Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Date: Fri,  8 Jan 1993 21:49:37 -0500 
From: David Schroeder <ds4p+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: SCA Upgrade?

Greetings good friends...

Here follows my reply to William's response to my comments on William's
initial post (who says we can't handle complexity around here?):

[My comments on the SCA being founded as a romantic fantasy...]
> Right. But the educational stuff has become more than just a
> convenient legal definition; it is now a real part of what we
> aim for and of what many members are actually doing.

It always _was_.  There were people doing decent garb and arts in
A.S. I, believe me (based on the movies of the 1st Tournament).
My point is that the _customs_ of the _organization_ are firmly
rooted in fantasy.  A quite "authentic" solution to the problem
of selecting our kings and queens would be to appoint hereditary
monarchs -- which doesn't make sense given our modern need for
fairness and equality of opportunity.  But that's not how we play
the game.  Our kings and queens are not the top athletes this 
season in our local tournament society -- they are monarchs of
sizeable territories and populations (in the romantic and fantasy
sense of things).  It makes sense as romantic fantasy, but it's 
clearly often _non_sense as history.  Why try to change it into 
something that it isn't.  All the feathers and all the glue in 
all the world won't make a cow a goose. 

> >  2. Over the last 27 years the SCA has been remarkably "good" at
> >     providing a place where people _can_ enjoy the romance of the
> >     Middle Ages (otherwise we'd still be 60 people in a backyard...)
> >     and it's hard to say that we're doing anything other than _romance_.
>  
> In this, you are using the growth of the Society as an argument
> for the present system, right? I.e. it must be very good, or it
> would never have attracted so many people.
>  
> I do not believe for one moment that there is any causal relation
> between the fantasy style of our system and the growth of the
> Society. People are attracted to the SCA for many different reasons,
> size not being the least. Openness and low threshold requirements are
> others.

Wait a second here...  I knew I left myself open for that counter-
argument, but do you honestly believe that if the SCA had been
as restrictive as the Civil War re-enactment groups it would be
as large as it is today?  The romance/fantasy elements are at
the very least the honey that draws many people to the Society.
I think it's reasonable to say that the romantic and fantasy
elements of the Society have made a sizeable contribution to
the numerical success of the organization.

> Over these 27 years, we have also aquired a lot of knowledge that
> was not here when this thing started. We are now able not only to
> be more authentic in our personal equipment and behavior, but we
> are also more able to figure out authentic ways to organize the
> Society, without compromising the necessary modern values.

Hold on...  There's authentic and "authentic."  It's one thing to
have historically documentable equipment and behavior that fits
the time of one's persona.  It's even possible to say this garb
or this sword is authentic in style.  It's another matter entirely to 
have "authentic" _customs_, like ways of choosing rulers or being 
recognized as nobles, that affect _every_ participant in the Society.
Whatever decision you make _other_ than having a system like our
present one that doesn't (or shouldn't) _pretend_ to be historical,
you end up being _in_authentic for some sub-set of participants.

> As I said earlier, our administration has developed with our size,
> but our medieval organization has not. I am firmly convinced that
> there are things that we can change which would not negatively affect
> the growth rate of the SCA, while they would make the Society more
> authentic, and thus even better suited to providing a place where
> people can enjoy the romance of the middle ages.

I agree, there are _lots_ of things we can do to change the Society 
for the better, but they're not necessarily making things more
"authentic," they may just be a matter of _choosing_ the customs
of a particular time/place from history as more appropriate models
for our organization.  The Kingdom of Acre (in theory, I don't
know much about their practice) chose as its model the Crusader
Kingdom(s) in the Holy Land during the Crusades.  The SCA
has chosen an a-historical amalgam of chivalric fantasies
as the model for its customs.  If you say "Let's eliminate
the three-tiered award structure because it wasn't done
that way historically -- we'll just have one level instead,"
then you've substituted something that's in-authentic for
a large sub-set of the Society (one level of royal award)
using the argument that it's more authentic (for another
large subset).  One of my questions is "using what criteria?"
Pre-17th century Western culture?  Historians and Rialtans
can't even agree on what "The West" is.  Look at the hassle
this matter is causing the heralds who find themselves unable
to register period armory that doesn't fit Anglo-French models.

> >  3. So long as we do not have a tightly restricted time frame
> >     (a decade, say, or perhaps half a century) there are few
> >     criteria for saying "this was done historically and this
> >     was not..."  In all the human civilizations prior to 1601
> >     there were MANY different ways of selecting rulers, etc.
> >     We'd have to pick a more coherent geographical area, too.
>  
> Not necessarily. I would be satisfied if we had a system (for
> e.g. choosing sovereigns) that (at least resembles something
> that) was done *anywhere* in Europe in our period. The problem
> with our present system is that it is a pure fantasy, something
> that was done *nowhere* and *never*.

