allegiances: SCA and synagogue

[cellio]

I was discussing my decreased involvement in the SCA (over the last decade or so) with a friend who suggested that I've shifted my social allegiance from the SCA to my synagogue. This is something I've thought about before and I want to record a comment I made in that discussion.

Certainly the degradation of the SCA over the last decade [1] has made it easier for me to find time for my synagogue. The SCA began its descent for me in 1994; it wasn't until 1998 that I even started showing up at my synagogue. I've thought a lot about how these are related, actually, and I think that had the SCA not gone the way it did I would still be involved in my synagogue but I would not be in a leadership position and I'd probably be a less-regular attendee. (Not infrequent, mind, but that I wouldn't have had a problem skipping Shabbat services to go to an event.) My synagogue has replaced the SCA in providing leadership opportunities, which have accompanying time commitments -- but, interestingly, I don't actually socialize a lot with the synagogue people outside of the synagogue context. I'm much more likely to go out to dinner and a movie (or whatever) with my SCA friends.

[1] We were talking about increasingly-obstructionist policies at the corporate level and their effects on the rank-and-file participants. The modern incarnation of these problems began with a major policy change, founded on false premises, in 1993. I spent a chunk of 1994 investigating those false premises, along with several other members, lawyers, and a judge.

Comments

[ellipticcurve.livejournal.com]

OK, what was the policy change? Now I'm all curious... :)

[cellio]

I'll answer the question, but it requires some background first.

The SCA has a corporation (to which members belong if they pay annual dues) and a network of local groups. Local groups don't get financial support from the corporation; they raise their own funds and use them to host events that people pay to attend. So you'd think that membership in SCA Inc is something like membership in the Audoban Society -- something you do because it feels good and supports a cause you like, but not something that has practical financial impact for you (beyond the tax deduction).

In 1993 SCA Inc decided that they weren't getting enough membership dollars and a financial crisis was looming. (This crisis turned out to be vapor, but it took a lawsuit to find that out.) So they required membership in the corporation in order to attend local events. That set off a firestorm, because the corporation doesn't provide those events (local groups that sink or swim on their own work do). But over time the "membership is good" meme has taken root and some people confused "is good" with "should be required". That's the foundation of a lot of today's problems.

Today membership is not required but the corporation charges a per-event tax for non-members -- even though it costs the hosting group no more for a non-member than for a member, and even though the corporation doesn't kick any of that money back to the local groups to cover expenses.

You can find more of my opinions on how this developed here. The local issue discussed there has long since been resolved, but the general problem in the SCA remains.

[nobble.livejournal.com]

In Australia there are people who also have this 'pay to play' attitude. It does divide the SCA community. Having said that, people continue to opt to not pay for membership and still attend events. Some like me pay for membership and DONT attend events. I think that political wranglings within a social group spoils it for many.

Wish I had more time for my synagogue. I think that will happen over time. Particualrly when R is just a bit older.

[cellio]

I think that political wranglings within a social group spoils it for many.

Indeed. It's sad when that happens to any group.

As for having time, young children can have a big impact. Fortunately, they don't say young forever. :-)