yes, i agree. i'm not at all sure what your rationale is for some of your statements, but they do not really match up with my experience.
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 20:56:42 -0800 > From: catherinea...@yahoo.com > To: call...@sharedweight.net > Subject: Re: [Callers] Borrowing call terminology from modern square dancing > > Good grief Greg. Your ideas seem so at odds with those of the dozens of > callers I know I must ask where, for whom and how often you call. > > --- On Mon, 12/5/11, Greg McKenzie <greken...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > From: Greg McKenzie <greken...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Borrowing call terminology from modern square dancing > To: "Caller's discussion list" <call...@sharedweight.net> > Date: Monday, December 5, 2011, 10:51 PM > > > Friends, > > Below is a discussion in which I am challenging some basic assumptions > common on this list. The statements I am analyzing come from one dance > caller. But I want to make it clear that I am not criticizing any > individual caller. I am challenging some of the frames we all use to think > about our open, public, contra dances. These frames are used by the vast > majority of you so I guess I want to say that I'm not picking on one > person, only using their words to illustrate some of the basic assumptions > and frames we use in many of our discussions here. > > I myself have, and still do, use many of these frames in my language and > how I see the job of contra dance calling. It has taken me more than 25 > years to figure out what these basic frames are, and why I need to change > them. I would love to hear your comments. > > ******************* > > Martha wrote: > > > Greg - you wondered why I suggested ONS (One Night Stand) dances - that is, > > dances for non-dancers. I was responding to this in your post on this > > thread: > > > > I see. Thank you for explaining One Night Stands. I see what you mean but > I don't see One Night Stands as dances for non-dancers. I was a non-dancer > for the first 1/3 of my life. To me it means that I went out and moved my > body to music less than once a year. I would guess that such people are in > the minority, even at most One Night Stands. But, as Herman Cain said: "I > have no facts to back that up." The important feature of such dances is > that you usually have no idea what kind of crowd you will be calling > for...and if you do, you could be very wrong. As we use the term here I > think a safe definition might be: "A dance attended by few, if any, people > who have experience dancing called social dances." > > Martha also wrote: > > > I do not in any way advocate turning contra dances into ONS. I just > > wondered if that might not be the result of doing what you suggested. > > > Very interesting. Neither do I. I don't see how that could happen. When > I wrote: > "My goal is to keep this art form available to the most people possible," > > ...you, apparently, assumed that keeping contra dances accessible to first > timers, without separate lessons, would inevitably drive away those who are > very familiar with the traditional contra dance form and the basic figures > we use. In your frame this is a serious problem and the survival of the > dance form depends upon it evolving into a less accessible form. > > I would openly challenge that assumption and ask you for the "facts to back > that up." I have heard anecdotal stories about dancers who become "bored" > with the regular open public contra dances and who move on to other dance > forms. This will always happen. I don't see any evidence that "bored > dancers" leaving is a significant threat to these events. > > Martha also wrote: > > > I believe strongly that we must try to meet the needs of at least three > > groups of dancers: beginners, intermediate dancers and advanced dancers. > > > > This is an area that I have done research on and I was unable to find any > "beginners,"intermediate dancers," or "advanced dancers" at any of the > contra dance events I surveyed. None. In the contra dance tradition there > is no "course of study" available to anyone that would define such > demarcations. There is not even any typical path to gaining experience in > dancing contras. > > Furthermore you cannot define these terms in any meaningful way. (I have > tried using the number of contras attended and the time spent dancing > contras. Neither one makes sense for these categories.) My challenge to > any of you who use these terms is to show me a system for categorizing any > contra dancer into one, and only one, of these three classifications. It > must be based upon observable and verifiable behaviors that we can come to > some agreement on such as "figures or moves mastered by each level" and a > means of testing dancers. > > You cannot do that. > If you try you will meet substantial resistance from many of us who love > this dance form. > > I do not challenge this classification scheme because it is "wrong." I > challenge its usefulness in any discussion about what callers at these > events can do to make them more popular or fun. The frame doesn't *work*. > In fact it creates a "problem" and assigns it to the dancers, not the > caller. We can talk about other, more useful, ways of framing the > different groups that attend open public contra dances, and I would welcome > that discussion. > > Martha went on to write: > > > How we can manage to do this all in the course of a single evening is the > > difficult issue we need to continuously discuss. > > > If you mean that we need to discuss how to ensure the most fun for the most > people in the hall then I am in agreement. We do need more discussion. > The problem I encounter is that statements here are loaded with lots of > unspoken assumptions that make useful discussion impossible, unless and > until we discuss the underlying frames we apply to these events. > > Martha also wrote: > > > We've come up with good > > ideas (like convincing good dancers that the truly advanced dancer can and > > should dance with new and inexperienced dancers) and are busy coming up > > with more (like gently introducing the best moves from MSD and English into > > contra). > > > > Lots of assumptions here. I don't know how you "convince" people. But the > underlying assumption in this sentence is that this problem could be solved > by changing the behavior of a select group of "good" dancers, (whatever > that means). The implicit message here is that the "good" dancers are not > behaving well and need to be persuaded to do the right thing. This is what > could be called a "blame the dancers" frame, and this group of dancers > will, naturally, respond to this frame with some resistance. I would > prefer to assume that all of the dancers, of all skill levels, are doing > exactly what we expect them to do: having fun, or--at the least--attempting > to have fun. It is the caller's job to make partnering with first-timers > fun. > > Moreover, your framing of the event limits the number of people who can > help the caller by partnering with first-timers. (We don't know how many > "good" dancers there are, but I'll guess it's not much more than half of > the hall.) At my dances I open by saying: "If you are new to this kind of > dancing please find a partner who has danced contras for at least one > night, and form three contra dance lines." > > Note that this framing opens up the task of partnering with first-timers to > a much larger group in the hall. Anyone with "one night" of experience can > help host the event by partnering with a first-timer. This makes the > "task" of partnering with first-timers seem much more manageable. This > also sends a crystal clear implicit message that this will be easy--for > both partners--in that it only takes "one night" to learn. > > Also note that in your framing of the event (if you successfully implement > your second suggestion) you cannot make this statement, because there may > be a "new move" in the dance and you will need more "good" dancers in each > set to show how it's done. One night of experience will not be enough. > That means longer walk-throughs and makes the dancing seem more difficult. > > The underlying question is: "What is this event *for*?"...or, more > precisely, "*Who *is this event for?" > > I look forward to other thoughts on this.. > > - Greg McKenzie > California > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > call...@sharedweight.net > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > call...@sharedweight.net > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
