Re: [Callers] Alternate Role Terms

To speak a bit more to the question of whether terms (gender-neutral or not) should make reference to "leader" and "follower," and whether this is a dynamic that a) does and b) should exist in contradance-- The lead/follow dynamic exists different amounts for various people, and can change depending on night, partner, set, etc. It is rather fluid--most good follows lead sometimes as well, for instance, to guide their lead into an allemande or something. This is also, as far as I know, the case with other dance forms as well. I don't have an awful lot of experience, but I know that in waltz, for instance, if the gent is about to run into someone, the lady gives a little extra pressure to redirect him and avert the crash. So yes, to a large extent, contra is certainly an equal-opportunity dance. But so are most partner dances. The amount of equality, the fact that sometimes the follow performs a lead-like function, the fact that one may back-lead (and easily!) does not diminish the existence of a lead/follow dynamic in certain parts of the dance, if executed by two capable dancers. So, I argue that the lead/follow dynamic is an intrinsic part of (the modern incarnation of) contradance. *It may be more or less important to certain people*, but I don't see that as a reason to try quite so hard to stamp it out altogether. In large part, this is because it *makes* the dance for so many people, myself included, and that things get mighty complicated with two people trying to lead at once--too many cooks, as it were. I would be inclined not to erase that distinction, but rather to emphasize the fluidity, the same way many dances do with gender roles. Obviously, as far as gender roles go, that's not a perfect system and still drags along loads of baggage, but I think it's a more appropriate solution where lead/follow is concerned. To emphasize that both partners are responsible for making the dance run smoothly, that being a follower does NOT by ANY means require surrendering of autonomy, that "lead" is more or less an optional role and does not need to bear sole responsibility for the success of the dance... That seems to me to be the way to go. Because then it preserves those roles for those who wish to participate, but not bindingly. (Of course, maybe people think that the very use of the terms is binding enough, no matter how much the caller says otherwise--and I suppose that IS the case with "gents"/"ladies" to a certain extent, so I don't know...) Moreover, I feel like it encourages an environment of discussion, and of finding out a partner's preferences--much like I think "do you like being flourished" should be a question asked by every single flashy lead to every single partner. Maia On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Alan Winston <winston(a)slac.stanford.edu>wrote;wrote: