Anachronista.net > Medieval and Renaissance Clothing Pages > Philosophy

On Authenticity

Sometimes it just works better

Authenticity in Practice - Leading by Example (Jan. 2004)

I know all about the poor impression that we authenticists have in the Society. I also know that there are a number of people who are more interested in their own social position than authenticity, and seek to elevate their own worth by loudly proclaiming "that's not period" indirectly to any passers by, in order that they might be seen as knowledgeable. In my opinion, they're only demonstrating bad manners. I also know that people in the Society have become so sensitive to people telling them "that's not period", that the perception is that when an authenticist suggests that they might try to look *here* to do the job better, the authenticist is being overly critical of that person's efforts. Additionally, we're so enthusiastic about things authentic that we seem to come over too strong, and that also punches people's defensive buttons.

So, we've got quite a challenge. We need to:

I see leading by example to be the key to all these things. Arwen and I have been trying to suck people into period food ("Here, try this!"). I've been trying to wear and teach more period clothing. I've also been trying to approach people who are wearing really great clothing and compliment them on it.

Let me discuss, for a minute, organizational development as it applies to authenticity issues.

Our issue is that there is a culture in the Outlands - and indeed in the Society as a whole - that being period isn't as important as having fun. The culture holds that these two concepts are, and must be, mutually exclusive. Changing the culture is an evolutionary process, and I think that - although there is obviously still room for improvement, as there always will be - we have made great strides in what we would consider the "right" direction. The goal then, should be to continue to change peoples' attitudes toward authenticity.

According to organizational development theory, it is understood that newcomers to an organization will accept the established culture - otherwise they tend to leave. When change is proposed or implemented, there will be people who resist. However, there is, in any organization, a constant flux of people. Some leave, some join. In a few years, newcomers to the culture wonder what the bruhaha was about. Issues that once were contentious become less so over time and due to changes in "players".

As members of our culture, our task is to drive change, and to remain within the organization. It's competitive - just as hard as we're working on authenticity, there are others out there working against it. I see so many valuable folks get discouraged and leave. Unfortunately, one can't change a culture that one is no longer a part of.

It's really hard to change people's attitudes. Changing behavior is easier. Behaviors get changed when the leadership demands/mandates changes. In the Society, this would mean that the people giving the awards would impose standards of authenticity for various levels of awards. When people see that the new behavior is valuable (I'll talk about danglies in a minute), then the behavior - and the attitude - will change. However, our "hats" have not historically been willing or capable of doing that. This means that those of us who care about these issues who must take that leadership role.

Taking leadership requires two things. First we need to strive for more authentic accoutrement and research, and make the results of our efforts apparent through display - on the field, in the feast hall, in A&S competitions. In this way, we can demonstrate that being period is fun – that there is satisfaction to be gained out of sitting in period chairs, listening to period music, eating period food, and watching a period tournament. We need to be able to demonstrate that being period is more fun than the Wheel of Jello. Yes, we have our work cut out for us.

Secondly, since we can't bestow awards, we need to find other ways to reward the authentic efforts of others. Award recommendations are the obvious action item, but how about crafting one's own "reward"? I had a Pelican gift me with a little aventurine fish for my efforts to feed a group at Estrella one year. It's a treasured gift, and one that I sometimes wear. I'm working on a plan to gift people who are doing really nice authentic things with a pewter pilgrim's badge. The gift of kind words goes far.

People see these things as valuable. Everyone likes to be complimented; everyone likes to receive gifts. Especially when the giver is a Peer (although I'm not suggesting that only Peers should do this), the ripple effect is notable. If they are gratified, then suddenly their efforts seem valuable, and their attitude about things authentic and authenticists in general may change, even if just a little bit. But that's progress.

