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
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 09:52:08 -0800
> From: Greg McKenzie <grekenzie(a)gmail.com>
> To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Calling medleys for the first time
> Message-ID: <4d45a548.1f48960a.0b45.ffffd026(a)mx.google.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>
> Bob Green wrote:
>> In some communities, a different approach is taken - to help avoid
>> breakdowns while switching dances on the fly, trying to see that less
>> experienced/skilled dancers have a partner the can give them a little help
>> along on the way. I favor this approach as I believe it tends to make the
>> overall dance experience better.
>
> I would be very interested in any techniques or strategies you, as
> the caller, would use to achieve this behavior: "...trying to see
> that less experienced/skilled dancers have a partner the can give
> them a little help along on the way." I am particularly interested
> in what callers do to encourage more generous partnering behaviors in
> a medley. How do you achieve that "We're all in this together,"
> sentiment that Larry Jennings speaks of?
>
> - Greg
I think it is a good idea for callers to add little bits of dance culture instruction during their teaching and remarks. Many people start coming to Contra Dances without knowing the culture and it isn't always easy to "get". New dancers are sometime shy and don't want to ask experienced dancers to be partners; of course some experienced dancers are snobs but I think most want to make the evening fun for everyone - reminders about changing/selecting partners can help. I like dancing with inexperienced dancers and I think it helps make me a better dancer because I have to be more aware of everyone and learn how to help in a constructive fashion with hand gestures instead of too many words that can't be heard.
Here's an example of something that organizers can do: at the BIDA dance in Cambridge (http://bidadance.org/index.html) they have some very nice posters hung around the wall that talk about having fun, changing partners, etc. They have been working hard on being inclusive on getting new dancers - they have a beginners workshop before each dance. The I in BIDA stands for Intergenerational, the A for Advocates.
