Re: [Callers] Leadership (Was "Social engineering")

On the idea of callers as "social engineers" David Millstone wrote: Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding. I did not introduce the term “social engineering” here. The term was attributed to my alleged “negative feelings” about mixers—something which I have *not* expressed here—and it was posited that I was concerned about mixers being used as a form of “social engineering.” The term “social engineering” has become a rather “loaded” one in the last few decades. Like the term “political correctness” it has been adopted by conservatives as a slur against those advocating for social change. I am certainly not against social change and I would not assume that sentiment of anyone on this list. (Obviously, as callers we depend upon established traditions, but they are, we trust, living traditions that change with the times. Otherwise we will condemn future dancers to mere “historical re-enactments” rather than vital, living traditions that reflect the communities we live in.) I embraced the term here as an attempted way of defusing the term while challenging folks to think outside the box about what it is that callers actually do. Perhaps that was not a good communication strategy and I take responsibility for the confusion. Hopefully we can all get beyond an adversarial framing and attempt to achieve better understanding. The point is not to “choose sides” or to “win” but to advance the art and science of dance calling. For more information on the term “social engineering” check out the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_%28political_science%29 I see it as a central part of the caller's job to think strategically about how their decisions, words, and actions affect the dancers, the dance traditions, and the future of the dance form. This is particularly true in contra dancing because the caller's decisions and words can have a great impact upon the process of partnering. And that has a big influence over the success of the “party”--to use David’s framing. This could all be handily condemned as "social engineering" by anyone opposing change in these traditions. The term has become a divisive one that has little meaning beyond a divisive slur against any change the speaker wishes to oppose. I would prefer to use a term like “leadership” which is more positive. - Greg McKenzie