It seems that striving for awards - and the public, loud display of items representative of one's accomplishments - has become the "coin" of the Society. I don't have a great number of awards, either, but always felt mighty conspicuous wearing more than one or two indications of the Crown's favor at once. I don't generally use my titles, and make it a point of *not* introducing myself using titles. If someone else wants to add, "Mistress" when introductions take place, that's fine. However, I think that those danglies - both the verbal and the metal ones - are intimidating. And I think that's largely why people wear them. I don't feel it's necessary. Before last March, I'd frequently wear a circlet and the danglie that was most appropriate to the occasion. Baronial event? The Aspen. Baronial A&S? The Gilded Leaf. Stag's Con? (heh) The Torse - my service award from Calontir – or the Stag. Now there's that Laurel danglie, and I'm somewhat obligated to wear that one. But, I also have laurel circlets, and you're likely to see me wearing that (even though I'm likely to encounter some opposition to a laurel circlet) and - again - the danglie most appropriate to the occasion.

I never wear regalia when in street clothes. I was not just a little bemused to see people in their sweat shirts, jeans and coronets at the gate at Estrella. It was obviously very important to them that people knew how important they were in the Society. Sorry chump. I don't care how many strawberry leaves you're wearing - at the gate my money's the same color as yours.

You'll also notice that in e-mail conversations, I seldom use my title. I think that my words should speak for themselves. Besides, e-mail is in no way a re-creation of the environment of pre-seventeenth century Western Europe. (Neither are business meetings, and I wish certain folks would stop using SCA forms of address at business meetings. Likewise, I felt no compulsion to bow to the King when I ran into him at the Denver Fabrics Annex.) The exception is when I'm feeling particularly outspoken and wishing to underscore my point. Otherwise it's not only unnecessary - it's pretentious. I believe that the "coin" of the Society should be renown – that one should be respected for their words and deeds, not for what belabors their necks - or heads.

As authenticitists, that we must maintain the strength of our convictions. Couching criticism (which is of course helpful and constructive) with words like, "I know it's not fair to require documentation, but it's what the judges want to see" communicates that you, yourself don't think it's valuable. And as a part of the established culture, people are more inclined to agree with you simply because it's easier to be agreeable than to disagree.

Authenticity is a Process, not a Standard 

On Striving

On Being a Peer

Master Hirsch von Henford's excellent discussions on the Peerage

On Newcomers, Critical Thinking, and the Media

Not everyone should be in the SCA (Jan. 2000)

Recently a news article published in the Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Globe and Mail, on Friday, January 14, 2000 surfaced on several of the Society e-mail lists. Titled Three stooges visit the Middle Ages, For grownups, having fun is harder than it seems, writer Jan Melnyk detailed her bad experiences as a newcomer at an SCA event. The response from SCA members has been that something seems to be broken in the way we deal with newcomers, and that there were SCA people - individuals - at fault in this matter. In typical fashion, people will cast blame and aspersion when they feel helpless and attacked; it is easier than thinking critically. A critical look at this situation and the related issues will allow us to dispassionately examine what really happened on that weekend, and what happens every time a newcomer walks into an event. People have different motivations for being in the SCA, and those motivations directly influence what that individual gets out of the SCA. It's time that the SCA recognizes and understands that some people simply don't belong in the SCA.

This incident was made embarrassingly public by the media. It is useful to point out that the media is, at the core, about money. The more readers/listeners/viewers a media outlet has, the more money they can legitimately charge for advertisement space or time. Which of course, translates to more income and the resources to attract more readers/listeners/viewers. This creates a highly competitive environment in which "news" often isn't. Too often, the news that comes from these media outlets is subtly manipulated to increase the entertainment value (human interest). One needs to ask how much of this was written for effect - that is, what is truth and what is embroidered to enhance the entertainment value? Or the indignation value? To deny that this article is slanted toward entertainment is to accept, at face value, everything that is in print because it is in print. I cannot accept that. I've been in the television business too long.

In general, when a reporter goes out to get a story, he or she gets a story. It may not be the one that was expected; it may be juicer than what the assignment editor had in mind. If it turns out that there is no story, they have to get one somewhere; the readers/viewers expect thirty minutes or a hundred pages of "news". The media must consistently meet these expectation or see ratings drop. It is highly probable that her comments were at least embellished to increase the entertainment value of the story.

Unfortunately, Three Stooges presents a negative view of the SCA. It makes it look like we're inhospitable, stuffy, and rude. Melnyk says, "Children don't play this way, I thought. If I were a child, I would be innovating with my role as Robin Hood, perhaps doing a mock curtsy at the nobility, sticking out my tongue instead of bowing to them. But in this medieval society, protocol reigned." What were their expectations and motivations for being there, and where did they get them?

