waning SCA groups?
A member of another large SCA group recently
posted
about changing patterns of activity and participation. This got
me thinking about my own barony, which is one of the older
and larger groups around (30+ years, around 250 people).
For several years now I think our group has been in decline, and that the slope has increased in the last couple years. There is always a danger, of course, that the "glorious early years" I remember were nothing of the sort and that my brain has become adled after (pause to count) 23 years, but I don't think that accounts for all of it. Or, at least, if that's it then such factors are affecting several of my friends, including some who are not dinosaurs.
This is not a whine. I don't expect anyone else to "fix" whatever problems are there. I don't make any promises about my own efforts to fix problems I perceive, either. I'm just trying to analyze it from a sociological/anthropological point of view, because I'm curious about how such things happen, what can be done to reverse trends, and -- most importantly -- what can be done by groups that aren't yet there to improve their odds of not getting there.
What do I mean by decline? Several things:
Events: We don't have nearly as many as we used to. When I began in the SCA there was a local event almost every month; now we have three or four a year. It's gotten harder to run events over the years (more rules, sites less available, changing expectations of what must be provided, etc), and we aren't replenishing event stewards as quickly as we're using them up. Also, a greater proportion of our events are special-interest in some way, so people are more likely to skip an event due to (lack of) interest.
Activity center: It used to be that there was some regular (weekly or monthly) activity that most people showed up at. What that activity is has varied; it has been fighting practice, dance practice, and the monthly business meeting. However, that doesn't happen any more. The fighters go to fighting practice (which is no longer in a visible central location), the dancers go to dance practice, and very few people go to the monthly business meeting. Nothing else has arisen to fill the niche. More people go longer without encountering people from outside their immediate activity groups than did a decade ago.
Energy: Simply put, there doesn't seem to be as much as there used to be. With the decline in energy comes more of a resistance to new ideas and new ways of doing things, because change requires work. More people are more firmly set in their ways and are not interested in different perspectives. While this may be my "pet issue", I note that a decade ago when the corporation made an unwise rule the members of our barony were enthusiastic about finding ways to minimize the impact; when the corporation made a very similar rule two years ago, most people either shrugged or embraced the rule, to the point of being actively hostile to people who wanted to explore other (legal) procedures. That's not the only example; it's just the one that comes immediately to mind.
Cross-fertilization: Partly, but not entirely, because of that missing central activity, people don't interact as much outside their immediate groups. People hang out with their friends and with the other people who attend the same activities, but people from different groups are less likely to undertake projects together than they once were. This also makes it hard for newcomers to break into the (larger) group; they see a bunch of little groups and aren't sure if they're welcome in any of them. (This is my read on it, anyway. Some newcomers have certainly told me they feel unwelcome, but they haven't articulated it.)
In summary, then, I think we're seeing a decline in activity, a decline in new blood, and a decline in new ideas.
The decline in new blood has two components: recruiting and retention. It's true that when our fighting practice was central and visible we picked up some new people that way, but I'm not sure how much of a factor that is now. Most of our new members are college students, and we still do some organized visible activities on those campuses. I think the college students know about us, though having a weekly fighting practice on the lawn is likely more valuable than a twice-yearly gathering on the lawn and a weekly dance session in a classroom.
I don't have a good handle on how many people are showing up, checking us out once, and going away, now versus years ago. I suspect that more of the people who check us out go away than used to, because we don't come across as very welcoming, but that's just a hunch. And remember, being welcoming is only part of the answer: we have to have things for them to do, events for them to go to, if we expect them to stick around.
I think an additional issue is our demographics. Our barony has aged and produced families, and we haven't brought in a like number of younger members. A 19-year-old college kid typically doesn't want to hang out with a bunch of 40-somethings with kids; we need to close the gap so there are more 20-somethings and 30-somethings (including many who are single and sans kids) so the students will see people "sort of" like them. I'm not sure how we get there, though; we didn't catch the change early enough. And unfortunately, it can be a hot-button issue if not handled very delicately; some hyper parents will see "we need more young people" as "they don't want us and our kids around, those unfriendly bastards!", and that's not it at all. It's about providing an environment that is hospitable to the people we hope to recruit, and the people we hope to recruit are college students -- because they're young and energetic and willing to try new things, and are just the sorts of people who can breathe new life into a group. Besides, mundane 40-somethings with kids aren't good recruiting candidates. Consider: how many of us would join the SCA if we were encountering it for the first time now, rather than when in college like most of us did? I'm not sure I would unless a lot of my friends were already involved.
The SCA, like many organizations, is not just a group for people who share a common interest; it's also a mini-society, a social network and source of interesting people. I think that as we age and get more established in life, we need such groups less -- absent extraordinary circumstances like moving to a new city or facing a disruption in an existing group. (This may be part of why some of my Methodist friends feel so betrayed by recent events -- not only are they potentially being pushed out of their churches, but are also being pushed out of their social groups. This has happened in many religious and fraternal groups over the years, of course.)
There may be factors at work in the larger SCA community, too. herooftheage pointed out that organizations that survive ten years or more and don't become connected to a particular city tend to die out around the death of everyone who ever met a founder (generally lasting 50-75 years). The SCA is now 38 years old. Is this a factor? I don't know.
