In which a the SCA BoD's proposed mission statement is cause for thought
Two things happened at once last week. A proposal for a SCA mission statement was posted by the SCA's board of directors, and Mistress Aindrea began posting philosophy questions to the Caerthen list.
The BoD's proposed mission statement for the SCA reads as follows:
The Society for Creative Anachronism provides a structure for enthusiasts of the Middle Ages and Renaissance to explore various aspects of the period in Europe to 1600 AD. As accurately as possible, the SCA’s members strive to adopt the lifestyle, culture, technology, clothing and accoutrements common to those living during the time under study. The SCA encourages members to learn by doing, to research period arts, sciences and activities, to share their knowledge with others, and to behave in a chivalrous manner in all their interactions.
I can't really say that the two events are linked in some fashion, but I'd be surprised if they aren't. What the BoD proposes is a slight change in the game, changes that seem to focus our attentions on a more authentic purpose, rather than the "attempt" required to date. There is a significant percentage of the Society -although not a majority by any estimation - which is interested in doing things more authentically. I suspect a couple of major factors are driving this change.
It might be because the SCA is getting older, both in anno societatis, and in demographic. The older, more mature members tend to shed the part-teee mentality for something more personally fulfilling. We are at a point where being more authentic is easier than ever, because we've got forty years of research (and the Internet) to depend upon. The longer-term members tend to become Peers, and as such take on a responsibility to lead and to present an exemplary countenance.
It might be that there are outside pressures to turn toward the authenticity side. The living history movement has significantly higher standards for appearance and performance than does the SCA. My conversations with LH folks underscore the contempt in which the SCA is held. "Isn't the SCA where people play if they cant hack it anywhere else?" one Mexican War-era historian asked me. I did maintain that there is a significant - if smallish - percentage of people in the SCA who are dedicated to getting it "right". In addition, our rep among academics is completely abysmal. Much of our research comes from the academic community; it would behoove us to cultivate those relationships, rather than to cast away the potential for new information through the perceived disregard for "serious" research and those who do it.
There has always been a division between the authenticists and those only here for the beer. The authenticists think that the partiers are frivolous and unlettered; the parties think that the authenticists are stuffy and overbearing. However, the percentages seem to be changing - the ratio of authenticists is increasing. More and more people think it's important to make this experiment meaningful beyond the social club aspect.
There is a very justifiable concern that implementing the mission statement as it is written carries the potential for a loss of members. We must evaluate how detrimental that loss would be. How valuable to the stated goals of the SCA is someone who is only here for the beer? Or those who insist upon including non-period things or activities in the name of diversity? Aren't there better venues for poker, barbeque, belly dance, potatoes, and wheels of Jell-O than the SCA?
We permit these things to continue because we perceive the SCA as a "big tent", an organization that prides itself upon inclusion, and in sharp contrast to the living history community that is quite the opposite - excluding distractions that the SCA allows. We must disabuse ourselves of the notion that there is room for everyone under the big tent. If 25% of the membership were to suddenly fade away, would there be a noticable negative impact to the SCA? Revenue probably wouldn't be adversely effected, since I'd wager that a smaller than average fraction of the partiers pay for memberships anyway. Yes, event revenues might drop, but the sizes of the sites should be scaled back. Those who remain just might get more value for their membership dollars.
Aindrea asked for people on the Caerthe list to write why they participate in, and why they do what they do in the SCA. I was initially interested in the form the conversation took - no one really discussed or challenged any one else's SCA world-view. Is this because we are so sensitive to the diversity of "games" being played in the SCA that to questions someone's motivation would seem to be rude? Are we politically correct? In my experience, controversial subjects in the SCA tend to be dealt with somewhat passively-aggressively; we tend to continue on our own path - partier or authenticist - because in the SCA we can.
The responses provided a great deal of insight into the shades of experience in the SCA. Of those responders whom I know, the responses were pretty much what I expected, both the good and the bad. For the authenticists on the mix, the motivation was in learning about the Medieval/Renaissance milieu in an environment where they could participate with others. For the rest, the primary motivation seemed to be the people in the organization, although some did say that the opportunity to learn new things was a good thing. One person even said he did silly things to share the "fun side of the dream", again placing "fun" and "work" at opposite ends of the spectrum of human experience.
Perhaps the most remarkable thing underscored by Aindrea's questions was that the SCA is already pretty fractured. In a gross sense, people are divided by how they perceive the purpose of the SCA, for fun or for personal enrichment. Within those two divisions, there are as many reasons to be here as there are members. Because the SCA, Inc. has to date declined to enforce the focus established in the governing documents, the size of the "big tent" continues to grow. At some point the SCA will have to decide whom and what belongs and what doesn't, before it becomes so dilute as to loose it's meaning. The proposed mission statement takes a step in that direction.
