Musing on psychic influences
Aug. 2nd, 2005 04:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jducoeurSo last night was the big schmooze on the subject of the Carolingian Boroughs -- a sort of combination debrief, philosophical roundtable and planning session for the fall. I thought it was quite useful, not least in that it got lots of new ideas on the table, both about why several of the boroughs have had specific issues in recent years, and things we might adjust to help.
One subject that came up repeatedly, though (and this is really the main point of this posting) was the little mismatches between implicit Carolingian assumptions and the way the typical college student thinks these days. For example:
-- The Touchy-Feely Thing. A point that was echoed by all of the younger members there was that the "hugginess" of Carolingia can be very offputting to a lot of potential members, especially female ones. On one level this isn't anything new, but it seems to be more striking now than it used to be, and a bigger problem. Many members of the Barony have spent many years internalizing a touch-oriented culture, while the student world has apparently gotten rather more conservative in this respect.
-- Getting Off Campus. When I was in college, it was pretty normal to wander afield -- Fenmere may have done so more than many social circles, but we weren't unusual in feeling that the campus was destitute of worthwhile things to do. Nowadays, though, it seems to be remarkably difficult to get students off-campus for activities like ours. A point repeated several times was that many schools are turning themselves into little arcologies, emphasizing that It's Dangerous Out There and trying to make themselves as self-sufficient as possible.
None of this is really intended to start a big Borough argument; these subtle shifts are simply things we're going to have to adapt to if we want to stay viable, and we had a useful discussion of how they might be addressed. (Hopefully with more success than some prior attempts.) But the examination of how we have to adjust to shifts in mundane culture did remind me of a speculation that's been running through my head for a while.
It would be really interesting to see how the ebbs and flows of mundane politics affect clubs on a mental level. It's hard to separate my own headspace from the larger scene, but I don't seem to be the only one who has observed that Carolingia, and perhaps the East in general, is just a little *crankier* these days than it used to be. And y'know, I'm forced to wonder how much of that is internalizing the external influences.
I mean, we are a fundamentally romantic club. Historical accuracy is a lovely goal, but the SCA was created mainly from a romanticised view of history, and most people who join do so with that sort of view in mind. But we do not live in romantic times. Certainly up here in Central Blueland, there's a certain grim tension underlying everything these days. Does that feed back into the SCA? Is it just a little harder to throw your heart into romantic notions when romanticism feels like an unaffordable luxury in mundane life?
I dunno. This is, as it says, an idle half-formed musing lurking in the back of my head, and there are so many factors in play that it's hard to separate them. But it does rather feel to me like there is some connection there...
One subject that came up repeatedly, though (and this is really the main point of this posting) was the little mismatches between implicit Carolingian assumptions and the way the typical college student thinks these days. For example:
-- The Touchy-Feely Thing. A point that was echoed by all of the younger members there was that the "hugginess" of Carolingia can be very offputting to a lot of potential members, especially female ones. On one level this isn't anything new, but it seems to be more striking now than it used to be, and a bigger problem. Many members of the Barony have spent many years internalizing a touch-oriented culture, while the student world has apparently gotten rather more conservative in this respect.
-- Getting Off Campus. When I was in college, it was pretty normal to wander afield -- Fenmere may have done so more than many social circles, but we weren't unusual in feeling that the campus was destitute of worthwhile things to do. Nowadays, though, it seems to be remarkably difficult to get students off-campus for activities like ours. A point repeated several times was that many schools are turning themselves into little arcologies, emphasizing that It's Dangerous Out There and trying to make themselves as self-sufficient as possible.
None of this is really intended to start a big Borough argument; these subtle shifts are simply things we're going to have to adapt to if we want to stay viable, and we had a useful discussion of how they might be addressed. (Hopefully with more success than some prior attempts.) But the examination of how we have to adjust to shifts in mundane culture did remind me of a speculation that's been running through my head for a while.
It would be really interesting to see how the ebbs and flows of mundane politics affect clubs on a mental level. It's hard to separate my own headspace from the larger scene, but I don't seem to be the only one who has observed that Carolingia, and perhaps the East in general, is just a little *crankier* these days than it used to be. And y'know, I'm forced to wonder how much of that is internalizing the external influences.
I mean, we are a fundamentally romantic club. Historical accuracy is a lovely goal, but the SCA was created mainly from a romanticised view of history, and most people who join do so with that sort of view in mind. But we do not live in romantic times. Certainly up here in Central Blueland, there's a certain grim tension underlying everything these days. Does that feed back into the SCA? Is it just a little harder to throw your heart into romantic notions when romanticism feels like an unaffordable luxury in mundane life?
