[Ansteorra] In defense of courtesy

[Marc Carlson]

>James Crouchet james at crouchet.com Continuing our discussion...

First I'd like to apologize for taking so long in getting back to this.  
It's been a busy week, and I've been generally offline until this evening.

>>>While it is true that we take some of our models of courtesy from the 
>>>Victorians and
>>>we obviously have our own priorities, fashions of speech and behavior, 
>>>and
>>>prejudices, in the main we would recognize and respect the themes of 
>>>courtesy from
>>>the past.
>>I believe that I may not have been as clear as I should have been.  My 
>>statement was regarding what we consider chivalric courtesy and proper
> >behavior being Victorian, not that there weren't standards for courtesy 
>and
>>behoavior.
>The central question is how the SCA sees courtesy. I think we can agree 
>that the
>Victorians only play into it to the degree to which they influence the 
>SCA's ideas of
>courtesy. I cannot deny there is some effect but I think it is small. I 
>disagree with the
>idea that the SCA has adopted those Victorian ideals wholesale. I contend 
>that the
>origins of our ideas of courtesy owe more to the ideals of the 20th 
>Century.
>I think this is the crux of our different views.

This is entirely possible.  Of course, there is the extent to which our 
modern (American) ideals of courtesy also are derived from Victorian 
antecedents, however muddied through the  20th century they have become.  
For instance, the attitudes of the Boy Scouts, as have been mentioned, 
derive from the organization created by Badon-Powell and were based on, 
among other things, the Victorian ideals as promulgated in Kipling.

While it is very true that I rarely exchange cards when visiting, as a 
gentleman should, this doesn't mean that I never do.  The Victorian 
expectations we base "proper" behavior on still exist in what we expect from 
well-mannered folk.

>>>As evidence I offer "The Book of the Courtier" by Baldesar 
>>>Castiglione,...
>>I have read it, or rather I have read English translations, and I agree 
>>that people might recognize the essence of courtesy that is described, the 
>>question is whether that portrait is the same as that painted by the 
>>chivalric mythology of the Victorian era.
>Again, the central question is how the SCA -- not the Victorians -- see
>courtesy.

But, since my contention that the SCA interpretation of chivalry and 
courtesy and proper behavior is built from Victorian bricks, then we must 
make that comparison in order to disprove, or fail to disprove that 
hypothesis.

As a point of clarification, I would like to mention that you have moved the 
subject heading to "In defense of courtesy" from "Courtesy Challenge," which 
may be construed as implying that courtesy is being threatened.  No one's 
done that; at least I know I haven't.  I was raised to believe that courtesy 
doesn't require a defense.  Courtesy is its own defense, its own armor.

The thread I have been trying to be involved in is discussing whether the 
SCA mode of behavior is based on Victorian versus a 15th century origin, not 
whether people  understand proper behavior.  The only standard I see 
generally implied is the Victorian one.

>Chivalry is a tricky word, which is why I have avoided it. Our most
>common meaning for this term is not the same the most common period
>use of the word. As such, it tends to lead us into false arguments. I
>agree that a period discussion of horsemanship is not relevant to our
>ideas of courtesy.

But "chivalry" is the word that is most often used by SCAdians.  So let me 
go back to the OED, and harvest the high points of "chivalry" in the context 
of how the SCA might be meaning that term: disinterested bravery, honor, 
ideal courtesy, pure and noble gallantry, and a disinterested devotion to 
the cause of the weak or oppressed, and particularly as this related to 'the 
service of the female sex.'

Clearly this is not that helpful, since "courtesy" is part of the 
definition.  So let's look at "Courtesy":  "courtly elegance and politeness 
of manners; graceful politeness or considerateness in intercourse with 
others."  But you'll notice there's nothing about treating women 
differently, which does seem to be something that is important to many in 
the SCA.

>>standards.  Castiglioni says that men should be of meek, gentle, sober etc 
>>conversation with women, and love them honestly more for their minds than 
>>their bodies.  I'm not seeing anywhere that women are weak and inferior 
>>and must be protected, and kept from working too hard.
>I'm not sure how you came to believe that is the SCA ideal of courtesy.

25+ years of observation might have something to do with it.

>Our women are as strong and capable as they choose to be. I would be
>amused to see a man try telling Sir Britta she is weak and needs to
>shelter behind him in a battle; more to the point, it would be
>considered rude. I was happy that a young lady offered to help me the
>other day when I was trying to carry too much from the hall at Crown;
>more to the point it was clearly courtesy on her part.

I am familiar with the dissonant nature of how women are generally expected 
to be treated in the Society.  I hope you will pardon me when I say that I 
am personally unable to say that black is black –and- black is white at one 
and the same time and actually mean it.  Certainly some women are allowed to 
be something other than the Queen of Love and Beauty, the ideal whose favor 
men carry, and who men are expected to behave gallantly toward in all 
things.

I agree with Her Grace that proper behavior is a two way street.  However, 
if it's predicated on the assumption that men must be chivalrous and that 
women must be deserving of it, I'm afraid I must personally disagree.

Speaking for myself, mundanely, the only differences between men and women 
involve reproduction.  Therefore men and women should be held to the same 
standard of behavior.  It's not really period, I know (heck, it's arguable 
that it's not even very modern).  Those opinions influence how I behave in 
the SCA, but I would like to think that my standards for courtesy en-persona 
are based on the same standards as my clothing (yet another reason for my 
non-noble and new man persona).

>>   Much less, demonstrating our defacto ownership over the weaker sex 
>>through an array of bizzare rituals such as escorting them into court, 
>>opening doors for them, and so on.
>I think you read too much into those rituals. That may have been their
>origin but much like saying "Bless you!" to someone who has sneezed,
>they have long since lost their original meaning and are now done only
>as traditional ways of showing courtesy. Examining the prevalence of
>these rituals will tell you little about how we regard women.

The fact that this discussion and the preceding ones have been taking place, 
particularly those regarding how to encourage courtesy towards women, does 
suggest to me that these rituals clearly aren't universal in the SCA.  After 
all, why would someone want to encourage and bring about something that was 
already commonly present?

But let's examine the allegedly meaningless ritual of escorting women into 
Court.  Now, granted, I haven't been to that many Courts lately, and so 
haven't seen many of what my wife refers to as "prized pig competitions" of 
men clambering though and climbing over the crowd to in order to see who 
gets there first, so a woman isn't allowed to be brought forward without a 
male to validate her presence.  It's a curiously Victorian way of treating 
women, by the way.

Depending on the preferences of the woman on the receiving end of this 
"ritual", it can denigrate whatever the award is the woman has been called 
forth to receive, or announcement she is there to make; and it can also draw 
all that pesky attention away from her and onto her male protector.  This 
seems to me to be showing less courtesy and more thoughtless disrespect.  If 
the lady is willing to participate, however, that is a different matter.

Perhaps you are right, and I am reading too much into these things.  Perhaps 
I am not.  We may need to agree to disagree on these matters.

Courtesy is like costuming.  We can be accurate, or we can display 
behavioral t-tunics and o-ring belts. I'm fine with either.  I know where I 
have to make my choices.

>Thank you for the interesting discussion.

Ma plaisir.

Marc/Diarmaid