Monday, June 11, 2007

What is this Role Anyway?


"All responsibility, no power"


The B&B fiction is that you have all power in the Barony, save only the King and Queen if they are present. The mundane fact is that you have almost no power at all. The truth is that you should be able to exercise that no-power almost as potently as if it was real power, provided you aren't caught doing it too often.

An SCA Baronage has got to be the hardest role in the Society. Being King and Queen is more expensive and -- for six months -- is certainly more exhausting. The problems and pitfalls are also bigger, on the whole. But in six months (well eight, counting from Crown Tourney), it's over. You can go and be a good Count, or Duchess, and set aside most of your concerns - or at least the temptation to try and address most of them.

A B&B has no such out. Sure, we can retire gracefully after just two or three years, or abruptly in emergencies by appointing a Vicar. But short or interrupted tenures have their own consequences for the Barony, so most of us will aim for the "about four years" that is now the norm in Lochac.

And the role itself? Total immersion in the needs of the Barony -- both its ceremonial "in-game" life, and also at a mundane, organisational level (the latter is unavoidable, no matter how much you're told it's just about wearing the hats, speaking well and looking pretty).

More than anyone else, you feel responsible if things are not going right. More than anyone else, you'll act or nudge to do something about it. More than anyone else, you'll be wondering about this event steward, or that workshop, or the Royal visit, or that schedule, or an email that got no answer, and thinking about the consequences. And you'll also be thinking about the people behind it all, all the time.

The closest real-life analogy may be the social-pastoral role undertaken by priests and vicars in some communities, or by a rural school headmaster. A Parish or School Council may have officers in charge of the minutiae, but the priest or headmaster will be doing the worrying, and an awful lot of the behind-the-scenes strategic thinking and work.

Overstated? Possibly. Not every B&B has to take the responsibility quite as seriously or quite as wholeheartedly as I've suggested. But in my experience, most do. They feel pleased as punch when things seem to be working, and worried when they are not.

So, the role is ceremony, and PR, and governance, and recognition, and looking good, and pastoral care, and getting the banners and heraldic displays up, and inspiration, and setting a good example -- and also spotting cracks and seeing they get filled before they become chasms.

And your AIM? I mean, what are we doing all this for? In short, I believe the key aim is to get as many as possible of your populace cheerfully engaged in the enterprise and diverse activities which make up the SCA.

That is best done by being cheerfully engaged yourself, and actively encouraging others to adopt that mode. Defuse or step around the bunfights. When something contentious arises anyway, think and work hard to find the most constructive way to address it, the one that doesn't leave casualties in its wake (if possible).

There's a corollary here: when you find yourself in a state where you're unable to deal constructively, or be cheerfully engaged, and it doesn't pass relatively quickly -- then it's definitely time to pass on the hats. SCA groups are good for many things, but I'm certain that one thing they cannot do well is fix a broken Baron or Baroness.

In terms of tactics, I believe that the role is more than anything else about communication. Written, verbal, at events and at Council, and between times.

Now katherine and I are not the best SCA communicators we know; we're well matched by some of our Baronial or Royal peers. But, by golly, we are perhaps the most inveterate communicators you'll ever find. If you haven't learned something from us that you needed to, either you weren't paying attention (low boredom threshold?) or it involved a truly obscure question that you didn't actually ask.

If communications are going well in a Barony -- and not just to and from the B&B -- then the Barony itself is likely to be healthy and successful. And if things are a bit tetchy or uncertain in some quarters, it helps a great deal if the B&B will fearlessly communicate with all and sundry, and their dog. (If you're not scrupulously even-handed from the very beginning of your tenure, this is going to be difficult).

I believe most of the serious fractures in the SCA come from absence of understanding. And usually -- not always -- that arises from a lack of communication, growth of suspicion, followed by inaccurate assumptions of malignity, then full-blown tribalism.

Cut it all off at its roots and tell people what is going on! Or ask them -- either can work to save no end of bother, if done cheerfully and calmly and early in the piece.

One of the reasons a B&B serves for a relatively long time is that, in that time, they can build and use a vast store of human-level information about who can do what, when, and how, both inside and outside the Barony. So when things need doing, they know who to recommend, or to gently tap. They also get a feel for when people are nearing burn-out, or have bitten off more than they can chew, or are getting bored.

A newcomer to the Society or Barony could not do this well. Someone taking an office for just a year or two would have trouble. By two years -- during which time most of the offices (if not Officers) of the Barony have changed, a clear picture is starting to emerge, and can be put to good use thereafter.

I'd like to reassure potential B&Bs that the reputed "marriage counsellor" aspect of the role has been a little overstated. You do tend to hear news of marriage or relationship doings rather earlier than most (especially if you have a reputation for keeping such matters strictly to yourselves). But we've seen little sign that a B&B is the first set of shoulders people seek to lean on when they have mundane problems.

