Bottom line - there are some dancers who will not get it no matter how much you simplify. You can't bring the whole event down to their level - they may not even have a level.
We have regular dancers who just don't get it and probably never will. You can't worry about that. They are still having fun or they wouldn't come back every time. ONS dances were mentioned. I call my share of ONS dances and there are always individuals there who don't get it. Called one a couple weeks ago and was calling the Texas Star. In one square the gents could not put their right hands in for a right star - even in the walk thru. We had some fun with that and everyone enjoyed the dance. At the end, one of the other dancers pointed out that the problem was that 3 of the gents were PHD Botanists. The whole place - including the botanists had a good laugh. Remember - the objective is to maximize the fun - not create great dancers. Mac ________________________________ From: Martha Edwards <[email protected]> To: Caller's discussion list <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 12:32:03 PM Subject: Re: [Callers] What do you do as caller when you're completely failing to reach a dancer? Greg - I really really really reeeeeeeely agree with you. These are good beautiful thoughts. And building civility and community has just got to be at the heart of what we do. (And it is. I've never been part of ANY group that was as good as most contra groups at civility and community.) But there's still an issue. In addition to being successful, people like a challenge, and they enjoy participating in excellence. Yes, they prefer being *successful* when they are challenged, and they need to grow as dancers to be able to participate in excellence. But there's no doubt that there is pleasure to be had in accomplishment. I hope there isn't a contradiction in twin goals of excellence and acceptance, but there certainly seems to be a contradiction in the methods of achieving both excellence and community. Which is why we're having this discussion. So the challenge here is: what can we do to 1) bring new dancers into our groups (your answer was good for this) , 2) keep the learning and friendliness going for our "intermediate" dancers (and for this), AND 3) make it fun and interesting for experienced dancers, since they continue to need growth and achievement as well? It is this last goal that we're really struggling with here - some say "advanced dance", others say "dance weekend", some say "newbies take a break" and some say "no hard dances." SURELY we can come up with something here that maintains our defiantly egalitarian stance but permits excellence as well. What's the "synthesis" here? M E On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Greg McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 < > [email protected]> 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 --- [email protected] > > 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 > > [email protected] > > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > -- For the good are always the merry, Save by an evil chance, And the merry love the fiddle And the merry love to dance. ~ William Butler Yeats _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list [email protected] http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