Did the person who invited them fail to adequately explain the "rules" and customs? Did they walk into the event expecting a Renaissance Faire? Why? What was their purpose there? Somehow they expected that the SCA would be different from modern society - she says, "We weren't free to make up the rules as we went along." In one of the most telling passages of the article, she accurately sums up the atmosphere. "These people are playing for keeps," Tess said." They walked into an environment that they obviously identified as highly conventionalized. Did they really think that those who behaved outside of the norm would not be looked down upon? One does not go to church and sing one's favorite rock-and-roll songs. One does not sit in a legal courtroom and stand up and "contribute" to the proceedings. An SCA tournament is close enough to any other modern conventionalized proceeding that anyone, even first-timers, can pretty easily figure out what behavior is acceptable and what isn't. If they can't, (or won't), I question their motivations for being there.

It seems that she was walking into an event expecting to "play" in her own sense of the word, to attend a child's costume party. Consequently, feeling snubbed and ignored, Ms. Melnyk writes an article that is decidedly unfriendly to the SCA, but will ring true to all those readers who see our group, and those like us, on the lunatic fringe of society. Besides, her article is funny, and the feelings are accessible. Almost everyone wants to stick their tongue out at authority.

It is ironic how much she sounds like those who complain about the consequences after trespassing on SCA rules or mores. What are their motivations for being here? Is it a party, or is it an educational experience? Is it an opportunity to live outside the constraints of modern society, and if so, how do you reconcile the fact that our ideals are in many ways more conservative than those of the modern world? Are you here to create your own game? Do you resent being told what to do, what is right, what is good? Are you here to be an adult or are you here to be a child?

I have one thing to say to those who seem to chafe under the yoke of the "rules" of the SCA. "If you don't like our game, go play somewhere else." It sounds harsher than it is; there are lots of recreational opportunities for people who don't like our game, and both groups would be better off for it.

This does not mean that people who disagree with the Principality, or the way fighting is going in the Outlands, or the new Peerage proposal, or fencing, or the Baron and Baroness, should leave. I think that these are necessary controversies that need to be worked out as part of the growth and maturity of the SCA.

This is for people who want to play elves, Klingons, or Han Solo. This is for people who think that sticking your tongue out at the Crown is funny. This is for the people who think that if they take on a cross-gendered persona, the Crown should give them an exalted position in the society, and that the Crown bows to such people. For the woman who contacted Lady Liberty League (a pagan religious legal defense organization) and threatened legal action because the SCA wouldn't register her arms containing a pentacle. For the person who thinks that stealing wallets from mundanes on site is perfectly OK, because their persona would have done it, it's period, and besides, mundanes are dumb. (These are all examples from real-life - I don't make this stuff up.)

Let them go do other fantasy or recreation groups. The other groups would be happy to have people who are so dedicated to what they're doing, and I can't fault them for their dedication. It's just that they don't fit in with the SCA, and that's OK.

It's OK that Ms. Melnyk didn't "get it", but it is unfair that she took it out on us, and in public. What most of the commentaries on this article are missing is that not everyone belongs in the SCA. We should recognize and embrace that fact. It would be a pretty boring world if we all belonged in the SCA. The Hospitaller's job (and we are all hospitallers, whether we hold the office or not) is to extract those people out of the mundane population who do belong, nurture them, make them feel welcome, teach them our traditions and mores, and make them a productive member of the Society.

This incident prompts a careful examination of the entire issue of newcomers and the SCA. Who is responsible when the SCA doesn't work for people? Is it the hospitaller, who didn't adequately prepare the newcomer? Is it the people themselves, who come with preconceived notions of how things should be? How do we handle the media? How can we prevent things like this from happening in the future? There were people at fault here, but this incident in no way indicates a dysfunction in the Society. It is indicative of the problems of the media - which is something that we really have little control over - and problems with our attitudes toward those who are not in the SCA. We need to begin to understand that we do not need to feel defensive and rejected when people don't hang around. We cannot expect to retain every person who walks into an event, but we can expect that that person will be adequately prepared for the experience.