The BoD's proposed mission statement for the SCA reads as follows:
The Society for Creative Anachronism provides a structure for enthusiasts of the Middle Ages and Renaissance to explore various aspects of the period in Europe to 1600 AD. As accurately as possible, the SCA’s members strive to adopt the lifestyle, culture, technology, clothing and accoutrements common to those living during the time under study. The SCA encourages members to learn by doing, to research period arts, sciences and activities, to share their knowledge with others, and to behave in a chivalrous manner in all their interactions.
I can't really say that the two events are linked in some fashion, but I'd be surprised if they aren't. What the BoD proposes is a slight change in the game, changes that seem to focus our attentions on a more authentic purpose, rather than the "attempt" required to date. There is a significant percentage of the Society -although not a majority by any estimation - which is interested in doing things more authentically. I suspect a couple of major factors are driving this change.
It might be because the SCA is getting older, both in anno societatis, and in demographic. The older, more mature members tend to shed the part-teee mentality for something more personally fulfilling. We are at a point where being more authentic is easier than ever, because we've got forty years of research (and the Internet) to depend upon. The longer-term members tend to become Peers, and as such take on a responsibility to lead and to present an exemplary countenance.
It might be that there are outside pressures to turn toward the authenticity side. The living history movement has significantly higher standards for appearance and performance than does the SCA. My conversations with LH folks underscore the contempt in which the SCA is held. "Isn't the SCA where people play if they cant hack it anywhere else?" one Mexican War-era historian asked me. I did maintain that there is a significant - if smallish - percentage of people in the SCA who are dedicated to getting it "right". In addition, our rep among academics is completely abysmal. Much of our research comes from the academic community; it would behoove us to cultivate those relationships, rather than to cast away the potential for new information through the perceived disregard for "serious" research and those who do it.
There has always been a division between the authenticists and those only here for the beer. The authenticists think that the partiers are frivolous and unlettered; the parties think that the authenticists are stuffy and overbearing. However, the percentages seem to be changing - the ratio of authenticists is increasing. More and more people think it's important to make this experiment meaningful beyond the social club aspect.
There is a very justifiable concern that implementing the mission statement as it is written carries the potential for a loss of members. We must evaluate how detrimental that loss would be. How valuable to the stated goals of the SCA is someone who is only here for the beer? Or those who insist upon including non-period things or activities in the name of diversity? Aren't there better venues for poker, barbeque, belly dance, potatoes, and wheels of Jell-O than the SCA?
We permit these things to continue because we perceive the SCA as a "big tent", an organization that prides itself upon inclusion, and in sharp contrast to the living history community that is quite the opposite - excluding distractions that the SCA allows. We must disabuse ourselves of the notion that there is room for everyone under the big tent. If 25% of the membership were to suddenly fade away, would there be a noticable negative impact to the SCA? Revenue probably wouldn't be adversely effected, since I'd wager that a smaller than average fraction of the partiers pay for memberships anyway. Yes, event revenues might drop, but the sizes of the sites should be scaled back. Those who remain just might get more value for their membership dollars.
Aindrea asked for people on the Caerthe list to write why they participate in, and why they do what they do in the SCA. I was initially interested in the form the conversation took - no one really discussed or challenged any one else's SCA world-view. Is this because we are so sensitive to the diversity of "games" being played in the SCA that to questions someone's motivation would seem to be rude? Are we politically correct? In my experience, controversial subjects in the SCA tend to be dealt with somewhat passively-aggressively; we tend to continue on our own path - partier or authenticist - because in the SCA we can.
The responses provided a great deal of insight into the shades of experience in the SCA. Of those responders whom I know, the responses were pretty much what I expected, both the good and the bad. For the authenticists on the mix, the motivation was in learning about the Medieval/Renaissance milieu in an environment where they could participate with others. For the rest, the primary motivation seemed to be the people in the organization, although some did say that the opportunity to learn new things was a good thing. One person even said he did silly things to share the "fun side of the dream", again placing "fun" and "work" at opposite ends of the spectrum of human experience.
Perhaps the most remarkable thing underscored by Aindrea's questions was that the SCA is already pretty fractured. In a gross sense, people are divided by how they perceive the purpose of the SCA, for fun or for personal enrichment. Within those two divisions, there are as many reasons to be here as there are members. Because the SCA, Inc. has to date declined to enforce the focus established in the governing documents, the size of the "big tent" continues to grow. At some point the SCA will have to decide whom and what belongs and what doesn't, before it becomes so dilute as to loose it's meaning. The proposed mission statement takes a step in that direction.
posted by Melanie Unruh-Bays at
11:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home