From: bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: I am still bewildered
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:56:21 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

vader@meryl.csd.uu.se ("]ke Eldberg") writes:
> Greetings from William de Corbie!

        This is a long reply, and not always within the charter of
this forum.

> I joined the Society 8 years ago, under many misconceptions. I thought
> that this group re-created the European middle ages, as in "the Age of
> Chivalry". I understood that the SCA did not re-create the bad parts
> of the middle ages. I understood that it was not only about research
> and authenticity, but also (an perhaps more) about fun, so I assumed
> that it was a mixture of authentic medieval stuff in a romantic setting,
> with some Ivanhoe and Robin Hood. In my assumptions also went quite a
> lot of European-bred prejudice about how such a group would work and
> be organized.
>
> How wrong I was.
>
> For these past eight years, I have gotten to know many fabulous people
> and I have had a lot of fun. But it is also true that for eight years
> I have attempted to understand the SCA, without succeeding. Some aspects
> of the Society have brought me disappointment and consternation. I am
> still bewildered.
>
> The SCA tells people that it is medieval. This is not true. It also
> encompasses the Dark Ages And the Renaissance, and much of the focus
> lies in very late "period". There is absolutely no coherence in the
> historical re-creation we do; we are a bunch of fiercely independent
> individuals, all dedicated to our own niche of the "period".
>
> I believe that my surprise at this comes from being European; we are
> more used to common efforts where each person submits to the goals of
> the group.

        This is understandable. The SCA was established in the "New World".
This is the same place that was settled by people who left Europe
because they were dissatisfied with the existing social structures and
mechanisms. This dissatisfaction is still present within the "national
psyche" of the "New World", where the rights and freedoms of the individual
are held to be paramount. Many people feel that submitting to the interests
of the larger group is an undermining of their personal rights and
freedoms. This is a matter which the SCA will never overcome without a
widespread change in mundane society itself.

> The most bewildering thing of all is the mixture of, on the one hand,
> great dedication to authenticity and scholarly research -- and on the
> other hand, the way SCA people totally ignore many flagrantly OOP things.
> On the one hand, we are extremely keen to do the *real* middle ages,
> and not some fantasy. On the other hand, these efforts are confined to
> a few sectors, while much larger parts of SCA life is allowed to remain
> in a fantasy world.

        The majority of SCA members are college students who have little
if any reliable knowledge of what life was like in "period" before they
join. These people tend to view the SCA as some grand costume party with
its own elaborate rules and games. For may of these people, the pressure
to perform well academically precludes them from making any prolonged
effort to research their chosen period and locale. They simply settle for
some standard which, *to them*, isn't glaringly OOP, but in many cases,
they don't know they're OOP, and many don't care.

> It is abundantly clear that objecting publicly to *anything* which is
> done in the SCA, is seen as the worst kind of bad manners. Authenticity
> is not enforced, only encouraged. You never criticize or try to stop
> anything from being done. You only walk away, and try to gather
> people and do something period instead.
>
> There is very little group pressure, and very much individual initiative.
>
> There is a fierce resistance to any kind of reform which deals with the
> Society. Reforms and improvements are always private. Again, everything
> falls back on the individual, for whom this is a forum in which one can
> display and teach various skills, or just ignore all such and enjoy the
> company, the scenery and the action.

        I'll address this further on.

> I see names and heraldic devices being passed, which are total fantasy,
> not to mention very bad taste. Strict rules are applied, but they still
> produce fantasy stuff. Not even the most authenticity-eager SCAdians
> seem to mind, because names and heraldry fall into the sphere of
> personal freedom, which is so sacred in America.

        You're catching on.

> I see plastic armor, and the pretext is "safety" and "cost"; we cannot
> demand authentic armor, because it would be too expensive and hard to
> get for the poor college students. I see modern archery equipment, and
> other modern stuff being used, the pretext being that it is important
> that everybody can play. I am not saying that this is necessarily wrong;
> but it surprises me that so little is done to encourage authenticity in
> these fields.

        Many people don't know or care that they're being OOP. There is
little you can do in these cases.

> I see a system of orders, ranks and titles which has almost nothing
> to do with any historic time or place. It is sheer fantasy. Still, the
> resistance to all suggestions for reform is extremely stiff. "USA: Love
> it or leave it" was once the battle cry of those who supported the
> Vietnam War. I find similar attitudes in the SCA, and some people get
> angry even at the idea that anything could be done to improve this
> Society and its system.
>
> I see a system of rulership which, if seen as historic re-creation, is
> ludicrous -- and which can only be understood if you know about the
> peculiar American fascination for sports and competitions.

        This is the point I said I would "address further on". People
are suspicious of change. Once they find a system where they are comfortable,
they will not want it changed. Another point is that many people feel that
they have profited personally from the SCA (most noticably, the system
of ranks and titles). By proposing to change this you threaten those who
may be afraid that they will no longer profit under the new system, and those
who have already profited and are afraid that their status will be devalued
in some way. Regardless of the fact that the SCA system of ranks and titles
has no *real* meaning outside the SCA, you would be suprised at how
protective some people are concerning their rank and title(s). These people
want to be looked up to, and their rank is a measure of personal success
which they strongly identify with. You can assure these people until the moon
falls from the sky that there is no threat to their status, but getting them
to believe it is another matter. You are actually threatening their self
image (I am *NOT* saying that everyone who has received some formal rank or
title has this attitude, only some of them).

>
> The above is no condemnation, no tirade! I am only trying to explain
> that for me, a European with some experience of both historical re-
> creation and fantasy groups in this part of the world, it is very
> difficult to understand the mixture of on the one hand, great skill
> and serious dedication, and on the other hand, blatant disregard for
> history, that the SCA displays.
>
> I recently championed "Strip the Willow" on the Rialto. I knew that
> technically, I was wrong. I tried to find a pretext to do it any way,
> but I was beaten firmly into the ground. It amazes me that there was
> such strong and well-worded resistance to this dance, while all this
> other stuff is going on. It is like standing in the middle of Disney-
> land and arguing about whether Woody Woodpecker belongs or not...

        The Rialto should not be looked apon as a reliable sample of
the SCA at large. The majority of people on the Rialto are professional
people who have the time, money and motivation to perform the sort of
research and experimentation which the SCA professes to encourage. This
sample should not be applied to the SCA at large on a proportionately equal
basis.

> These thoughts came to me as I was reflecting on how Drachenwald could
> possibly become different, when it goes Kingdom. The most burning
> question is whether it is at all possible to mold Drachenwald into a
> more "European-style" group within the SCA. I fear that the cultural
> differences between America and Europe are greater than most SCAdians
> have realized -- and that ultimately, we may be headed for a split
> where Drachenwald forms a separate Corporation. I do not say this
> to be an alarmist, but the possibility is very real.

        I would not be suprised to see Drachenwald become a better
reflection of the professed aims of the SCA. The people tend to be more
familiar with history pertinent to the SCA. Compare this with the history
of the USA, where the education system devotes itself almost exclusively
to the last 200 years, with scant reference to anything in Europe before
the voyage of Columbus. The same can be said of Lochac (I was fortunate
to have an exchange teacher from England when I studied European history,
but even that was anglo-centric).


        I can argue other reasons why the SCA appears to fall short of
it's stated goals, but this is not the most appropriate forum (soc.culture.
usa perhaps, but I have other concerns at the moment).
           Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au  OR  bull@monu1.cc.monash.oz
                    DOD# 251  '84 VF 750   Closet Ducatisto
             Disclaimer. If you love your llama, let it lambada.
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca