[Ansteorra] RE: the Attack of the "Authenticity Police"

[digigirl]

Fabulous!  This says everything perfectly.  I can add nothing morethan to say that you said everything I wanted to say, but much moreeloquently.
Thank you.
Ceinwen
On 7/14/05, Marc Carlson <marccarlson20 at hotmail.com> wrote:> Just a warning, this is one of those kinda rambling messages, but if you> take the time and bear with me, I think it actually goes someplace…> > The problem with things like this term "Authenticity Police", and its> related terms is that they are labels intended to elicit a specific> knee-jerk response, as well as being labels meant to diminish the other> person's position to an object that can simply be dismissed.  In short, they> encourage people to just say things without thinking.  For example, while I> made the point yesterday that I am not offended by terms like troll, -ocrat> terms, etc.; being called a "nazi" –is- offensive to me (and many others),> and my knee-jerk response to it tends to be becoming deeply and aggressively> unpleasant to the speaker/writer.   "Authenticity police" does not offend> me, it's just inaccurate since the SCA has no rigid authenticity standards> there is nothing to police.  It's even more inaccurate to me since I make> such a fuss about NOT telling people that they HAVE to do x, y, or z   (I> mean, I guess I could, but what would the purpose be?).  "Authenticity> Maven", is still a label meant to diminish the other person's position to an> object that can simply be dismissed, but at least it's not inaccurate in> most cases.> > Now, I –have- been called an authenticity Nazi by someone who I'm quite> certain was meaning it as a compliment, because all she'd ever heard it used> for was as something interchangeable with authenticity maven.  And so she> was understandably confused when I did not take it as a compliment.> > I have also been called an authenticity Nazi by people who knew exactly what> the term meant, because they wanted to be insulting.> > Ok, as has been discussed here, it is believed that there are some people> who want to push their views on authenticity onto others, and make them toe> the line, become more authentic and so on.  Is this true?  I'd be stupid to> say no, it never happens – I have weekly conversations with people who think> this is actually a good idea, but are frustrated since the SCA offers them> no recourse.  I daresay, the fact that there –is- no outlet for regular> authenticity is a prime reason that many people leave the SCA.> > This is different from saying that there are people who stalk the> unsuspecting, jump them and beat them over their head with "what you are> wearing/doing/whatever is wrong so stop doing it".  Now, again, this happens> certainly (the first event I ever attended I had the then crown stop me and> dress me down for not being attired to his level of accuracy, something I> find highly amusing these days but at the time really made me angry).  Is it> common?  Without finding someway to do a broad research study to actually> test the numbers, I can't say, but my belief is that it isn't as prevalent> as is believed.   What –is- common is to have people who are very bad at> giving helpful suggestions on the one hand, and others who are overly> defensive on the other.> > I once had a rather interesting disagreement with William Blackfox when he> tried to explain that something I was wearing was inaccurate.  Now, William> was a really great guy and a brilliant artist and such, but was not always> the most elegant in face to face discussions, and what he was saying could> well have seemed to be criticism had I chosen to take  it that way, when in> fact all he was really trying to do was be helpful.> > Now, honestly, I have many examples of people being defensive -- for example> the guy who took offense just because I told him that I liked his boots – he> assumed I was being snide; or the guy who told me that I was being critical> of what he was wearing just by being dressed more accurately than he was.> People are going to find offense if they want to see it.> > The issue of course is that no one likes to be told that what they are doing> is wrong, and there is often an unspoken assumption that if a person is told> that what they are doing/saying/wearing is wrong, that there must be an> implicit "stop doing that".  This becomes a problem when in fact this isn't> actually the case.> > If I were to take the position that "Byzantines are not really European,> they talk that funny Greek language, not good real Latin, and should just be> barred from the SCA;" Xene, and others, would be well within THEIR rights to> disagree.  We might then proceed to array our arguments, and debate the> issue.   This might leave us ultimately with just continuing to disagreeing> on the matter  [as an aside, I have nothing against Byzantines – except that> they don't have enough archaeological data on shoes available to me in a> language I can read… *mutter*].    Now it really doesn't matter how good my> arguments are, how much better I think being an Irishman trapped in England> is over any of that Byzantine stuff – by the way the SCA is structured (and> I expect always will be), there is no way I can force anyone to not be> Byzantine.   The only thing I can do is show by example that I think it's> better, and why, and hope for some sort of understanding.> > Now, we come to the really interesting part of this.  Remember the guy who> said I was pressuring him just by being dressed better than he was?   This> is not as stupid sounding as it first seems.  Once upon a time, there were a> lot of people who were interested in Authenticity, and they did their thing> quietly and alone, and it was generally accepted by the people who just> wanted to not have to worry about that sort of thing (unless of course they> tried to step out of their boundaries and threaten the status quo).  They> had no real way to communicate with others, or even know if there WERE> others who were interested in the same sorts of things they were [BTW, this> is written somewhat hyperbolically, but I'm trying to make a point].  Then> came the Internet and that changed – authenticists got the chance to start> to exchange information and see that they were not in fact alone.  And you> know what?  In the past 10 years or so, the level of attire has gotten more> accurate overall.> > Except that as more people become interested in doing things more> authentically, there is an increased level of peer pressure (pressure from> one's peers, not pressure from the peerage, although there is some of that> too in some cases) on those people who really have no interest other than> doing things the good old SCA way.  Now, those of us who aren't interested> in doing things the good old SCA way but want to do things more historically> accurate experience the same sort of peer pressure as well.  The use of a> standardized tradition based argot is one way of enforcing that peer> pressure, so that every time we get hit in the face with terms like "troll"> or "garb" or whatnot, we are being told, you are not one of us, you do not> belong to OUR group unless you conform and use our terms.  Once upon a time,> this worked great, but now there are enough of us that we ARE a threat to> what people who are not like us want to do, just by our own presence – just> as they present a continual presence we have to contend with and avoid in> order to do what WE want to do.> > So is this an insurmountably polarized diad?  I don't think it has to be.> First, most people aren't strictly one OR the other, but rather fall> somewhere in the middle ground.  Second, we all _have_ to accept that the> SCA, like all social structures, has to evolve to a certain extent, however,> with the more conservative traditionalists slowing down that evolution – and> that conflict isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Growth and chance is good, but> unrestricted growth and change is potentially cancerous.   The SCA's lack of> authenticity standards is not, as some might argue, a bad thing – it's a> good thing.  That lack protects those of us who want to do MORE, just as it> protects the traditionalists who aren't interested in doing historical> accuracy.> > Tolerance isn't just learning to accept that others are there; I suspect> it's more learning to just not care about what they are doing, and still> doing what you want to do.> > To those who want to stick with the traditional SCA stuff, I'm glad to hear> it.  I respect what you are doing, but I expect that same respect.  I will> try not to insult you, if you will stop insulting me.  I understand that you> can feel pressured, so do we.   I am not going to stop doing what I am doing> just to please you, nor do I expect you to change what you are doing to> please me.  If you can't learn to live _with_ me, and accept that we are not> going to agree on this (and vice versa) we are both going to lose.> > Marc/Diarmaid> > > _______________________________________________> Ansteorra mailing list> Ansteorra at ansteorra.org> http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/ansteorra> 

-- No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large numberof electrons were terribly inconvenienced.