ANST - The Peer thing.

[jruble]

Lionardo penned (in reply to Viscount Galen):

> > To think that _every_ possible SCA activity should be able to
> > recognized by a peerage seems to me to be a fallacy.
>
> Why? Is there a specific reason that only if you fight with rattan in
> tournaments you should be allowed to be a peer? Or only if you
> participate
> in what is currently being considered the "Arts & Sciences" by the
> current
> Laurelate? Or only if you provide the kinds of service currently being
> recognized by the Order of the Pelican? I know I can think of numerous
> individuals I would easily consider "Peers" who will never be recognized
> as
> such because they don't quite "fit" into one of the above categories
> because
> of whatever their "primary" activity is. So even though such individuals
> could provide a truly positive culture and input into one of the Peerage
> Orders, they should not be considered because their main area of 
activity
> is
> not one that can be easily pigeonholed? All of these may be way off from
> what you are considering a fallacy, good Sir, so I would be interested
> in
> hearing your views in greater detail. They may be just the thing to show
> why
> we should maintain the status-quo.

And I interject with:
I think the peerage structure we have now is incorrect, if not from a 
balance point of view then at least from an accuracy point of view. 
 BUT... I am not willing to change the structure itself.  When you change 
the length and units of your yardsticks often enough,  you invalidate the 
measurement.  Those who sought peerage as a milestone in their development 
and endeavors will find it no longer marks a mile, and those still seeking 
will find that somebody changed things when they were half way there. 
 Such alterations encourage disparagement and lessen the effect of peerage 
itself.

In the more specific instances that elicited this conversation, I was 
always told that one gets a Thistle for being good at something, an Iris 
for being great at something or good at many, and a Laurel for being 
fantastic at something and good at many, or great at several, etc.  I 
assumed Knights were the equivalent, mastering different weapon styles, 
tactics, etc.  So I always assumed that the best an archer could hope for, 
if all they did was archery, would be a Grant level award.  I also assumed 
that if they pursued other martial or scientific activities, they might 
one day hope for Knighthood or the Laurelate.

And for the general sense, I guess I am still a 20th c. man.  I will 
accord a non-peer the respect due a Peer when their actions and attitude 
warrant it, even though our king has not recognized them as one.  This, in 
my mind, is more accurate than any award structure and supplies that very 
human need for immediate feedback.  Some of my friends are archers, 
engineers, and waterbearers, and while I could never think of some of them 
as Peers of the Known World, I consider them my peer in many ways.  I'd 
rather not shove some title upon them and tell them they have to uphold 
its tenets or match its doctrine; I think they're perfect as they already 
are.

'Course, if they DO want to be a Laurel, I'll help them attain that 
position.  It's a position, a post, a job, and as such it has specific 
duties and qualifications.  Some of these things they may not want to do, 
and as such, they will never become Laurels.  If we added a Fourth 
Peerage, it would be the same: not everyone could match all the 
qualifications.  Not everyone would want to.  Would we have to add a Fifth 
Peerage at that point?  Would we keep adding peerages until everyone had 
that title?

I'd rather recognize people's accomplishments without automatically 
saddling them with a title/job.  But, then, that is just my opinion, and 
worth the paper you are reading it on.  And just about as permanent.

Ulf Gunnarsson, OL


============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.