I dunno. This is, as it says, an idle half-formed musing lurking in the back of my head, and there are so many factors in play that it's hard to separate them. But it does rather feel to me like there is some connection there...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 09:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 09:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 03:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 08:08 am (UTC)I've been running into this a bit nonspecifically (and mostly internal to myself) but I can't comment either way unless I know which crankiness, exactly, we're talking about.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 06:14 pm (UTC)All of which I've certainly been seeing in *myself* to a substantial degree; indeed, it's almost a description of depression. The question is, am I correct that some measure of that is also true on the larger SCA scale, or am I simply projecting? I could easily believe either...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 09:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 08:07 am (UTC)Rural Iowa, to give a geographical point of reference.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 09:25 pm (UTC)I can't answer the Campus Insularity issue well. Wellesley was fairly insular in my day (class of 87) but there was the regular bus to MIT, and I wasn't the sort to let that stop me from like minds. But I'm 40 now and the people you're concerned about are 20, and I don't pretend I understand what it's like.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 03:33 am (UTC)Problem is, as a few people pointed out, making such a comment itself has significant effects. If you tell your potential newbies (from their possible POV), "Well, there are some creepy people, but you can just ignore them", that isn't going to endear the club to them. It's a very tricky and subtle point to make -- doing so in a way that doesn't in itself act as a turnoff isn't easy...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 10:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 06:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 08:16 am (UTC)It's a mutual thing - the new people have to be alerted to certain facets of our culture and how participation is completely optional, but the established people also need to be clued in that as far as borough folk go, the tide is ever-changing.
And some people will simply be too shy and fearful and unassertive to tell strange older people (especially younger women telling older men) to stop their behavior, especially if that behavior seems publicly supported by everyone else. I know this because I am one of them.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 11:16 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 06:17 pm (UTC)(BTW, I still have the Felding Taxi Corps tag hanging from my car mirror. One of those reminders of what really matters...)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 06:59 pm (UTC)(I'm pretty sure the Felding Taxi Corps was
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 07:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 07:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 11:09 pm (UTC)I think the main lesson I draw from it is that there's nothing quite so effective as having friends with cars and the explicit willingness to use them...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-04 02:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 09:30 pm (UTC)Mine is the only valid experience, right?
Date: 2005-08-02 09:37 pm (UTC)1. Touchy-feely. Keep the creepy guys away from the newbies! I'm just saying. But yes -- my young friends (relatives, mostly; 16-19 at this point) who confide in me have a very post-sexual-revolution attitude toward sex and touching and whatnot. Sex is another thing, and since it's somewhat out there, it's not as mysterious; having random people wandering up and touching you is not exciting or liberating or something, it's random people wandering up and copping a feel. So, yeah. I think we're back into what looks from here like a more prudish cycle, I think it's more like "been there, seen that on the 'net since I was 6, not interested" cycle. Or I could be overanalyzing.
2. Going off campus. I'm a generation of college-dwellers behind you, and I think at this point the newbies are almost a generation behind me; but In My Day, we didn't go off campus for hell or high water. There was a three month period, between Fall Break and Christmas, where I realized I hadn't been off campus at *all* (except to Denny's, and that was 50 feet off campus). If something didn't happen on campus, it didn't happen; we went to the odd event at Myrkfaelinn or something, but that was well after I was entrenched in the group.
Of course, I think it depends on the place. Obviously with, say, MIT, you can't avoid going off campus. My undergrad, it was a half-mile walk to the campus edge, or a mile if you wanted to get anywhere interesting.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 09:37 pm (UTC)More to the philosophical
Date: 2005-08-02 09:38 pm (UTC)Do people feel that way? I suppose they could, but I don't feel that way myself. I think it's more needed when I'm a little cranky! This seems to be supported at least by the popular media, who come out with an article about the sudden/surprise need for escapism every time there's a successful SF movie (ignoring that the exact same thing was said three years ago about the last happy SF movie.)
I wish the discussion could have been televised or something; I am unable to attend Council at present; John goes for Calligrapher's. Did y'all talk about the self-sorting that colleges do? Families that send their kids to big-names in Boston will tend to be more affluent, and those who have more money tend to be more conservative. This may mean that the student population leans a different political direction than those of us in the SCA overall, and especially here in BlueLand.
Re: More to the philosophical
Date: 2005-08-03 03:36 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 09:57 pm (UTC)In what way has an unwillingness to leave campus new? I ranted about it for fifteen years. OK, more like a decade ending five years ago when it became clear that it was a long lost cause.
And the touchy feely thing? It's been a more-or-less continuous complaint from Feldings for at least a decade in my experience. It's a direct result of the "lack of gateway" problem. When someone has to learn the ropes by immersion, they have no way to tell if putting up with jerks coming on to them is part of the culture or not. Welcome to the problems of implicit acculturation.
Welcome to Carolingia.
Staying on campus
Date: 2005-08-03 02:25 am (UTC)Hear, hear--and not just here. When I was at Northwestern (86-90), most of us rarely went off campus for anything other than shopping. When we went so far as to go into Chicago, it was usually in groups. It wasn't that we were afraid, it was just that we weren't interested; there was too much to do on campus. I knew at least one person in the SCA at that point, but I never felt like going anywhere to try it.
Of course, very few of us had cars; I gather that's different these days at most schools. (Northwestern had very little student parking.)
Re: Staying on campus
Date: 2005-08-03 11:02 am (UTC)At any rate, it's definitely true that colleges are designed to be appealing to students and to have the highest concentration of student-interesting activities right there.
So if Carolingia wants to increase the student size, then we have to bring the SCA out to the colleges, not expect the students to come to us.
Re: Staying on campus
Date: 2005-08-03 01:30 pm (UTC)No, you're thinking of the University of Chicago, where I went to grad school (briefly). Northwestern was nothing like that.
Re: Staying on campus
Date: 2005-08-03 06:21 pm (UTC)For a number of years, we did a lot of "traveling road shows", where various Guilds came out to the Boroughs to teach their activities. That seemed like a good idea at the time, but I *believe* that it sent precisely the wrong message: it made the Barony seem like an outside group that comes *to* the school, rather than making the burghers feel like *part* of the larger group.
It's quite possible that this idea can be adapted in more useful form, with some adjustments. But so far, it's been a magnificent illustration of the Law of Unintended Consequences...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 11:15 am (UTC)As for getting off campus, maybe my Felding years were unusual, but we seemed to be fleeing campus all the time. Our main difficulty was transportation. Wellesley students pretty much all live on campus, so no one has a car. Could some of the problems with insularity be transportation issues? We seemed to do pretty well with rides, but I don't know if the atmosphere of providing rides for the carless still prevails in Carolingia.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 06:24 pm (UTC)The consensus on Monday was that this is at least a factor. There are probably a number of reasons *why* the ride-sharing thing has been less effective in recent years, and we discussed several of them, but most people felt that it was a significant consideration...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 07:01 pm (UTC)There are ZipCars on campus, but I'm not sure how cost-effective they are for weekly occurances like dance practice. Hmm...
transportation
Date: 2005-08-04 02:25 am (UTC)My freshman year (83) there was Ki-lin, and me. At some point that year, there were post-dance-practice parties at this or that place, or ice cream, or whatever. But the big thing was that Raf and Aristotle were willing to drive the Feldings back home after whatever-it-was after dance.
If there wasn't a whatever-it-was, then they and whatever feldings, would hang out at the coffee-house equivalent at Wellesley after we got back on campus. For hours, discussing everything, including computer stories, which is important, because it gave *me* the vocabulary to bootstrap myself into low-level computer industry jobs!
But it was them being really outgoing with their cars that made a big difference.
Decline of ride-sharing
Date: 2005-08-05 12:37 am (UTC)Traffic has gotten worse, hasn't it?
I think I see a feedback loop here, too. Older Carolingians are less likely to have time and energy to drive students around; that's more likely to be Carolingians in their 20s. So the fact that there are fewer Carolingias in their 20s means fewer rides for students, which means fewer active students, which means fewer students graduating, getting jobs, and becoming Carolingians in their 20s.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 10:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 03:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 11:00 am (UTC)So while your Nanny State rant may be valid, I'm not sure it applies to college kids, or at least not their first year or so.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 12:46 pm (UTC)Many of whom, if the news media are to be believed, continue to micro-manage (or at least try to) the offspring's lives during college, as well (the NYT has run several articles about this phenomenon in recent years; check their archives for further info). My spouse-the-prof has had parents show up at their child's course advising appointments, choose the child's classes, and not let the child get in a word edgewise.
