What's the value of our focus?

[liadethornegge]

How far away from the Victorian idealised view of medieval European chivalric tournaments can we go, and still remain a coherent society? How about the 16th century who were already doing re-enactment of the same thing? How about an Egyptian pharaoh? Or a  Mayan from the 14th century? Or an inuit?

I do believe there is value of a cohesive story that explains the core of what we are. If we can be anything, then what's the story that binds us? Why not the 17th Century? Why not WWI?

Is that a slippery slope, or worth talking about?

Comments

[evaelisabeth]

I would argue that we are already seeing people playing very early period without much argument, definitely earlier than the 600 to 1600 that I usually see quoted. I don't personally see the SCA as reenactment, our focus is too diffuse for that we don't concentrate on the narrow kind of time periods that reenactors generally do. In my head, we are historical hobbyists who share a love for a diverse spread of cultures and time periods. That's why I don't personally have an issue to extending to 1650 but it's not something that I would spend a lot of energy on, it's certainly not the hill I will die on :-)

[liadethornegge]

I also do not think we are re-enactment, and I wouldn't want it to be that either.
What I mean is, what is the central story that brings everyone together? For me, the story is we engage in courtly, civalric pageantry.

And, How important is it to have ONE story to tell?

I don't want to set hard rules for exclusion, such as "You can not come dressed as X", and I do think the current guideline makes sense, i.e. "The central theme is high medieval, Europe, and any interpretation from outside of that are welcome visitors to this court"

But what, if anything, is lost if we let that loose and just say "Anything you want to cosplay from history is fine"?

I don't know if I'm articulating this wery well...

[evaelisabeth]

I do get your point it has a lot of merits. I'm probably used to a lot more diversity in what you see in SCA groups having played in the States, in Northshield one of the most respected Dukes did medieval Japanese along with his household, his coronet is spectacular. You see a lot of Middle Eastern players, one of my favourite Laurels in Calontir does Mongol along with the enormous headdress. Over here you see a lot narrower band of culture, maybe that's why 1600 to 1650 doesn't seem like too far a leap to me?

[liadethornegge]

Slippery slope argument: If we set the number to 1650, the culture and clothing and all of that stuff is basically the same as 1690s, and then maybe we can do up to 1700 in a couple of years?

"The pre 17th Century Culture" gives enough wiggle room to use documentary sources a bit into the 1600s, because they would not be too fundamentally different, and publishing of books takes time, and uses knowledge an author has gained previously, so a publication date of 1614 probably is relevant to pre 17th C culture as well.

[evaelisabeth]

That is indeed a very valid argument. If it was just me and the SCA was all of a sudden about pleasing how I like to play I'd probably constrict the scope to just medieval European but that would cut out a lot of things that have become intrinsic to how many of us play.