It strikes me that another way to describe what we are talking about is "openness to new experiences." I see that as the dimension that affects whether people shout down squares at a contra dance versus enjoying trying something new. That openness affects both cross-genre dance (do I do swing, English, Zydeco...) and openness to other ways of doing what I do - from the past or even from another part of the country. Some people like to explore new experiences, and others like doing what they do. Of course, any term one chooses can be seen as having negative connotations of different sorts - "You're limited and narrow," versus "You are diluting what we value, or you aren't doing it right." One of the quirks of this discussion is that some of the people who say, "You aren't doing it right" are saying it to people who have been doing it "right" for 30 or more years. Someone more erudite can write about how this dimension - "purity" - characterizes a lot of the world these days, to its and our detriment.
I see that dimension, which has been around for many years and might even be loosening up a little here and there (witness Richard Fischer's lovely description), as more central than the "higher and higher" problem that MSWD seems to have had. There is a "higher and higher" problem with contra as well, in the sense that some people always want more and more challenging dances regardless of what is appropriate for the community as a whole. From my view it is a blessing that there has been no move to centralize traditional American dancing, so there is a wide range of dancing available. With luck people can find a variant that suits their personality, physical ability, and so on. There are camps and festivals and workshops for the cognoscenti, and community dances for the person who tries it for the first time. People will take a lot of different paths, as Greg's interesting survey demonstrates. I'm struck by Greg seeing "square dancers" as those of a certain sort, perhaps some particularly single-minded MWSD people he has come across, where in fact there is a wide range of square dancing, including MWDS but also a lot of traditional square dances that are real community dances just as contra dances are. David Millstone has taken the lead in compiling a collection of videos of different styles, available at: http://www.youtube.com/user/SquareDanceHistory?feature=uploademail_ch Those who like new experiences may find a lot of interesting things, those who like what they like may not - or they might be surprised. David Chandler List-Post: [email protected] Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:08:29 -0700 > From: Greg McKenzie <[email protected]> > To: [email protected], "Caller's discussion list" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Contra / MWSD parallels? > Message-ID: > <CAFqkWLtsx9e4uXk8J+APCtPHDyd=zkcqxbrczs5peuzmjhg...@mail.gmail.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > David Millstone quoted Don Coffee as writing: > > > Modern contra dancing has become a mass "movement" with the energy of a > > greight train, but most of the young people who so love contras?and > contras > > only-- have no idea it is but one component of a larger, very wonderful, > > tradition. This horse-blinder focus rather reminds me of... > > > > Oh dear! Here we go again. > > > The square enthusiasts are putting forth another tome?complete with graphs > and historical references? about how contra dancers are ?limited?, > ?short-sighted?, ?narrow-minded? or just plain ignorant in their views > about the dance tradition that they have loved for so many decades. > > > This annual tradition of denigration would be humorous if it were not so > insidious and insulting to people who have dedicated so much to building a > new tradition that has made called dancing available to so many people who > would not have otherwise ever tried it. > > > Instead of repeating the old saws about how bad contra dancers are, our > square dance calling friends might consider educating themselves about this > new tradition that they seem to know so little about. For those of us > dedicated to holding open, public, contra dances for our communities this > movement is much more than merely a ?component of a larger, very wonderful > tradition.? It is, in fact, an evolution of even older traditions and, > perhaps, an alternative to the square dance tradition that has become so > moribund and unavailable to the general public. > > > For many of us, introduced to contras as our first social dance experience, > one of the defining factors that drew us to contra dancing was the fact > that it was NOT square dancing and it did NOT require that we attend > separate classes to learn it. > > The fact is that contras are attended by a wildly eclectic crowd of people > with varied dance experience and interests. Yes, about half of those in > the hall frequent contras almost exclusively (43% attend contras only), but > almost 40% of those in the hall are enthusiasts of some other dance form > and attend other dance forms at least six times a year. About 20% of those > in the hall are not enthusiasts of any dance form. > > > (Note that only 3% of those in the hall attend square dances regularly.) > > > Square dance calling enthusiasts should consider that the contra dance > tradition might be something different from what you are familiar with, or > from what you *assume* it is. These open, public social events attract a > different mix of people, have a different purpose, and require a different > set of calling skills than many other forms of dance. When > callers?unfamiliar with the contra tradition?insist on presenting square > formations while presuming to tell the dancers what they *ought* to enjoy, > it is not surprising that many folks will decide to sit out. It would be > better to first educate yourselves about who is in the hall before calling > one of these events. Here is one place to start: > > > http://santacruzdance.org/drupal/node/114 > > > I look forward to an ongoing discussion about the evolution of social dance > and the great contributions it can make to our world. That discussion will > be most productive, however, if we start with a clear understanding of what > it is that we do NOT know. > > > Regards, > > > Greg McKenzie > >
