There have been some really interesting discussions in the Barony of Aneala and the wider WA SCA community lately about growing the SCA in WA and perhaps moving towards a Principality (where we get a Prince and Princess of our very own!).
Of particular interest has been the discussion of growth, and what it actually means. Having a look through various definitions of the word, I have decided that my favourite is the following:
"A progression from simpler to more complex forms".
What I really like about this definition is that it allows for all kinds of growth. Why does this appeal to me? Because in all of the volunteer groups I have been a part of (yes I'm a committee junkie!), growth has to many people meant one thing and one thing alone - MEMBERSHIP!
And that's definitely a form of growth, no one can deny you've grown when you're bigger right? But I'm interested in the issue of complexity. Do we grow to become more complex by getting bums on seats? Certainly we have to plan more for the influx of new people. It was certainly more complex to cook for 100+ people than for 30ish! But what happens when you can't service all these people? Should you be servicing these people? Is the SCA about helping newcomers? Is that growing the complexity of our game? Certainly I wouldn't be an active participant these days if I hadn't of had lots of help on the way. And this is where the bums on seats mentality fails me. We can't adequately service that many people. Looking after newbies is hard work.
While I may be crucified for saying it, I'll reiterate: NEWCOMERS ARE HARD WORK! That doesn't mean they're not worth it! But what it does mean is that we need to recognise that it's hard work, and not bite off more than we can chew. I didn't join the SCA to be a service provider, I wax lyrical about fighting to newbies because I love to talk about it. I help someone learn the basics so that they can join in the fun. I don't do it to tick off another member on the roster.
And, while it sounds really harsh and uncaring, when I'm looking after a newbie, I'm sacrificing time I could be doing something else. But when I'm helping an impassioned and active newbie, it's greatly rewarding and probably gets me to learn about all kinds of new things as I help them through their journey. Now there are some people who will argue that I'm saying that we should ignore newbies and I'm not. In fact I'm saying quite the opposite. What I'm suggesting is that we invest lots of time in newbies, but only take on what we can reasonably accommodate and give each newbie the best possible chance of becoming a "lifer" and contributing to our game. In essence, I would rather spend all my effort helping out one passionate newcomer than try and hold the interest of 30 sorta-kinda-maybe interested types (quality over quantity and all that...).
This way newcomers can find their feet in the SCA (which we all know is not the easiest of processes) and contribute to that growth in complexity that we are all looking for. We all want our game to improve, we all want to see more fighting, more arts and sciences, more of everything. But I don't think we get that from a purely numbers based membership drive.
I guess my major concern is that we all seem to forget that the SCA is a group of people who have similar interests, not an organisation tasked with hunting out those who might be willing to join us and doing anything we can to keep them. As my lady Cinara so eloquently put it, "we're not a service organisation". We help newcomers because they enrich our game, not so we can make our membership statistics look good.
And yes, this is just my personal opinion, but that is the conceit I'm allowed through operation of a blog. Have a different opinion? Let me know in the comments. I'm actually really interested in this, because I dearly want to see the SCA in WA grow to be more complex, rich and exciting for all.
Thus endeth the rant,
Bechtold (the mildly opinionated)
