[Artemisia] Starting Groups, long but (I hope) worth it

[Bruce Padget]

There are two basic reasons to start a new group
within a group.  I call them "positive" and
"negative."  I don't mean these words in any
value-judging sense, but rather in a logical sense --
"positive" looks at "who we are," and "negative" looks
at "who we ain't."

Anytime a new group starts within the boundaries of an
existing one, both of these motivations are present. 
For example, when Artemisia was looking at becoming a
Kingdom, there were those who stressed the ways in
which a uniquely Artemisian identity was emerging. 
There were also those whose main argument was, "*#^#&
Atenveldt."  And the fact is, most people exhibited
signs of both motivations to varying degrees.

The habit of identifying yourself in a negative way
does have a serious drawback, in that it tends to
divide and isolate.  We've all heard how, when the
only tool you have is a hammer, everything in the
world looks like a nail.  That proverb seems most true
of mental "toolkits."  If my identity is who I'm not,
once I've made it a fact that I'm Not Atenveldt, where
can I go?  Not Artemisia.  Then Not (my neighboring
shires).  Then Not Loch Salann.  Eventually, it
reaches the point where I can only identify myself as
Not Elyn.  At which point I would have fully secured
my identity, but I would be very lonely and bitter,
indeed.  Anyone who has been playing more than a few
years has seen a few such people.

I've seen several attempts at local branches starting
within existing branches.  Success seems to correlate
very strongly with the extent to which the founding
motivation is positive.  Take an example I've seen in
a few places -- we'll call it the Shire of
NotTheBarony.  (If you recognize some features of the
Shire of NTB, you're right.  If you think I'm
referring to one specific shire, you're wrong.)

The Shire of NotTheBarony struggles at first -- a lot.
 Sometimes it even founders.  When TheBarony supports
NotTheBarony, the struggles are blamed on interference
from TheBarony.  When TheBarony doesn't help, the
struggles are blamed on TheBarony's lack of support. 
When faction A in NotTheBarony is in charge, faction B
blames the struggles on faction A's incompetence, and
A blames them on B's lack of support.  The roles
reverse (but the struggles remain) when faction B is
in charge.  And the Shire of NTB always seems to be
*very* factionalized.

Having seen this cycle a few times in a couple of
Kingdoms, I came to realize it all came back to the
founding rationale of the Shire of NTB.  The struggles
followed inevitably from the initial position of
defining the shire (or canton, college, what have you)
in terms of "who we ain't" rather than "who we is." 
If the Shire of NTB does see success, it seems (my
experience) to start when the Shire stops being NTB,
and starts being The Shire.

So, why the strong attraction to the "negative"
rationale for founding groups?  True, some people are
just, by nature, mean and nasty, but the "negative"
rationale is too prevalent in the SCA to be entirely
explained by that.  Fact is, the SCA encourages drama
queening.  The whole idea is that you get to spend
your weekends being larger than life, which tends to
require an Enemy -- whom you can invent, if a suitable
one doesn't exist.  (BTW, this leads me to see the
wisdom in BoD meetings being held strictly in modern
clothing and in mundane persona.)

So, how do you know which rationale is driving you?  I
think it's fairly easy -- when you discuss the idea
of, say, a Northern Region of Artemisia, do you find
yourself talking mostly about the North, or about the
South?  If the latter, you are probably tending toward
a negative rationale.

I am NOT saying there are no problems with the South
of Artemisia with regard to the North.  But, if the
main rationales expressed for founding a Region of
Northern Artemisia are problems with the South, then,
in fact, you'd be founding the Region of NotTheSouth
-- no matter what its formal name might be.  And
NotTheSouth would end up helping no one.

All that said, I do think there is (or was) a distinct
Northern way of playing.  One motto of Stan Wyrm is
(was?), "Every event a revel."  And it was (is?) so,
and it summed (sums?) up the Northern way.

I want to be clear, Lord Morgan, that I don't see you
advancing a negative rationale.  However, watch for it
among those who might favor a Northern Region, and
police your ranks diligently.

Regards,
Niccolo
Abbastanza Buon Non E Abbastanza Buono
bapadget at yahoo.com