Thank you Alan for this great question. I have struggled for an answer, and then, realized that the framing of the question makes it impossible to address the problem. This situation goes directly to the heart of what good calling is about.
We have all been in this situation. There is a “problem” on the floor and one, or two, dancers seem to be at the center of the confusion. We sincerely believe that the locus of the “problem” is with the one or two dancers, and we struggle to “help” them “get” the dance correctly. The real problem is with the frame we have activated in our own brains. Once we have activated that frame, all of our words and behavior follow from it. The result is that we activate the same frame in the brains of almost everyone in the room—including the confused dancer(s). Every word, glance, sigh, pause, gesture, or inflection of our voice becomes a signal to the dancers that there is a “problem” on the floor and that the “cause” is the behavior of one or two dancers. All of this is implied, but undeniable. Even the confused dancer will be painfully aware of it. (The framing is so clear that anyone who is so impaired as to not “get” the message that they, themselves, are the locus of the problem is probably so impaired as to be unable to remain vertical.) It is important to point out that it is almost impossible to “act” as if you do not “blame” anyone for the “problem.” Almost none of us are that good at lying. Our nonverbal behavior will reveal our true beliefs. You have to actually change the frame in your own brain. You need to activate another frame. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that you have already activated the “blame frame” in almost every brain in the hall. The “blame frame” is now in the room and the “problem” needs to be addressed publicly. You need to change the frame in everyone’s brain, starting with your own. Note that this framing puts the confused dancer—rather than the caller—at the center of control. This is a terrible place to put a first-timer. It is a violation of etiquette and a perfect example of poor calling. To regain control you need to publicly take back full responsibility for the entire situation. A public apology is one of the oldest and most effective ways to change this framing. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best shot you have at regaining the locus of control. The apology should be sincere, public, contrite, and short. The exact words should fit the exact situation. That’s what will make the apology genuine. I’m going to quote Ted Sannella here. Ted offered this advice during a caller’s workshop here in California many years ago. It’s not suitable for all situations but it’s a good example. He said that, when a dance breaks down completely it is often best to just stop the music and confess: “I’m sorry. I’m afraid I’ve chosen a dance that is too confusing. Let’s try another dance.” A public apology is how you take back responsibility for what is happening in the hall. It sets an example of leadership that many dancers will follow. It takes the pressure off of the confused dancers and allows everyone to relax a little. It sets an example of good etiquette. It also projects a sense of civility, kindness, and regard for the feelings of others. This is the frame you need to activate when people begin feeling embarrassed, stressed, angry, or incompetent. There should be more apologies at contra dances. It is the caller’s responsibility to set this example. This is how I try to deal with this kind of situation. After apologizing I proceed with a more humbled attitude and simple dances that will insure the success of everyone. As the caller I am responsible for making sure that everyone has a great time. When someone is “not getting it” I try to remember that “getting it” is not really the point. The goal is that all dancers feel good about their community and how that community deals with any guest who wants to participate. That may change my plans for the evening. It may also “dumb down” the program a bit. The important thing is that the community feels good about how they treated each other. “Good dancing” is one thing. But the core purpose here is to create an atmosphere where everyone feels good about their own performance, not the caller’s. - Greg McKenzie ********** On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing < wins...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote: > Callers: > > (I should say, I'm used to dealing with clueless, drunk, not-listening ONS > dancers, and I have a repertoire of incredibly-accessible material. So my > usual approach at ONS is only to worry about people who are being > dangerous, > and not worry much about clueless, and to call material where you can be > pretty > far off and it still works. Even fairly-sophisticated contra-dance falls > into > that realm, because somebody will be along to swing you, circle with you, > etc, > pretty soon. So this is maybe an English-specific problem, but I'm > suspecting > not.) > > I co-called the Palo Alto English last night with Lise Dyckman. (We > expected a > somewhat challenging night because many of the strongest local dancers are > off > at Spring Fever weekend.) Got a decent turnout (24+), about a third of > them > first-timers or quite new dancers. > > One guy (50ish, not visibly impaired, seemed nice enough) showed up with a > group about 10 minutes late. When it got to be my turn to call, I gave an > abridged version of the orientation session (up, down, in, out, partner, > neighbor, dance with anybody). Naturally, he did the first two dances in > a > row with one of the women he'd come in with. He was clueless and active > (don't > know what to do, must do something, do something random); she was clueless > and > passive (don't know what to do, will wait until somebody makes me do > something). > > First, I commend the community of dancers who were there that night. They > pretty soon got that couple separated; didn't display visible impatience, > and > continued helpful and welcoming, without grabbing, pulling, and pushing. > Good > work, everybody! > > Here are things that didn't seem to help this guy in any visible way: > > - continuing to call the dance when everybody else had it > - doing demos of things that we otherwise would not (eg, Trip to > Tunbridge) > - having dancers in his set beckon or point, as appropriate > - strong partners who tried to lead him (by whatever means) where he > needed > to go > - pointing out other people in the line in the same role to copy from. > - second walkthroughs > > I gave up following a problem couple up and down the set and calling to > just > them years ago; that almost never works and just raises everybody's anxiety > level. I don't think it would have helped here. > > We tweaked our program to the simpler end of the things we'd been thinking > about, but didn't revert to the one-night-stand/barn-dance level, since > that > wasn't what the vast majority of people there had come for. [To be honest, > I > didn't even consider that - which I've done when, eg, the whole > not-previously-dancing Revels children's chorus turned up unexpectedly at a > country dance I was calling, expecting to dance - but if I had consciously > considered it, I would have discarded it for that reason.] > > I could see that he was never really managing to build a model of the > dance, > and that he was, if anything, a kinetic learner. (Eg, in Portabella, where > if > you're a 1 the A1 is gent cast off with partner behind and orbit through 2s > place and back to place, and B2 is 1s cross, cast, and half-figure eight, > he > seemd to have some kind of memetic entrapment where having crossed he'd > turn > back and follow his partner down the wrong side, as though it were A1 > again.) > I don't think he ever connected pieces of music to pieces of dance. It > wasn't > "he's got it except for"; I don't think he ever understood the basics of > any > dance well enough to be able to fix the parts that weren't working. > > He sat down at the last dance before the break and didn't dance again the > rest > of the evening. > > Now, maybe he's just not cut out for this. (I think that if somebody threw > me > into a football game in progress, and I just got a brief description in > the > huddle of what I was supposed to do and I didn't understand how timeouts > worked, etc, I'd look completely clueless and overwhelmed, and there are > ways > in which this is like that. It was more like a football game than usual, > actually, because among the things he never understood was the difference > between going down the inside of the set and the outside of the set, so > there > were considerably more near-collisions than usual. I'm not cut out for > football, but if I got a bunch of explanations, coaching, and questions > answered, I would at least look more like I knew what was going on. And of > course he didn't get that.) > > But maybe my bag of tricks isn't deep enough. > > What do you to do reach somebody like this? When do you know to let it go? > > -- Alan > > -- > > =============================================================================== > Alan Winston --- wins...@ssrl.slac.stanford.edu > Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: > 650/926-3056 > Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA > 94025 > > =============================================================================== > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > call...@sharedweight.net > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers >
