I don't find many people who have been at contra dances for a while to be
high-schoolers. Quite the contrary, which is why I love contra dancing so
much. I'm certainly not framing THEM as behaving badly. But I do see it in
newer dancers, and I see it in the newly skilled, what we affectionately
call "hot-doggers", the dancers who, after experiencinga few dance weekends,
will only dance with the most skilled dancers, who twirl and twist every
partner along the way ("See what I can do?") and who book ahead and
who...well, you get the idea. We don't, at the moment, have more than a
couple - and they're getting better all the time.
And as for grownups - I'll have to use another word I suppose. Because my
"grownup" is not authoritarian - my "grownup" takes responsibility, just
like your "caller" does. I use the word "grownup" to mean a person who has
become mature, less self-centered, and who can be counted upon to do the
things necessary to build a better world for all of us - not just himself or
herself.
So, Greg, since you are clearly a Good Guy, what was the meaning of your
original post, where you suggested the caller warn people that there was a
medley coming up so they could be sure they wouldn't have to dance the
medley with someone who wasn't skilled? That's what I'm reacting to - it
just sounded so...like a hotdogger. Which you otherwise don't seem to be.
M
E
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Greg McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Martha wrote:
>
>> Greg - I think you misunderstood me a little bit. My view that, left to
>> our
>> own devices, we act like high schoolers, is based on observation --
>> anecdotal observation, to be sure, but what I have seen has been so
>> consistent, that I, at least, am convinced.
>>
>
> I understand that you are convinced. This is the nature of framing. Once
> we adopt a frame we see the world in terms of that framing. The more we
> "activate" a frame, the easier it is to evoke it. I am not directing this
> critique at you, personally. This framing is very common among callers.
> You merely expressed it very clearly and succinctly. I am questioning the
> prevailing frame for contra dance.
>
> I want to assure you that I do not observe the world as you do through the
> "high schooler" frame. Employing a different frame I see that almost all
> contra dancers are enthusiastic about and enjoy dancing with newcomers. In
> fact, it is one of the most enjoyable parts of contra dance.
>
> How is this possible? Seen through my frame any uncivil behavior in the
> hall is direct evidence of poor calling. If there is anyone in the hall
> behaving poorly the proper response from the caller is to be apologetic.
>
>
> Martha also wrote:
>
>> This view does not in any way absolve anyone of responsibility. In fact,
>> my
>> whole argument is that "the grownups" need to take charge and make sure
>> that
>> the kindness/inclusiveness attitudes are predominant. Yes, we are all
>> capable of such behavior, and yes, in fact, it is our ability to behave
>> that
>> way that led to the survival of our species. But our survival was also
>> dependent on keeping away from "others" who were not in the family, tribe
>> or
>> village. It is that inherited sense of "us" and "they" that leads to
>> exclusiveness and shunning. And war and pestilence.
>>
>
> My argument was that absolving the caller of responsibility was the only
> possible advantage I can see of this framing. By treating the dancers as
> high-schoolers we give up a host of strategies that could be used to gain
> their support and participation in building a sense of community. When a
> caller activates "the grownup" framing this projects an authoritarian
> position and puts the caller at odds with the interests of the dancers.
> This is not an advantage. The framing creates an adversarial relationship
> with the dancers.
>
>
> Martha also wrote:
>
>> What I said was, the group leadership needs to address these issues. The
>> caller is part of the leadership, so we have the right and the
>> responsibility (at least in our own towns) to speak up in meetings, at
>> after-dance get-togethers, online, etc. But when we're actually calling, I
>> agree that we should limit our etiquette remarks to small, cheerful
>> reminders, no harangues or lectures from the stage.
>>
>
> Nor off-stage. The frame that sees people as inherently uncivil creates a
> sense that the seat of the problem is with undisciplined or uneducated
> dancers. My frame sees the seat of the problem as poor calling.
>
> Martha then asked:
>
> What about this point of view "excuses" the caller from taking
>> responsibility? What about this point of view suggests that the caller
>> "blame" the behavior on the dancers and leave it at that? I'm just saying
>> that trying to change a culture by fiat is rarely sucessful, and a caller
>> who wants to change things should start, first, on the dance floor by
>> being
>> the sort of person he/she wants others to emulate, second, off the dance
>> floor by passing on the larger "contradance culture", and lastly, from the
>> stage only in small bites, respectfully, and with good humor.
>>
>
> Doing anything by fiat would be a destructive action by the caller, because
> it undermines the relationship of trust and goodwill with the dancers. The
> nature of the "contradance culture" is what we are discussing. That culture
> is currently dominated by the frame you have put forth so eloquently. If
> you wish to change that culture I can attest that you will have much more
> influence as a caller than as a dancer.
>
>
> Martha also wrote:
>
>> What I also said was that, in a contra group, we callers should lead by
>> "gentle precept" (words) and "strong example" (doing). Fewer words, more
>> doing. Here,one of our best dancers spends nearly 80% of her time with the
>> least experienced dancers, bless her angelic heart. Now THAT is a strong
>> example.
>>
>
> "Fewer words, more doing" is an excellent prescription. If the caller
> assumes the support and civility of all of the dancers they can eliminate
> many words intended to "correct" what the "high schooler" frame implies that
> the dancers will be inclined to do. Assume the best and take responsibility
> for the rest. That is a recipe for few words.
>
> Please consider that your 80% "angelic heart" dancer may be doing what she
> most enjoys. She may be one of your most selfish dancers. Why not direct
> your programming and calling efforts towards making sure that regulars, who
> are partnered with newcomers, have a great time. Make sure that they have
> an opportunity to use their skills and knowledge to share something they are
> passionate about with a confident stranger who is ready to learn. You may
> find that there are many more "angelic hearts" than you had assumed by
> looking through the "high-schooler" frame.
>
>
> - Greg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
>
--
For the good are always the merry,
Save by an evil chance,
And the merry love the fiddle
And the merry love to dance. ~ William Butler Yeats
