[MR] Peerage questions

[David Wendelken]

(I've had to split this into three posts, the original was too long to get
past the filtering rules and naturally the start of this letter will post
after the ending. :-()  andras

 

(Part One A)

====================

Lady Bianca,

 

It is obvious that we are looking at the same set of facts and coming to
different conclusions.  Perhaps with this friendly dialog, we will come to a
closer agreement.

 

>>>I find that disturbing.
>> 
>> You should not. The explanation is quite simple. There is nothing devious
>> or underhanded about it.
>> 

>But it is very ironic, eh?  Because we're a group of people who were mostly
misfits in school so we yearned for the values of chivalry.  And now we come
up with cliques and faster recognition for those being in >said cliques,
creating misfits just as was done to us years ago.  The irony of it is what
is disturbing. 

 

That is a very interesting perspective.  I don't view the peer/associate
relationship as a clique, and you apparently do.   I view it as a
mentor/student relationship with a strong personal bond of two-way loyalty.

 

No one who has ever expressed an interest in becoming my associate has ever
been treated with anything other than the utmost respect.  I would be
mortified to do otherwise.  If someone expressed an interest, I would try to
find a way to work with them.  It may not work out, but that's also life.

 

I have also had other peers send people to me because they felt I would be a
better fit than they were.  I've asked peers to take a look at people in my
group, either because they weren't a good fit for me or because I already
had too many associates in the group.  (That's not healthy for a small
group.)  

 

You may take offense at my comments that some people would not be a good fit
for me.  I will try to explain.  I am the person I am.  I teach the way I
teach.  I have interests and expertise in some areas, and not in others.  I
can adapt to another person's needs to a certain degree, but some people
just would not learn from me.  Others find my way of teaching to be perfect
for them.  That is what I mean by "a good fit".

 

>And yes, that has everything to do with social dynamics- which doesn't make
it right just because it happens ;)  >

 

Feel free to take up your complaints to God on that count.  :-)  I prefer to
pray over problems I can't work around or overcome, but I acknowledge that
customs vary. :-)

 

>Sometimes I think I'd rather be a dolphin or a cat than a human...
 Dolphins get caught in nets and served as tuna.  Cats have people who serve
them and make them happy.  I would choose being a cat. ;)

>> An independent (i.e., not a squire, apprentice or protégé) who is very
>> personable and very fun to be around will tend to overcome the social
>> dynamics of getting known more quickly. Ditto for someone whose work is
>> truly outstanding. They have to work harder.
>> 
>> Is that wrong? I do not think so. If they have chosen to work towards the
>> peerages without taking advantage of all the opportunities our society
>> provides, so be it.
>> 
 
>That last sentence implies that it's right that the independent or
politically unallied have to work harder than those who are taking advantage
of our system, of the 'opportunities our society provides' in your words.
>While I'm sure candidates like Nader would agree that happens in today's
world, it certainly doesn't sound very fair or chivalrous to me.
 

I don't follow your reasoning here, so I'll ask questions to attempt to
clarify what I don't understand.

 

Exactly who are you claiming is being unfair or unchivalrous here?

 

I would not call someone who chooses not to be a squire or apprentice
unchivalrous for doing so.  Is that what you mean?  If so, why complain to
the peers about it?

 

Or, do you mean that the peers are being unchivalrous because someone
chooses not to take advantage of the opportunities the peers provide?  If
so, why?  The peers make the offer to teach one on one to their associates,
if the offer is refused, why blame the peers?

 

Unless, of course, you view the peer-associate relationship as a clique that
you aren't allowed to be a member of.  In that case, your comment has an
internal logic to it.  

I happen to dispute that you cannot participate in such a relationship if
that's what you truly want to do.  If there is any interest in it, I would
be glad to write up some guidelines for how to go about establishing such a
relationship.  It's not hard at all.   Maybe scary, but not hard.  But then,
anytime you try to start a relationship with someone, where it might not
work out, it's a bit scary.  That's life too.

 

Likewise, a fighter who decided that they only wanted to fight with a single
dagger in tournaments against fighters with sword and shield or great swords
would be at a disadvantage.  They would have to be about ten times better
than average before they lived long enough for the knights to notice they
had some talent at fighting.  Would that be the knight's fault, or that of
the dagger fighter?

 

>> And I hope I've explained why. Realistically, would you expect me to
notice
>> someone faster who works with me all the time, or someone I only see at a
>> few events a year for a few minutes at a time? If you've got a solution
for
>> that problem, please share it!
>> 
>The way our society is set up provides no easy solution.  So long as people
officially take others under their wing, there will always be the perception
of nepotism.  

>So the peers shouldn't be offended at that perception. 

 

I'm not offended by it.  It's a fact.  It's life.  I deal with it by being
straight up about how things work.  Some people will therefore learn how
things work and adapt.  Others won't.  

 

>They look after their own, which is as it should be to them in that
relationship... but they should understand that to people outside that
relationship, 

>to independent or self-motived or unassociated or whatever you want to call
them, individuals, well, they don't have to like it and can justifiably say
that it disturbs them.  

 

I happen to partly agree with you, and partly disagree with you.  

 

First of all, let's not confuse self-motivated with being/not being an
associate.  Two different discussions on two different topics

 

If someone has chosen not to participate in a one-on-one learning
relationship in general, I think they have no justification for complaining
about it.  It was their choice.  I respect their right to make it.  But I
won't take the blame for their choice.

 

I perfectly understand that people who do not understand that they can
become a squire or apprentice or protégé, might feel disturbed about the
whole process.  Makes perfect sense to me.  

 

But, once they have been told that they can participate in such a
relationship, if they go about it in a reasonable manner, then I don't agree
with you.  What's not to like about getting one-on-one mentoring from
someone who likes and cares about you?  

 

>Would it be more fair for peers to seek out their equals however far and
advise from afar, rather than being encouraged to take a local friend on to
train them to become their equals?  

 

My first squire in Atlantia lived in Storvik (Washington, DC) and I lived in
Attillium (Fayetteville, NC).  Why did I ask him to be my squire?  Because
he was nice to a stranger to the area.  He didn't know I was a knight.  We
had common interests in crafts and melee tactics.  He was also just clearly
a person who wanted to be worthy of being a knight.  I have three other
squires.  One is about 2 hrs away, the other two live in town.  It's
convenient to be in the same town, but not a requirement.

 

When I'm in active mode, I typically have a number of people in different
groups that I keep in touch with because they are doing things of interest
to me.  I think that's pretty typical of any peer that's in active mode.
When we're not able to be active, we aren't traveling as much, and therefore
not meeting as many people.  It's simply the odds.  The more people I meet,
the more likely I'll find someone to advise from afar.

 

>So that the person who is already doing the service or making the art
doesn't have to force the peers to notice them/it but that the peers come
look for that? 

> In an ideal world, I say yes because that's what chivalry means to me. 

 

Do you think we don't go looking for people to teach?  I assure you that
there are few things as exciting as finding that special someone who would
make a good associate.  Not quite up there with finding that special someone
to marry, but it's in the ball park. :-)   And, if we find someone who would
be a good associate, but who isn't a good fit for us, we try to find someone
who would be and get them together.