31 Jan
2011
31 Jan
'11
1:29 p.m.
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.
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.
I'm not quite sure how survival depends on snobbiness *within *a group -
making sure we only have the best dance partners for a medley, for instance
:-) - but that, too, is part of what we need to take responsibility for
eliminating, or at least softening.
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.
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.
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.
M
E
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Greg McKenzie <grekenzie(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This is very interesting.
Martha writes:
I don't believe that we humans exhibit
community and civility by nature -
it
seems to be a learned thing.
Left to our own devices, we get all clicquey and snobby - or turn into
loners.
I think you have gone to the core of the matter with this statement. This
view of human nature is a common framing of the situation, and it is such a
basic view that it affects almost everything the caller does, or does not do
with regard to civility and an attitude of inclusiveness.
I reject this view for two main reasons: First, I don't believe it is
true. I see humans as social animals who have evolved to be in communities
or tribes where each individual's own survival depends upon cooperation and
working together for common goals. It is our nature to support one another
and to see ourselves as a community.
Second, I reject the idea that snobbishness and selfish actions are
inherent in the human condition simply because it is not a useful framing of
the situation, particularly for a dance caller. I don't see any value that
can come from this framing beyond creating an excuse for the caller to blame
the dancers for any untoward actions in the hall. This framing is only
useful to absolve the caller of responsibility, something that is at the
core of the caller's job.
The caller takes responsibility for everything that happens in the hall.
Instead of making excuses for why we are not responsible why not discuss
what we can do to build a more inclusive spirit in the hall? Callers have a
lot of influence. They certainly have more influence than a handful of
dance leaders. How should we use our influence?
Martha also wrote:
"A kind and inclusive word dropped here and there
from the stage can work wonders..."
Now this is an idea that I agree with completely. The caller is in view of
everyone in the hall and can see everyone in the room. The caller can
project their voice throughout the hall, and this gives the caller more
influence than any other single person in the room. Let's explore this idea
more deeply. What words do you use? When? what words to you avoid using?
I use single words such as "good," "excellent,"
"wonderful," or "nice,"
during the walk-through and while calling. A light touch is best. I
usually use a couple of these words during each walk-through. I also think
a lot about what I don't say. I never, for example, speak to small groups
or individuals over the mike. If people in a particular set are out of
position I address the entire room with my comments, and then only with
positive comments. I even try to avoid looking directly at the group that
is out of position.
I am interested in what others do to influence the partnering process and
the level of civility and community spirit in the hall.
- Greg
**************