I think the only
>awards that should be "impossible" to get are peerages.
>
>Why? Because EVERYBODY wants to believe that they are special and valuable
>and loved, that's why. It goddam HURTS to see other people get awards, and
>be left out. I hardly ever go to court anymore because it makes me heartsick
>to do so. I'll only go, now, if one of my friends is going to get something;
>so that I can share in their joy.
>
>I am sure that I speak for a lot of people. It's easier to get recognition
>in my mundane pursuits these days; I got nominated into Omicron Delta Kappa
>and Who's Who in American Colleges my senior year of college, graduated cum
>laude, went to Oxford University where I am now reading for my combined
>master's/doctoral degrees. And I like the way people give me credit for
>that. It's good not to be ignored.
>
>It used to be that in the SCA you could be somebody special, larger than
>life, more noble than who you were in mundania; not any longer. These days,
>it's easier to be nobody special at all. Who wants that? Tell somebody that
>s/he is special, and s/he will believe it. Encourage that person to be the
>best person s/he can be, and...aw, I'm getting cliche'd. I think I have made
>my point.
>
>6) The SCA just isn't as much fun any more. It used to be that there was an
>equilibrium between "shtick/fun/farb" and authenticity; now we have a
>society divided between "fun mavens" (no, that's what they USED to be called
>- now it's "Goddamn it, why don't these polyester twits in elf ears, spandex
>and fangs go to Dagorhir or a science fiction convention or a role playing
>group, where they belong?") and "authenticity police," who cream their
>bloomers over counted threads and think that the SCA ought to be ALL about
>holding seminars on the proper way to weave and bead. "Oh look, people in
>mundania, we're a Legitimate Hobby. We're not just weirdos who like to
dress up >in costumes and act weird. We're Living History and Respectable."
The result?
>We're invaded by barbarians who don't know how to dress or act, because we
>won't get off our high horses to show them what the SCA is supposed to be
>about (we don't think they are "worth the effort," and we'd rather not get
>involved because when we bitch about them we are at least temporarily
>unified on *something*) - and at the other end of the spectrum, we have
>Authenticity Police worse than ever. Who see authenticity not just as a fun
>and interesting aspect of the SCA to pursue, but a social and moral imperative.
>
>PUH-LEEZE!
>
>Whatever happened to "chivalry, courtesy, schtick, fun, and common love?"
>Yes, I know "The Dream" means different things to different people, but
>there is something wrong. Post-revels, if they are held at all, are often
>boring and let out early. We don't pass cloven fruits very often any more,
>and when we do it's not as physical as it used to be - I remember when
>people *wouldn't* look at you funny if you wanted to smooch somebody on the
>lips for a long time, then pass the fruit on and do the same with another
>person, and neither of them was your lord or lady. It's called "flirting."
>As in sexual sublimation. We seem afraid to do that now, or even really
>flirt at all. (And when I point this out people start saying, "oh dear, it's
>Midori being sex-obsessed again." I AM NOT. I am being "romanticism"
>obsessed, "intimacy" obsessed. Our society is not intimate any more. Other
>forms of fun that I miss: "OOH! AH! OH! MURMUR MURMUR MURMUR!" (pop quiz:
>when, where, and how often does one - or DID one - hear that phrase?) Tacky
>tourneys. Alcohol - yeah, I know, we need to be more sensitive to recovering
>alcoholics, but it seems like our society as a whole has gotten drier. And,
>forgive me for admitting this, but I love to get drunk in an acceptable
>fashion. I think it's fun to be drunk, to be drunk in public and not be
>considered "out of control..." Jokes about carpet armour. Filk.
>
>Ways to take things that are not really period and make them more medieval,
>so that we can have a little farb and get it out of our system...
>
>The whole point of "schtick" is sublimation: just as flirting and passing the
>cloven fruit around helps us exercise our curiosity and sow our wild oats so
>that we don't get into any REAL trouble and cross unacceptable borders, the
>raison d'etre of schtick is that it allows us to get a LITTLE farb out of our
>system to that we DON'T have to rebel by dressing like vampires/elves, or
>otherwise go overboard with the farb. A little healthy friskiness prevents
>a lot of acting out.
>
>SUMMARY: I think the SCA, as it has aged, has gotten stodgy and
>middle-class. The original SCA was neither stodgy nor specifically "middle
>class" (dare I use the word "upscale?") We've grown up, and become bankers
>and lawyers, Mr Darlington forgetting that one can fly a kite and have fun.
>Whatever happened to Peter Pan elements in our society? (or is that Mary
>Poppins? I can't remember, but they are both appropriate I think) Whatever
>happened to our Inner Children? Whatever happened to PLAY?
>
>We're too serious.
>
>We need to address this.
>
>And we need to address the more difficult problems I cited.
>
>In service,
>
>
>
>Sarah Lane-Dorrance/Iseut la Gaunt-Roussie, called Midori
>ICQ #3022977
>IMPROVED WEBSITE!
>Oh, and THE PHOTOS ARE UP!!!
>Exquisite Darkness
>http://www.Geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/3300/entrance.html
> The only SPAM you'll ever want to read.
> Society of Perverts and Affiliated Malcontents
> (yes, really) spam-request@dnaco.net
> send single word "subscribe"
> we are a potted-meat and MLM free zone
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Author: Sarah Lane-Dorrance <sarah.dorrance@oriel.oxford.ac.uk>
>
>

From: Sarah Lane-Dorrance <sarah.dorrance@oriel.oxford.ac.uk>
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ to unsubscribe, send a message to
`~-, ,-~`~-, ,-~`~-, ,-~`~-, ,-~` sca-middle-request@dnaco.net with
. | | | | | | | | 'unsubscribe' as its body.
Received on Thu Jan 22 21:28:03 1998