Dr. Science's university also held a faculty workshop about College Kids Today (and how they differ from college kids of a generation ago), which pointed out (among other things) that these "young adults" have grown up (as said above) micro-managed and hyper-protected by their parents. If they've spent their lives-to-date chauffeured to and from extracurriculars and play-dates in controlled environments, and have never played unsupervised in the back yard or gone exploring after school because Something Bad Might Happen, then it shouldn't come as a surprise that they would be reluctant to leave campus (or let their parents choose their classes, or agree to phone home twice daily, or...).
In the Midrealm in the Eighties, the biggest, most vital, and best-traveled groups were the ones based on university campuses. (I haven't played in the Midrealm for ten years, so I don't know whether that's still the case.)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 12:52 pm (UTC)That's a fairly big "if," I think. I believe your examples, but I'd hesitate to see it as representative. I'd want to see stats before basing a Plan on it.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 06:31 pm (UTC)Yes, all of this has been true to *some* degree forever, but IMO it's become much more institutionalized and pervasive in recent decades, due at least to political and media trends. And many current college students grew up immersed in that memeset, in part promulgated *by* overprotective parents...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 12:00 am (UTC)Both your comments ring true to my memories of college.
While I liked the fact that my school was more touchy-feely-huggy than home, it's different getting huggy with other agemates than coming from older strangers, particularly when one isn't sure about the etiquette. Avoidance is often easier than rudeness
One other aspect not mentioned. I've often heard that Carolingia has a reputation for more rigorous authenticity than other parts of the SCA. May not be true, but that's what I've heard. Thus, while I was willing to borrow and wear garb, I was nervous about coming up with a persona for fear that I would get things incorrect and look foolish or ignorant. I don't know if the barony STILL has that reputation, but I like your comment about the romantic over accuracy, and it's one you may want to communicate more.
Just my two cents as an outsider looking in.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 03:40 am (UTC)It's a good point to keep in mind, although mostly only relevant to people who start out with at least half a clue. That's a smallish minority of potential members, although larger than it used to be...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 08:27 am (UTC)I've been here for two years and I still feel that way. So I just play to the level I want to play and try not to offend anybody.
As far as I am aware, most people here are tasteful enough to not pick on newbies, at least to their face. Their friends, maybe (I may kick the next person that complains about my head covering), but not the newbies. However, in order to know that, newbie has to get over the nervousness enough to know people, which isn't going to happen if the authenticity level is over-intimidating...
And asking people to be less strictly authentic is decidedly NOT the answer. Unfortunately, I don't know what is.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 06:36 pm (UTC)Of course, then we need to actually practice what we preach, which requires being pretty non-judgemental about the other person's choices. I can't say we always succeed at that. But I try to keep it as a goal...
bubbles
Date: 2005-08-03 01:08 am (UTC)The model for burroughs seems to be find the leader and get them to lead, turn them into the doorway. I'm not sure that is a good or self-sufficient model, but it seems to be how things have operated. We simply have hoped to sumble on enough leadership types interested in our game.
The physical closeness is a weird thing. I am not an extremely huggy person unless I am very comfortable with people. For the most part, others locally seem to respect that, so I wonder if this isn't specific predatory folks or a general culture thing. Additionally, newer people might see people who are 20 year old friends hugging, but not realize the cause for closeness.
Re: bubbles
Date: 2005-08-03 06:37 pm (UTC)Re: bubbles
Date: 2005-08-03 11:28 pm (UTC)So it's not just a matter of cultivating a leader on campus, but an ongoing process for the next leader and one after that and so on...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 01:00 pm (UTC)And as far as it being a sheltered-girl thing - NOT. I showed up in the SCA (not in Carolingia) entirely aware of men, and the invasive touching wasn't creepy so much because I didn't know how to say no assertively. It was creepy because I had to say no assertively All The Damned Time. After too many rounds of barely swallowed, "I said don't touch me, fucker!" it becomes hard to get up the enthusiasm to go back into that environment again, no matter how juicy the other rewards.
I understand that the SCA has a disproportionately high number of oddly- or poorly-socialized people. It gets right up my nose that we make excuses for them like "oh, that's just the culture, get used to it."
oddly- or poorly-socialized people
Date: 2005-08-03 02:31 pm (UTC)Maybe we need a public-information campaign within Carolingia (as I suggested above) "Don't hug the newbies!" or "Ask before hugging!" or something.
The last time I hugged someone without asking at an SCA function was several months ago, and he's about 10 years older than I am, I think. I don't think I've been touched without inviting it for years, but I'm not a cute young thing anymore.
