From: ds4p+@andrew.cmu.edu (David Schroeder)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: SCA Upgrade?
Date: 8 Jan 93 04:25:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.MfHMvcK00YUnAw7a5f
Organization: Doctoral student, Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Good gentles,

William de Corbie writes:

> Whew! Something must have happened here. Are we prepared to actually
> consider the possibility that the SCA as such might need an upgrade?
> Or am I walking with my head in a cloud of glogg foam? :-)

Is it _good_ glogg, William?  :-)

Let me toss out a few premises for consideration:

  1. The SCA was founded as a group for enjoying the _romance_
     of the Middle Ages.  The 'educational corporation' stuff
     was added later to gain us some benefits from the powers
     that be. (Confirmed by multiple people attending 1st Tourney.)

  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_.

  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.

  4. Changes to the mish-mash of customs and systems in place
     across the Known World, without a universally acceptable
     criteria for _evaluating_ those changes is problematic.
     (Civil War is more appropriate than chosing the toughest 
     fighter?  At what time in history?  For which culture?)
     [It may well be that the mish-mash of customs is one of
     the ways in which we most closely _do_ re-create aspects
     of the Middle Ages, but that's another post...]

  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).  People who enjoy creating
     such things also tend to appreciate that in the context of the
     SCA they can _use_ them instead of practicing their skills 
     in a vacuum.  The SCA often provides a context where such
     creators are _appreciated_.

     Given these premises I'm moved to make a few points:

        Those who want the SCA to have more "period" customs
        should be highly encouraged to form related organizations
        with more circumscribed temporal and geographical scope,
        such as Crusader kingdoms, Bronze Age clans, or royal 
        companies of pikemen.  The SCA would be glad to "play"
        with you, since your group would certainly meet the
        SCA's fairly minimal participation requirements, and
        you could have get-togethers of your own to enjoy 
        re-creating your chosen time and place in history.

        This doesn't mean "if you don't like what we're doing
        pack up your marbles and go home..."  It _does_ mean
        that those valuing authenticity of _customs_ should
        do so in a context where that's practical, which is
        (reality check here, folks) NOT the SCA, since the
        SCA has _all_ of pre-1601 to draw from.

        It _also_ doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider
        changes in the way the Society choses its rulers 
        or its peers or holds events and so forth.  But we
        shouldn't be using _authenticity_ in our arguments
        quite so much.  In some way we have to be not just
        historically authentic (again, for where, for when?)
        but authentic, meaning true, to ourselves and our 
        founding (romantic!) principles as well.

        We are 20th (soon 21st) century "Westerners" trying
        to recapture the romance of the Middle Ages.  When
        we change our customs we can do so for _modern_
        reasons as well as to match historical precedents.
        Fairness, inclusiveness, and other values more
        typical of Modern than Medieval times are legitimate
        concerns, and I applaud the Society's record over the
        years in building a system that mostly measures up
        well by modern standards.

        I'm GLAD we've got the strictures about authenticity
        in the Articles of Incorporation.  The tension between
        or formal and functional operating principles has helped
        keep the SCA vital, in my opinion.  The question is
        "Where is the best point of balance between the two?"
        I believe our discussions on the Rialto of late have
        not given enough weight to the "romantic" position
        because they've mostly been argued from on the 
        "authenticist's" turf, rather than from the point
        of modern considerations.

  I'm afraid this post has gone on far to long and is not as coherent
  as it should be.  I'd be glad to debate the matter further.  I guess
  in practical terms what I'm saying to William is "take care making
  changes of the scope you contemplate -- you might be better served
  by forming an organization independent of the SCA that often 'plays'
  with the SCA than trying to turn the SCA into something more
  'authentic' by your criteria."

  Let's keep talking about changing the Society for the better,
  but let's keep in mind that _modern_ considerations do carry
  some weight.

  Many thanks for your kind attention to these words -- 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