Take a breath, Greg. On Dec 12, 2011, at 8:09 PM, Greg McKenzie wrote:
> Jean wrote: > >> 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. >> > > First of all, I want to assure all new callers, and other lurkers out there > that I—and I’m sure most other list participants—would love to hear your > thoughts, regardless of where, for whom, or how often you call. I believe > this list is an open forum and there are no experience requirements. You > need not be authorized by anyone to post here and I’m sure that Jean did > not mean to indicate otherwise. This was probably just an unfortunate > choice of words putting out an unfortunate implicit message. > > > My own experience is that almost all callers are very supportive of new and > aspiring callers and we would love to address your questions and to hear > your ideas, no matter how “at odds” they are with *any* of the callers we > know. All of us are students, and all of us have much to learn. Each of > us can contribute to that learning, regardless of how often or where we > call. This tradition needs your input, experiences, and creative ideas > about how to evolve this art and to reach out in creative ways to other > populations and venues with this amazing art form. I, for one, would be > very interested in hearing any ideas that are “at odds” with conventional > wisdom. > > > So, I got three responses to my last post: A “Good Lord!” a “Good Grief,” > and a “Me Too” supporting the above comment by Jean. This is not the first > time I have been criticized on this list for expressing ideas that do not > conform to the established frame of most callers. > > I suspect that I and the “dozens of callers” Jean knows have many ideas > that we share. Those ideas get posted here frequently so I see no need to > repeat them. Beyond Jean’s statement above, there were no comments > whatsoever about the substance of my post—not on or off of this list. Only > that it was “at odds” with the most common views of callers. > > > Contemporary dance calling is a peculiar activity in which one authorized > person, using a powerful public address system, stands in front of a hall > full of people who are pleased to do virtually *everything* the caller > tells them to do. I suppose it should be no surprise to anyone that this > role of “dance caller” is a magnet for authoritarian personalities. > > > This is not to disparage authoritarian personalities. These folks are very > disciplined, precise, loyal, and they have a strong affinity to tradition > and convention. They are the parents, teachers, police, firefighters, > doctors, and warriors who serve and defend our communities. They are > conventionalists by habit. They are the keepers of our traditions. All of > us, I believe, share these qualities to at least some degree, and we need > to be aware of that tendency. > > > But authoritarian mental frames also have a dark side and we need to guard > against being too dependent upon external authorities. As callers we are > authorized to wield a tremendous power in the dance hall, and we need to > temper our authoritarian habits by reminding ourselves that we are always > servants of the dancers, the musicians, and the larger community. Our > allegiance to any “tradition” (whether real or imagined) has to be > subservient to a deep sense of service to the people we call for. If the > tradition does not serve those people, it will become a tool for oppression. > (The Third Reich was built upon a deep and profound respect for national > traditions, both true and fabricated.) > > > I come here for new ideas, stimulation, and honest feedback, and I assume > that others are interested in ideas that are different from their own. I > really appreciate those who actually read my posts and who respond with > their perceptions, ideas, and critiques. I particularly appreciate those > who critique my ideas with analysis or personal experiences. I believe > that all callers need to cultivate a high regard for feedback. And I think > callers need to seek out feedback—particularly negative feedback. This is > how we learn the most. > > That requires being a bit circumspect with regard to our own performance as > a caller, and with regard to how we view the tradition we are evolving. Don’t > take it personally! We need to keep our minds separate from the > tradition—and the discussion itself—to see any of it clearly. If we fall > prey to authoritarian frames of thinking we will be forever mired in > conventionalism. > > > Our dance traditions are, after all, living traditions. Without change, > the traditions—as well as those who “follow” the traditions—will never > evolve. That requires new ideas that will always be “at odds” with the > conventionalist orthodoxy. Authoritarian thinking is, after all, rooted in > fear. We seek security through our conformity, or we seek acceptance > through the power of controlling others. > > > So I encourage all of us to take courage and speak out. There are more > than 150 people on this list. I would hope to hear a wider range of views > and ideas. Conformity may buy acceptance with some but it will not make > you a better caller. Let’s not fall prey to the fear of being “at odds” > with the “common wisdom” that pervades in our traditions. Our diversity is > our strength and I would love to hear your ideas. I believe that would be > helpful to all of us. > > > Anyway, it seems like a good idea to me. > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > call...@sharedweight.net > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