That's not to say you won't have your share of concerns felt on behalf of members of your populace. But, in our experience, the extent to which you get involved is largely up to you, unless it involves someone in your direct social group.

On the other hand, you do feel like Mum and Dad (or, at least, friendly Aunt and Uncle) to the whole Barony. That's no bad thing -- if the group feels like an extended family -- even a bad family at times -- there are far more tools at your disposal than if it just feels like a once-a-week sports club.

If anyone has read this far and noticed that Court and ceremonies and titles and pretty regalia rated barely a mention -- well spotted. It's not that they don't matter -- they are often the sharp end of a large chunk of your efforts. But it's like building a house - most of the time goes on getting the site prep., foundations and framing right -- only then can you add the picture windows and ornaments.

That's my personal overview of the role. In future posts I'll try and clarify some of the above with real-life examples. The next few posts will be somewhat linear/historical in nature, because the way we began our tenure has had such a profound effect on how we see and do it. But later on, I'll be able to get a bit more general in my topics.

Oh, and I forgot the most important bit.

Being B&B has got to be the best fun you can have without breaking the law. Or we wouldn't still be doing it.

3 comments:

The Retro Seamstress said...

Good food for thought. I think this post highlights the advantage of a group having a B&B as an obvious leadership focus.

I've always wondered why some shires struggle and others go on to become baronies. I used to put it down to critical mass, but based on recent experiences in our group, I think a lot can be how the populace handles the leadership role in the group.

It would be naive to think that Shires simply don't have strong leadership figures or that role is necessarily filled by the seneschal.

A lot of the issues in our group seem to stem from confusion over group leadership and a lack of legitimacy for anyone seeking to take that role. People seem to want someone to take charge, but at the same time apply the Aussie tall poppy syndrome of "who died and made you King (or Baron)".

I'm in two minds about how one gets around this. One option is that you hope for a small group of like-minded people that can essentially function as a household. This seems to be the model of the more successful cantons.

If the group isn't that united, then it needs someone to pull it together and essentially act as a B&B. Sometimes this can be carried through strength of personality, but it can be hard to maintain in the face of a lack of legitimate position from which to be leading the group.

Perhaps shires need a vicar or something to fill that gap.

Not An Elf said...

Two points:
The incoming B&B's time in the society shouldn't be simply regarded as a positive thing. Aine and I had been playing for 18 months when we stepped up. This meant that we had no household associations, history, or hard and fast beliefs about any particular aspect of the group.

We also came with a wealth of experience from elsewhere and a fairly robust network.

However we did not come with the support network we needed in the society, to be able to do the job really well (that being said, the compenents of such a network didn't really exist when we stepped up).

It really is a double edged sword, and so long as you're not a complete babe in the woods with regards to politics, you've got as much chance of success as the next bloke. Damn! I was trying to work another bad analogy into that one...

The other point in regards to the mummy-daddy bit. We definitely weren't, and could never be, due to both age and attitude. Our autocratic style demanded respect, but not the closeness that many seem to feel (or try to feel) for their B&B and frankly, I'd prefer it that way. The problem with the mummy daddy scenario, is that it goes both ways, so that when you need to shut the door on your personal life, it's extremely difficult.

Black Bart said...

Ant: Shires can be a very hard nut, whether from the inside or outside.

In most shires I've observed (including ours in earlier days), I've seen evidence of a strong wish to not acknowledge any de facto leadership other than the Council -- often not even the Seneschal. Which confirms your point about legitimacy.

I'm too far removed now to say much about shires from the inside. But more in a future post on how hard a Shire's structure or culture can sometimes make it for a B&B/Barony to usefully interact with them.

NAE: Good point about the value of freedom from prior associations. Also about clear differences in style between the approach in my overview and your own.

I suspect one of the most valuable outcomes of this series of posts may be clear evidence that there is no one true and only way. Instead we should see there's a range of both cultural and personal stylistic differences - some governed greatly by conditions, and some just arising from personal preferences.

I know that our own style, in the best of all possible worlds, would have been different from the one we've ended up using. But what we've got is still compatible with who we are.

And as for a support network - oh yes. I'll have a lot to say about that later on. Whether you have one -- and its nature -- is often a huge determinant of success in the role.

Not too sure about the downside of the mum/dad thing, at least in our case. At a certain level, katherine and I are very private people, and I think we've managed to retain that to the extent we need to, in spite of the pseudo-familial relationship. However, this point hasn't really been tested.

What I have observed, fwiw, is that when people see katherine and I disagree (or appear to; our contretemps in public are virtually always superficial and frequently parody), the reaction we get is exactly the same as when people see senior relations arguing.

The whole feel is gently amused -- "oo er, we caught them having a barney", and hence doesn't seem to bother anybody, us included. (This is typically in hats-off situations; any kind of blatant arguing with hats on is Bad Form, and hence very rare. Our Court have forgiven the odd instance and the populace have seen next to nothing, I hope).