New subject: Developing a Culture of Inclusiveness. Was: Calling medleys

31 Jan 2011

Martha wrote:
...
 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. 
I understand that you are convinced.  This is the nature of 
framing.  Once we adopt a frame we see the world in terms of that 
framing.  The more we "activate" a frame, the easier it is to evoke 
it.  I am not directing this critique at you, personally.  This 
framing is very common among callers.  You merely expressed it very 
clearly and succinctly.  I am questioning the prevailing frame for 
contra dance.

I want to assure you that I do not observe the world as you do 
through the "high schooler" frame.  Employing a different frame I see 
that almost all contra dancers are enthusiastic about and enjoy 
dancing with newcomers.  In fact, it is one of the most enjoyable 
parts of contra dance.

How is this possible?  Seen through my frame any uncivil behavior in 
the hall is direct evidence of poor calling.  If there is anyone in 
the hall behaving poorly the proper response from the caller is to be 
apologetic.

Martha also wrote:
...
 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. 
My argument was that absolving the caller of responsibility was the 
only possible advantage I can see of this framing.  By treating the 
dancers as high-schoolers we give up a host of strategies that could 
be used to gain their support and participation in building a sense 
of community.  When a caller activates "the grownup" framing this 
projects an authoritarian position and puts the caller at odds with 
the interests of the dancers.  This is not an advantage.  The framing 
creates an adversarial relationship with the dancers.

Martha also wrote:
...
 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. 
Nor off-stage.  The frame that sees people as inherently uncivil 
creates a sense that the seat of the problem is with undisciplined or 
uneducated dancers.  My frame sees the seat of the problem as poor calling.

Martha then asked:
...
 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. 
Doing anything by fiat would be a destructive action by the caller, 
because it undermines the relationship of trust and goodwill with the 
dancers.  The nature of the "contradance culture" is what we are 
discussing.  That culture is currently dominated by the frame you 
have put forth so eloquently.  If you wish to change that culture I 
can attest that you will have much more influence as a caller than as a dancer.

Martha also wrote:
...
 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. 
"Fewer words, more doing" is an excellent prescription.  If the 
caller assumes the support and civility of all of the dancers they 
can eliminate many words intended to "correct" what the "high 
schooler" frame implies that the dancers will be inclined to 
do.  Assume the best and take responsibility for the rest.  That is a 
recipe for few words.

Please consider that your 80% "angelic heart" dancer may be doing 
what she most enjoys.  She may be one of your most selfish 
dancers.  Why not direct your programming and calling efforts towards 
making sure that regulars, who are partnered with newcomers, have a 
great time.  Make sure that they have an opportunity to use their 
skills and knowledge to share something they are passionate about 
with a confident stranger who is ready to learn.  You may find that 
there are many more "angelic hearts" than you had assumed by looking 
through the "high-schooler" frame.

- Greg

Re: [Callers] Developing a Culture of Inclusiveness. Was: Calling medleys