The Peerages...

[Lenny Zimmermann]

On Fri, 30 May 1997 07:38:48 -0500 (CDT), Pug wrote:

>  Why would anyone actually want to be a peer of the society?
>
>  As I see it, there are few advantages, and the "drawback" is beyond my
>  understanding.
[Itemized list of advantages/disadvantages (depending upon your POV)
deleted for brevity]


>  Since one can do all of these without being a peer of the society, I
>  don't see any of them as being advantageous. (Of course the crown may
>  not take your advising as heavily for #4, but I am still of the
>  opinion that actions speak louder than titles.)

Well, so far as I know this is the only item on the list is truly the
sole propriety of a Peer. In that a Peer has to right to be heard by
the Crown. Meaning the Crown is obligated to listen to any peer
wanting to express their viewpoint to Their Majesties, where they have
no such binding obligation to anyone else in the society. As a Peer
you are, in effect, guaranteed audience with the Crown.

>  As I've stated before, I think the OP can be thrown out the window in
>  my eyes. I respect people for what they are doing, not what title they
>  currently hold.

You may be right, in one respect, but there are many eyes who perceive
things slightly differently as I shall endeavor to address
momentarily.

>  The main thing I see as a definate disadvantage is the politics that
>  occur within the circles. These flucuate, but when I've seen this ugly
>  beast rise its head, it's truly an ugly site.

When there are more than 3 people in a room, you have politics. This
word has gotten a very bad rap of late, but in truth it is only a way
to describe people attempting to get their views noticed, acknowledged
and, possibly, acted upon. Some people play dirty and are not beyond
doing a little "back-stabbing" in order to get their way, the way they
feel is "right", I might add. This is probably the most dramatic form
of politics we see. But the vast majority of politics is in the form
of diplomacy and attempts at productive discourse to bring two or more
sides together to reach a compromise. (Despite so many modern
sentiments against compromise, I prefer to firmly believe that it is
still a good thing.)

>  So it comes down to, why would one *want* the peerage? What makes it
>  gloureous? What makes it diserable? What am I missing in my thought
>  stream?

Here we get to the crux of a "society". It is human nature to want to
be accepted, recognized, acknowledged, etc. We have grown-up in a
culture where recognition and awards help to define who we are. (NOTE:
These are generalizations only and I can firmly attest that they do
not apply to all of us, at least not in the same degrees!!!) As such
this kind of recognition can be an admirable goal for many.

Many Peers may tell you that you are not made a Peer, you simply
recognized as a Peer. But some may imply from this statement that "if
you ain't got what it takes, it ain't gonna happen to you!" Well, the
gaol itself can provide the incentive for those who may not initially
have what it takes to strive to reach some ideals. And although we may
acknowledge ideals in an abstract way, not everyone is capable of
transferring abstract ideals into practical usage. It helps them most
to see someone recognized for those ideals and to see how those people
act to better understand what those ideals MEAN in a more "real"
sense. 

Though many will not need this kind of encouragement, I see nothing
wrong with those kinds of folks accepting such accolades from others,
if for no other reason than to provide an example of the ideals to
those who may not otherwise understand them. Not all Peers share the
same ideals, but they carry their own ideals with conviction and
others have said that these people are to be admired for upholding
their beliefs. Let them be examples for those who need examples.

So perhaps there are no rewards or advantages, for you personally, in
becoming a Peer. Perhaps, for some, it is nothing more than being put
forth as an example. And a continuing hard path it must be to
constantly try to maintain yourself as an example for others who may
not be as capable of recognizing who is deserving of respect
regardless of the accolades they have received. But is not that act of
selflessness part of the ideals we look for in Peers? I guess you can
say that it's a hard job, but somebody's got to do it. (Although for
most, I am sure the job does not seem so hard at all, since they got
it by doing what they love to do to begin with. :-))

Best of luck in however you decide to finally view it.

Honos Servio,
Lionardo Acquistapace, Bjornsborg
(mka Lenny Zimmermann, San Antonio)
zarlor at acm.org