No answers here -- just possibly-flawed observations and speculation.
For several years now I think our group has been in decline, and that the slope has increased in the last couple years. There is always a danger, of course, that the "glorious early years" I remember were nothing of the sort and that my brain has become adled after (pause to count) 23 years, but I don't think that accounts for all of it. Or, at least, if that's it then such factors are affecting several of my friends, including some who are not dinosaurs.
This is not a whine. I don't expect anyone else to "fix" whatever problems are there. I don't make any promises about my own efforts to fix problems I perceive, either. I'm just trying to analyze it from a sociological/anthropological point of view, because I'm curious about how such things happen, what can be done to reverse trends, and -- most importantly -- what can be done by groups that aren't yet there to improve their odds of not getting there.
What do I mean by decline? Several things:
Events: We don't have nearly as many as we used to. When I began in the SCA there was a local event almost every month; now we have three or four a year. It's gotten harder to run events over the years (more rules, sites less available, changing expectations of what must be provided, etc), and we aren't replenishing event stewards as quickly as we're using them up. Also, a greater proportion of our events are special-interest in some way, so people are more likely to skip an event due to (lack of) interest.
Activity center: It used to be that there was some regular (weekly or monthly) activity that most people showed up at. What that activity is has varied; it has been fighting practice, dance practice, and the monthly business meeting. However, that doesn't happen any more. The fighters go to fighting practice (which is no longer in a visible central location), the dancers go to dance practice, and very few people go to the monthly business meeting. Nothing else has arisen to fill the niche. More people go longer without encountering people from outside their immediate activity groups than did a decade ago.
Energy: Simply put, there doesn't seem to be as much as there used to be. With the decline in energy comes more of a resistance to new ideas and new ways of doing things, because change requires work. More people are more firmly set in their ways and are not interested in different perspectives. While this may be my "pet issue", I note that a decade ago when the corporation made an unwise rule the members of our barony were enthusiastic about finding ways to minimize the impact; when the corporation made a very similar rule two years ago, most people either shrugged or embraced the rule, to the point of being actively hostile to people who wanted to explore other (legal) procedures. That's not the only example; it's just the one that comes immediately to mind.
Cross-fertilization: Partly, but not entirely, because of that missing central activity, people don't interact as much outside their immediate groups. People hang out with their friends and with the other people who attend the same activities, but people from different groups are less likely to undertake projects together than they once were. This also makes it hard for newcomers to break into the (larger) group; they see a bunch of little groups and aren't sure if they're welcome in any of them. (This is my read on it, anyway. Some newcomers have certainly told me they feel unwelcome, but they haven't articulated it.)
In summary, then, I think we're seeing a decline in activity, a decline in new blood, and a decline in new ideas.
The decline in new blood has two components: recruiting and retention. It's true that when our fighting practice was central and visible we picked up some new people that way, but I'm not sure how much of a factor that is now. Most of our new members are college students, and we still do some organized visible activities on those campuses. I think the college students know about us, though having a weekly fighting practice on the lawn is likely more valuable than a twice-yearly gathering on the lawn and a weekly dance session in a classroom.
I don't have a good handle on how many people are showing up, checking us out once, and going away, now versus years ago. I suspect that more of the people who check us out go away than used to, because we don't come across as very welcoming, but that's just a hunch. And remember, being welcoming is only part of the answer: we have to have things for them to do, events for them to go to, if we expect them to stick around.
I think an additional issue is our demographics. Our barony has aged and produced families, and we haven't brought in a like number of younger members. A 19-year-old college kid typically doesn't want to hang out with a bunch of 40-somethings with kids; we need to close the gap so there are more 20-somethings and 30-somethings (including many who are single and sans kids) so the students will see people "sort of" like them. I'm not sure how we get there, though; we didn't catch the change early enough. And unfortunately, it can be a hot-button issue if not handled very delicately; some hyper parents will see "we need more young people" as "they don't want us and our kids around, those unfriendly bastards!", and that's not it at all. It's about providing an environment that is hospitable to the people we hope to recruit, and the people we hope to recruit are college students -- because they're young and energetic and willing to try new things, and are just the sorts of people who can breathe new life into a group. Besides, mundane 40-somethings with kids aren't good recruiting candidates. Consider: how many of us would join the SCA if we were encountering it for the first time now, rather than when in college like most of us did? I'm not sure I would unless a lot of my friends were already involved.
The SCA, like many organizations, is not just a group for people who share a common interest; it's also a mini-society, a social network and source of interesting people. I think that as we age and get more established in life, we need such groups less -- absent extraordinary circumstances like moving to a new city or facing a disruption in an existing group. (This may be part of why some of my Methodist friends feel so betrayed by recent events -- not only are they potentially being pushed out of their churches, but are also being pushed out of their social groups. This has happened in many religious and fraternal groups over the years, of course.)
There may be factors at work in the larger SCA community, too. herooftheage pointed out that organizations that survive ten years or more and don't become connected to a particular city tend to die out around the death of everyone who ever met a founder (generally lasting 50-75 years). The SCA is now 38 years old. Is this a factor? I don't know.
No answers here -- just possibly-flawed observations and speculation.