A New Member's View: Pass the Amendment

As a relatively new ringer and NAGCR member, and one who remembers what it was like for me, in 2007, to look at change ringing from the outside, I strongly urge my fellow NAGCR members to vote _for_ the proposed amendment.

Much of the opposition to the amendment appears to start from the principle that the NAGCR has always been thus, and so thus it should ever be. This begs the question, why was the NAGCR founded on the principle that only ringers can be full members? The best answer seems to be that of precedent: Most English ringing societies have this restriction. That answer again begs the question: Why? What is the principled basis for this restriction? "We are an organization of ringers" is not an answer; it's circular reasoning, and it's mistaking what is for what ought to be.

Let me pose a question that has occurred to me during this debate. Does the NAGCR really think of itself as a craft guild? The medieval guilds sought to hand down an art from master to apprentice, to carefully delineate guild members from those who did not belong, to stamp out competition from non-members, and to garner the monopolistic rents that result. Historically, medieval guilds were founded on professional elitism, maintained through barriers to entry, and perpetuated by indentured servitude.

If we want to think of ourselves as a craft guild, then let us cast off any pretense of welcoming the general public, rename ourselves the Worshipful Company of Change Ringers, and petition the City of London Corporation for a grant of livery. That, it seems to me, is the logical end of fence-off-the-NAGCR-from-the-public thinking.

But if, instead of basing itself on medieval models, the NAGCR wishes to further its reach and scope, it should think of itself as a modern association. Most modern associations would view themselves strengthened, not weakened, by the addition of more dues-paying members who support the association's purposes.

We are associated to further several purposes. See Constitution art. 2. Oddly enough, _none_ of these purposes includes actual ringing. The NAGCR's purposes are to improve communication, to improve the standard of ringing, to improve international ringing contacts, to extend the appreciation of ringing, and to abide by the rules of CCCBR. At least three of these purposes require the skills not of a ringer, but of a spokesperson, a diplomat, or a popularizer. There is no reason why people who are not ringers, but who bring other skills to the NAGCR's work, cannot help us fulfill these purposes. Why then, do we exclude them from full membership, simply because they cannot ring?

Does the Metropolitan Opera Guild exclude people who cannot sing to be heard over an orchestra? Does any Humane Society require that you own an animal, or have a veterinary degree, before you can join? Does the National Wildlife Federation require that you have any specialty in wildlife management before you can be a full member? Does the NAACP require that I be African-American in order to join? No. Most modern associations that unite around a purpose simply ask that you support the purpose.

This we do, I hear the response, by enabling non-ringers to be Associate Members. All I can say is, if you think that non-ringers feel welcomed or involved by being offered second-class status in our organization, then you are deluding yourself.

We resident members are all, by definition, ringers; so we may not appreciate the clarity of the "You Are Not Welcome" sign that is put up by establishing a class of secondary membership. We've all jumped over the ringing hurdle, we are free to think; so why can't they? And many of us appear to enjoy the distinction that Resident Member status gives us over and against those who cannot ring.

To be blunt, this is exactly the sort of narrow, self-centered, ungenerous, and inhospitable thinking that will doom our association to slow growth for the foreseeable future. If people wish to be distinguished by their ringing skill, then by all means let's come up with some sort of Boy Scout or Girl Scout merit-badges scheme, rather than maintain a rule that limits the NAGCR's appeal to the general public. It is no answer to say that change ringing in North American is growing; this response, once again, begs the question of whether change ringing might grow faster if the NAGCR were constituted differently.

In any organization, some rules -- doubtless originally adopted for the best of reasons -- may seem, on careful examination decades later, to have little point or use or sense.

The distinction between Resident Members and Associate Members is one such rule. I therefore urge the adoption of the proposed amendment.

Jeremy Bates
ringer at Trinity Wall Street