Right, _you_ would be more satisfied.  Someone else might _really_
prefer that an organization dedicated to re-creating the Middle Ages
at least acknowledges the existance of the Church.  We've certainly
discussed why religion is downplayed in the Society and we can think
of the organizing customs of the Society in similar ways.  Having the
customs be _fantasy_ spares us the hassle of having to pick _one_ set
of customs from one time and place.  Of course it's fun to tinker with
them and try out alternatives, but either we say "we're making selecting
new rulers more authentic by the standards of the early Merovingians" or
we say "we're changing the way new rulers are selected to make it more
fair to our modern sensibilities."  You can't say _authentic_ without
saying authentic for _when_ and for _where_.

Cariadoc's right about the best being the enemy of the good.  That
certainly applies here.  But I _am_ concerned that attempts to make
things better that don't fully examine the issue of "better by whose
judgment?" may end up making things worse.

> >  5. The SCA _does_ have structures in place to encourage the
> >     creation of various things -- costumes, armor, art, etc. --
> >     that _are_ based on historical models (like the Order of the 
> >     Laurel, to one degree or another).  
>  
> What? Are you saying that there was a medieval Order which made
> the members Peers of the realm, but *not* Knights, and which was
> given out for skill at e.g. embroidery or calligraphy? Can you
> document this? Wow! :-)

Ackkk!  Sorry, no!!  I didn't mean to phrase it in a way that
suggests the Order of the Laurel was based on historical models
(though it certainly could be read that way, my apologies).
I meant that the Order of the Laurel is one of the structures
the Society has built to reward and encourage people who pay
attention to historical models.

> It looks  to me like you are criticizing something that I never
> wrote. You are painting the old authenticity monster on the wall.
> The changes I have been advocating are not of the type that would
> make the SCA a 100% authentic group. As you say, this would require
> narrowing down our scope to a few decades in a particular country.
> That has not even been an issue in the recent Rialto discussions.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm criticizing something
implicit in what you wrote, even if it's not explicitly stated.
The whole idea of substituting "something that was done *anywhere* 
in Europe in our period" _does_ mean that we'd have to pick the
custom(s) of one time and place for at least one aspect of the
Society.  Then we could either stay with that time/place when
it comes to the next choice or slide down the slippery slope
by picking and chosing customs from history to make an a-historical
mess every bit as bad or worse than the current fantasy-based version.
Restating your position:

> The problem with our present system is that it is a pure fantasy, 
> something that was done *nowhere* and *never*.

Perhaps it's our great strength as well.

> I quite agree that people who have special interests in a parti-
> cular culture and time should be encouraged to form separate groups,
> in collaboration with the SCA. But that is a different thing than
> what we have been talking about here.

And that's where various historically accurate _customs_ could be
used to shape the new group's organizational structures and be 
logically consistent.

> Implementing Cariadoc's "County" proposal, or Kevin's restructuring
> ideas, or my own ideas for Drachenwald, or the organizational ideas
> put forth on the Rialto by Tadhg, Arval, Aryk and others, does NOT
> mean that we narrow the scope of the Society, and it does not hurt
> any of the valuable qualities that this group has. All of these
> ideas and arguments have aimed at achieving not only a more authentic
> organization of the SCA, but also one that would provide more fun,
> and that would take modern considerations in account.

Yes, but...
I guess I'm asking us to look a bit deeper at our premises.  Most of
the changes currently being discussed are advanced as ways to make
the Society more "authentic."  Sure, I'll grant you that picking
customs based on historical models would be more authentic than
the current fantasy based system, but _who gets to decide_
authentic for _when_ and _where_ ?  My feeling is that we
may be fooling ourselves by saying "thus and such a change
would be more _authentic_" when all we're really doing is
tweaking the fantasy.  Without a coherent historical vision
of what should and should not be the foundation of the Society's
customs I don't see how a pick-and-choose method adds any overall
authenticity to the process.

> William
>  
> P.S. If I have misinterpreted your intentions, please forgive me.

My apologies for the confusion engendered by my earlier post
(and no doubt by this one as well -- these are difficult matters
to discuss over limited bandwidth).

I look forward to continued discussions of these issues!

My best to one and all -- Bertram

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bertram of Bearington                                      Dave Schroeder
Debatable Lands/AEthelmearc/East               Carnegie Mellon University
INTERNET: ds4p@andrew.cmu.edu                         412/731-3230 (Home)
+------------------------ PREME * Press On * PREME ---------------------+
      "He indulged in every excess, yes in each licentious whim..." 


Newsgroups: rec.org.sca