![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
SCA: more on peers
I've been thinking lately (due to an Incident, but it's good to think about these things anyway from time to time) about SCA peers and how their behavior affects others. My own approach to life in general seems to be to demand better behavior from myself than I think the norm calls for and to expect (and tolerate) worse behavior from others than the norm calls for. The only person I can control is me, and for others it's better to be prepared for a lesser outcome and pleasantly surprised than the alternative.
So, as a peer, I feel I have an obligation to behave well -- better than the SCA norm, and certainly better than the norm in the broader culture. I rarely live up fully to my expectations, though I think I do reasonably well, but my goal is clear. By accepting the peerage I accepted an obligation to be a leader and a role model. (Someone commenting on the other post rightly pointed out that we don't make it easy for people to bow out, though. But I accepted the elevation and its obligations with my eyes open.)
On the other hand, peers are human with human foibles and flaws, and I should not expect any random peer to be a stellar example of the peerage. But they're not off the hook either; I do hold peers to a higher standard. I just try to hold myself to an even higher higher standard.
I had wondered how common it is for people, when presented with Sir Jerk doing something horrid, to say "darn those knights" rather than "darn that Sir Jerk". I expect to be held accountable for my own behavior; should I also be held accountable for someone else's just because we share an award? Substitute "nationality" or "gender" or "university" for "award" and you'll probably say no; are peerage orders different?
In one way they are; members of the order advise the crown on the suitability of new members. (While sometimes the royalty will elevate someone without support from the order, it's not all that common -- fortunately.) When a peer does something bad, it may reflect badly on the members of the order who voted to elevate, particularly if it's a recent elevation. I haven't heard a lot about that specific case; it's my perception that most people who hold "the knights" (or whomever) liable for one of their own do not distinguish further among members of the order. But I could be mistaken here.
But regardless, I do have a tighter connection to other members of my orders than to other Americans or women or graduates of CMU, if only because there are so many fewer peers. So when an order member behaves badly, what fallout should I expect and what should I do about it?
It is certainly my obligation to give the person a good talking-to if I think there's any hope of that doing any good. But that would be true if I saw bad behavior from non-peers, too.
If I feel that the bad behavior requires a remedy (reparations and/or punishment), but I am not the wronged party, what should I do? I try to take my cues from the wronged party; I will support and aid the wronged party in pursuing the matter but am uncomfortable butting in if the wronged party wants it to Just Stop. On the other hand, sometimes the behavior is so wrong that it also grates to sit and do nothing.
This is different from making it harder for the problem to recur, though. If better newsletter policies would have made it harder for Mistress Snipe to publish an inflammatory article about Lady Victim, I should absolutely work for improving those policies. But if Mistress Snipe has published an apology and Lady Victim has accepted it, is it appropriate for me to say "that apology didn't sound sincere to me" and try to censure Mistress Snipe? Will other people hold me somehow accountable for Mistress Snipe's behavior if I don't? Should they?
The orders do not have a means to eject members. The SCA has a way to do that, but it's rare and, rightfully, a serious procedure. It also requires the royalty to act, so if they don't agree it won't happen.
When confronted with serious bad behavior, should the members of an order stand up and say "we don't condone that"? As an order? As individuals? Is that a reassuring message from the order, or is it somehow presumptuous? If another order member did something good I wouldn't stand up and take credit; the assumption would be that credit goes to the person who did the good thing. If that's correct, then shouldn't blame go to the person who did the bad thing and not to other members of the order?
I've heard the suggestion of shunning the bad peer. We can't keep the person from order meetings, but we can make it clear that we don't approve. In reality some people will shun and some will not, and there is risk of fallout. For example, what happens when the order is called into court to induct a worthy new member and the shunned person goes up? Does the rest of the order turn away, drawing attention away from the induction and toward the problem peer? In contexts other than courts, will most members of the populace even notice that we're shunning the person?
As I mentioned earlier, there has been an incident in my kingdom. I've heard some say "members of $order need to say something" and I've heard some say "it's a matter between Bad Peer and Victim and others should butt out". I have, thus far, remained silent in the order's discussion while I try to puzzle this out. Having written all this I'm still not sure what to do. (And yes, of course there are other factors specific to this case; I'm just trying to tease out the effects on the order of one person's actions.)
no subject
-When you make someone a peer, what exactly does that mean? Is it simply a reward for past deeds or is it an attempt to impose new rights and responsibilities? You also make it sound involuntary, which is appropriate for a reward, but not so much for a new "rank".
-For the incident in question, was the "bad guy" being a jerk in a general sense, or were they being a jerk in a way that was only possible with their new rank? That is, were they abusing their peerage?
Based on my (quite possibly flawed) understanding of this thing, I'd equate it to, say, decorated military veterans or perhaps the baseball hall of fame. If a famed baseball player acts badly, should they be removed from the hall of fame? Does it matter whether the bad thing they did was "get drunk and start a fight" (unrelated to their position) or "use their influence to disrupt a baseball game" (related to their position)?
I'm too far from the SCA situation to be able to understand it, but in general, I'd call it a much more serious situation if somebody's abusing their position. There'll always be jerks. There's not much that you can do about that. Jerks who abuse their power, though? You should, at least, take away that avenue for abuse.
no subject
Both.
You also make it sound involuntary, which is appropriate for a reward, but not so much for a new "rank".
A person can turn down the peerage, but we don't make it easy enough to do so. In most cases, the candidate is called into court, told the royalty would like to do this, and that he should return at such-and-such future event with an answer. That sounds like he can say no, and people have, but the invitation is given publicly so if he does decide to say no he has to deal with people asking him why he turned it down. On the other hand, if it were done privately then (1) word would probably get out anyway and (2) once it was widely perceived to be overdue he'd instead have people coming up to him and asking "why aren't you a peer yet?", which is arguably worse. So now that I've written that I'm not sure what changes I'd make.
For the incident in question, was the "bad guy" being a jerk in a general sense, or were they being a jerk in a way that was only possible with their new rank? That is, were they abusing their peerage?
Here's where it gets tricky. The person was not abusing the peerage, but was a jerk by using the skills for which the peerage had been granted. It's not the case of (say) a knight being a bully in an arts competition; rather it's like the knight who cheats in combat. His being a knight doesn't make it easier to cheat in combat, but it's more tightly tied to knighthood than other bad behavior would be. Or here's a better example, anyway: postulate a laurel (arts peer) recognized for music who composes and performs a slanderous song about a prominent person in the kingdom. Being a laurel didn't make that easier, but the transgression is "in the person's field" so people may associate it with the person's peerage more easily.
no subject
That happens anyways. And if he had indeed turned down the elevation, he'd have a reason to give his nosy friends.
"Why aren't you a knight yet?"
"Because I'm getting out of fighting."
"Because I feel I need to work on my courtesy."
"Why aren't you a laurel yet?"
"Because most of my really spectacular work was done with someone else's research and modern methods."
"Because I spend my work week attendinging meetings; I have no intention of doing the same at SCA events."
His being a knight doesn't make it easier to cheat in combat,...
Tangential comment: That's very idealistic of you. I've noticed that marshals (footnote for brokengoose: safety officers for combat) in some areas cut knights a lot more slack in tournaments than they do other fighters. I've heard that it used to be worse, that some knights used to have trouble acknowledging blows from non-knights.
"Only a knight can make a knight" became "Only a knight can kill a knight."
When one knight has that attitude, it's a problem. When a third of the Order in an area have that attitude, it's a scandal.