Feeling Philosophical

[callistotoni]

...is that an oxymoron?

Events over the last few months in the SCA/WK -- more specifically, my observation, interpretation, and reaction to these events -- have made me wonder why we care so much about what goes on in our hobbie/subculture. Others of you have posted about that as well; dave_orphal's recent post on Perspective is a good example, but not the only one. After some reflection I think it is because we believe our SCA social group/culture is something we have some control over, whereas we think that we have very little control over what is going on in the World At Large. For example, I don't have any control over genocide in Ruanda. I can stand up and say it's wrong and write my congressman, but I don't believe it will make any real difference. In the SCA/WK, if I see something that I think is wrong I can voice my opinion and I believe I have a much greater chance of making a differnce. People may or may not agree with me, but I believe my voice will have an impact (even if it's just to get people talking, or clarify a postion, or whatever).

I think this belief that in this one arena we have some control is why some people have such strong reactions when they see something that they interpret as "ruining their game". I think many people fear that they will lose this social safe-haven. Now, I think there is a kernal of truth in this fear -- the SCA/WK is what we make it, so if we what to continue to enjoy it we have to foster and encourage what we like about it. However, different people like different things and each person sees reality in thier own way. Our SCA, I believe, has been so successful for 40 plus years because it's allowed people to play in ways that meet thier needs, all under the combination-umbrella of 'Pre-17th C material culture exploration'/Romantic-Ideal Tournement Society.

But here's the thing that I think is the root cause of much of the angst that we've seen in the WK: I think we are struggling with the nitty-gritty details of what our group is and how we should play. Because we seem (according to my observation) to be struggling with this question I think we might be seeing people react more stongly because they are afraid the whole game will be ruined for them.

I think there are a few of factors feeding into this group-definition-angst:

-- a generation gap. I came of age and joined the SCA in the '70s, a time when there was a lot of idealistic social experimentation. A bunch of us that are still around (and Peers) joined at about this time. I, therefore, may be more inclined to be more Idealistic (and I don't want that to sound like I think it's the right way) rather than practical. For example, I objected to what I saw as 'paying for eric space', whereas other (usually younger than me) thought that people were already paying for eric space by having to take off work. I objected because of the principle of the thing, and others saw it as a new way to deal with an existing reality.

-- The legacy of being set up simultaneously as a historical group and a fantasy tournement society. I think the biggest sub-conflict area under this heading is our heavy fighting. In my opinion, the minute we allowed rattan and plastic we moved away from being "historical". The question is what's OK and not OK on the Historical Compromises front. Now, I'm not qualified to speak knowledgably on this topic, obviously. But heavy fighting is the thing that our group is structured around in that that is how our royalty is chosen, and that royalty writes laws and gives out awards. Since I am effected by heavy fighting in this way I think I have a right to state my observation(s):
----When 2 people meet to fight they have to be in agreement as to what the rules and expectations are. I think right now there is disagreement. I'm not super clear on what, exactly, this disagreement is (I have an idea, but I won't eloborate here). But I do believe that both 'camps' believe that they are being good and honorable people. No one here is concsciously acting maliciously.
Maybe the Chivalry have gotten better on this score, I don't know. But I do believe that until this fighting philosophic rift is healed, truely healed, such that people can live with the solution and not grumble about it afterwards than we as a Kingdom won't be able to heal.

Also on the People See Reality Differently front, I think a lot of the problems we've had in the last few years have been the result of people not doing requirements analysis before implementing "solutions" to percieved problems. This has resulted in good intentions being met with unintended bad feelings. We're a big enough group that I think it's important to be humble enough to assume that we don't see the whole situation and that we therefore need to ask as many people as is reasonable better understand the issues at hand. At some point, of course, action has to be taken. But I think a lot of unintended angst could be avoided if there were more requirements analysis.


Not that it matters, really, what I think. But I feel better now that I've gotten that out of my system. I've been reading Karen Anderson's A History of God, so my brain is focused on things philosophical lately.

Comments

[hunrvogt.livejournal.com]

There is some very good stuff in here...

One thing I keep musing about from my perspective as fencer, archer, equestrian is that the current symptoms of Kingdom angst are not actually that result of a new problem...

When I first moved to the West I heard alot of "you are not part of the SCA". I thought "Really? cuz' I was part of the SCA on the East Coast" What I think people actually meant was you are not part of *my* vision for the SCA.

On many levels I think the Kingdom (and it's members) are stuck in the same discussion. In some cases the players have changed, but not in all. "You aren't playing the game the way *I* want it played."

You know how the Fencers got a voice? By being nice to our detractors. By playing their game a little bit. By inviting them to come play ours. By co-opting some of the cool kids.

Equestrians did alot of the same thing (long before I was involved).

What I see in as the sticking point in the current strife is that no one wants to self-identify as the "out-group". Which loops us back to the people see reality differently phenomena...no one recognizes the olive branch when it is extended - ok maybe it was an oak branch when olive was called for, but still. No one thinks they need to travel further than 10% outside their comfort zone.

If folks on both sides would spend 12 months committed to showing up, shutting up, and just playing, do you think we could get past this impass?

[fia04.livejournal.com]

Nicely put. As someone who considers herself 'new' but also chronologically older, I see a lot of 'my vision' as well as the cliched 'we've always done it this way' knee-jerk reactions. Frequently, I have no idea of what people are talking about. I respect the history, but ofttimes want to say, "C'mon, here's the reality in our 'now'!"

It saddens me that there is such strife in my new playground, but I understand that this happens on a cyclical basis, and shall pass unto the next blow up. Which is one reason I don't post on the West list...that, and I have a life that involves not being online all day, apparently unlike many other people in our glorious Kingdom.

I have often thought it interesting that the apparent cornerstone of our society - fighting - is the least 'historical' of our enterprises. (I call it the cornerstone because it determines royalty, and, at the moment, seems to be the greater focus of the Kingdom.)

It's 4am, I can't sleep...I'm burbling.

[j-i-m-r.livejournal.com]

I agree that the disconnect in between the fighters is an important component of the current angst. The problem seems to me to be that those of us who don't fight are effected by the difficulties but have no way to help fix things. This makes the whole thing even more frustrating.