Re: oddly- or poorly-socialized people
Date: 2005-08-03 02:58 pm (UTC)I would say that I have observed a handful of people - perhaps a dozen - who are extra-touchy in Carolingia and rather immune to clue about it. I know that I also go into "Ice Shields Up" if I am wary about this, which has the unfortunate additional effect of making me seem very prickly and unfriendly because I am nervous about my personal space. It is a dichotomy that I dislike intensely, because it means that I choose social distance to preserve my corporal sanity.
There is also, of course, the corollary social atmosphere problem; even if people aren't touched uninvited, this sort of snuggly puppy-pile socializing is extremely offputting to some people, because it is perceived as the social norm, and if that's not your thing, it can send a very strong message that you won't be welcomed because you don't snuggle and will therefore be perceived as uptight or unfriendly.
Re: oddly- or poorly-socialized people
Date: 2005-08-03 06:44 pm (UTC)I would say that dance practice *is* both more flirty and more touchy than Carolingian average; that said, it's rather less so than it once was, and probably not exceptional. That's partly a matter of shifting social norms, and partly because the average age is simply older than it used to be. There's a moderate bit of casual hugging and backrubs of friends, but not as much puppy-pile as there once was.
That said, the social atmosphere point is a good one, and trickier to address than some. Avoiding implicit and unintentional social pressure requires a lot of care and attention...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 03:29 pm (UTC)Now that is just an interesting observation and then some - is this the culture that is desired? Or is it the culture that is tolerated? How often do we actually want to be up-close-and-personal with all the people who want to get within our space in the SCA and how often do we tolerate it?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 03:46 pm (UTC)A fine question. The snarky answer is, of course, that the oddly-socialized are in the majority in the SCA and have constructed a culture to their liking which allows for a lot of the kind of social interaction that is proscribed in the World At Large. (Or perhaps that they WERE the majority and are hanging on to their construction for dear life, which perpetuates it even among the more clueful - it is not for nothing that people mention the age of the "creepy guys" with some regularity.)
I do not dispute that the SCA is a refuge of sorts for many, many people, myself among them. But for some it is a social refuge that allows them to continue in paths that have been disallowed elsewhere, for reasons that I personally think are appropriate.
Over time, I find that I "deal" with the creepy problem by avoiding the people, because that is the only sure-fire. But it doesn't solve the problem at its core, and it makes me resentful because I sometimes avoid places that I would rather not, because of their population.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 03:38 pm (UTC)We were complaining about this eighteen years ago and ten and five and... I'm not sure if people have gotten more conservative or rather that the culture has changed so people feel more empowered now to express their discomfort without worrying about sounding like an uptight idiot.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 03:47 pm (UTC)I would consider this very strongly before deciding that the "problem" is the putative conservativism of college-age women.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 05:12 pm (UTC)I say "word" to this quite strongly. Although I've only had some peripheral experience of the SCA, in general I would say from the vantage point of 40 years on this planet that, when I was in my late teens/early twenties, I got lots of unwanted hugs, backrubs, pats on the ass, etc., from guys (especially older guys) and was leery of saying anything because I didn't want to look like an uptight prude.
I am kind of heartened to see women fifteen or twenty years my junior who feel comfortable about stating their own personal-space boundaries clearly.
(Julia here, Justin, through the magic of Charley's friendslist, in case the LJname is unfamiliar.)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 06:46 pm (UTC)Alternatives
Date: 2005-08-03 07:39 pm (UTC)So what would I suggest in addition? An attempt to reintroduce gentile hand extending with at worst the potential for hand kissing. A good bow over the hand or tasteful kiss to the hand is a damn site as romantic if not more than the other stuff - and a hell of a lot more period too I would imagine. Plus it initally nips forward behavior in the bud and sets a certain expectation.
Sure, there's the potential for people pressing their advantage or consensual progress at a later date. However, if we set up the assumption of gentility, it makes it easier to back away from the unwanted advances. It's not perfect, but it's a start and a start that could work on the individual level without discussions and addressing the masses.
dissemination
Date: 2005-08-04 02:21 am (UTC)Changing culture
Date: 2005-08-05 12:48 am (UTC)There has certainly been a culture change since eighteen years ago. Think about it: you're essentially talking about sexual harrassment (albeit at a low level), which showed up on the national radar with the Clarence Thomas hearings, in...<dig, dig>...1991. It's much easier to complain about sexual harrassment than it used to be. Someone who's entering college this fall entered preschool at the time of the Thomas hearings. They never had any "I don't want to complain" to unlearn.