Re: [Callers] Borrowing call terminology from modern square dancing

Thank you Lewis for your posting. Lewis wrote: My assertion was that this categorization scheme does not work for those attending local, open, public contra dance events. I am sure it works very well for modern western square dances and many other called dance events. My contention is that the local, open, public contra dances are a different kind of event with a different purpose and a very diverse and eclectic group of attendees. The skill-level framing has little application at these events but migrates to public contra dances from other dance traditions where a separate instructional course of study is defined. Lewis also wrote: Getting such information can be helpful, but it often has to be interpreted. (Note that your examples do not include the words “beginner”, “intermediate”, or “advanced.” Maybe you don’t really need them?) These words have highly varied meanings. When I am told that “There are always tons of beginners at our dances,”—and I often am—I know it can mean a number of things. It could, for example, mean that, “Our regular callers are not very good at integrating first-timers.” I don’t make too many assumptions and come prepared for a wide range of situations. This is what makes these events so challenging and interesting. I rarely call at “advanced” dances or other events where newcomers are discouraged. Lewis then wrote: “Poor souls” is a telling description. I try not to regard any dancer that way. This is my second reason for avoiding these terms. When calling I try to maintain a mindset that regards all of the dancers as competent, courteous, kind, and delightful to dance with. If there is a problem on the floor I try to take personal responsibility for it. My frame is based on the maxim that “The caller always takes full responsibility for everything that happens in the hall.” The use of labels for skill levels is largely the product of a “blame the dancers” strategy to avoid taking responsibility. This is the only real use these terms have. The caller’s job is to make the dance work. When the caller sees some dancers as “a problem” it activates a “blame the dancers” frame in their own brain and in the brains of the dancers. This is how “center set syndrome” occurs. At open, public contra dances, integration of the hall is the caller’s job. If the hall is integrated almost all of the so-called “beginners” or “problem dancers” are “swept in” to the excitement and their anxiety is reduced while their confidence is increased. Enthusiastic, relaxed, and confident newcomers are fun to dance with. This is how these open, public events operate. After the basic are learned (usually within one evening of dancing) the skill level of the dancers becomes almost irrelevant. I agree that we need better words to communicate about the characteristics of dancers. That is something we should discuss. But I would suggest that at open, public contra dances the skill level of the dancers is less relevant than other qualities. These events are much more than merely gatherings of contra dance enthusiasts. These are events where we actively invite novice dancers from the public to attend without separate instruction. My best strategy at these events is to marshal the regular dancers to act as “hosts” of the dance and to welcome and partner with any “guests” who attend. The regulars seem to take on this task with much enthusiasm—but only when I use strategies to integrate the guests into the hall with exciting music and short walk-throughs. The term “perpetual beginner”, for example, is a deliberately meaningless phrase that exposes the futility of skill classifications at these events. This term has become little more than a way to denigrate some dancers and blame them for the caller’s weakness. While the meaning is unclear we know who this invective is used against. Some of these folks are my favorite partners. Many of them help set up chairs and do other volunteer work. Some sit at the door. Some serve on our Boards of Directors. They all support the dance with their admission price and they are all valuable assets to the dance community. The loss of any one of them would do damage to the dance series. Callers should avoid using this term—and any other denigrating terms with reference to dancers—either on or off stage. It is unprofessional. Personally I frame those who are often called “perpetual beginners” as: “Long-term dancers with a limited ability to compensate for poor calling.” And I would include myself among them. If you remove the “long-term” qualifier then you have, simply: “dancers intolerant of poor calling.” This would include all of the first-timers and newcomers. It may also include distracted dancers and dancers with other issues. The important thing is that this framing places responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the caller, where it belongs. These are the dancers most common at local, open, public contra dances—the most challenging events I know of. These are primarily social events. No matter what their dance experience the social element is one of the primary reason people attend these events. Framing them as open, public social events with live music and called social dances is a more accurate and useful way of looking at the event. It helps to define the caller’s job more clearly. These events require the effective integration of first-timers and the most precise, clear calling using the most effective word order, given in time with the music. These events are where the caller needs to use all of her skills to make the dances “work.” Lewis concluded with: Actually, it is true. The “race” classification has no real utility, in anthropology, medicine, sociology or any other science. The comparison of race and dance skill designation is apt, however. In both naming conventions the use of such terms will activate a frame in the brain of those hearing the speaker. When you have activated that frame in your own brain that fact will “leak out” through your verbal and non-verbal behavior—even if you attempt to conceal it. This is why, to fight racism, you first need to change the frame in your own brain. One of the most effective ways to do so is to study our own language and change the words we use and how we use them. Those who resist positive social change will condemn such efforts as “political correctness.” - Greg McKenzie