23 Mar
2011
23 Mar
'11
10:46 a.m.
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 <
winston(a)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 --- WINSTON(a)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
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers