HAVE WE OUTSMARTED OURSELVES? (Taken from Callerlink 185 December 2007)
Jeff Garbutt

As a movement we have generally become very smart at how we operate square dancing. But have we become so smart that we are actually killing the movement with how we operate the movement? Have we in fact out-smarted ourselves?

In the last issue of Callerlink I asked: "Have we been concentrating too much time on "career" dancers and not spending enough time on "recreational" dancers? Have we become too clever at our choreography and not spending enough time on simply dancing for the fun, friendship and health benefits of dancing? Have we been spending too much time going to festivals and conventions without doing enough to bring square dance to the people on the street with one-night stands? Have we've been too precise with our teaching making sure our definition is also compatible with other programs instead of getting people moving?"

We have become very smart with our choreography. We can cook up lots of interesting geographic patterns which are mentally challenging and can have our dancers concentrating to the Nth degree wondering how the heck the caller can get out of this - but - are they enjoying it? Where are the smiles on the dancers faces? Where are the shouts of joy as they find that they made it successfully? And are they actually "dancing" or are they simply moving from one spot to another as if they were "chess pieces" that have to be in an exact spot?

We have become very smart with our teaching. We inform dancers that a move has an exact start point, an exact action and an exact action to move from the start to the end. Some callers even anticipate that dancers will "eventually move onto another program" so they try to "ease any misunderstanding that may be caused by re-teaching a movement in the future". In other words, they expect that each and every dancer have to move onto higher levels? No wonder we have the so called "rush to plus", (not my words). In any case the re-teaching a concept as we expand our background understand is normal. Do we teach everyone about quantum mechanics when they are kids? No! We teach them that apples fall from trees due to gravity, then further along we teach them about Newton's laws of motion, then Einstein's general relativity, then Hawkins's quantum mechanics. It is the normal teaching method that we re-learn definition as we understand more about the background behind the definition. Are we really being smart by teaching a "square thru" as "quarter thru three times followed by a pass thru all done with hands"? (Don't laugh - but I have read this exact recommendation in an email discussion forum.) I don't think so!

For the comfort of our older dancers some "non hand" moves are preferred. I know myself that "Star Thru" is uncomfortable for some dancers because they can't lift their arms high enough to achieve it. So we have been getting smarter to use almost complete no hand routines. But - have we become so smart that dancers never actually hold hands anymore? There is a bit of reassurance in holding hands sometimes, "I've made it to the right place, I must have done it right", or "you're there, thank god". Holding hands is also dancer contact - and may dancers like to have that contact. We still have to think about the dancers with arthritis of course, but we shouldn't go completely without hands.

Are we using less and less "redundant moves"? Moves that don't actually progress dancers from one spot to another like "Up and Back" and "Dosado to a wave". Sure the moves are unnecessary and can become boring. Boring to whom? Boring to the dancers or the caller? In any case are they completely redundant? Some of them do serve a purpose. "Up and back" helps with timing and also to orientate dancers who don't automatically recognise a line. "Dosado" can give dancers reassurance that they have moved into a wave correctly. Of course these types of moves have the potential to be overused, but they can also be underused. Don't under use them!

Have we become so concerned with perfection and timing that we discourage dancer excitement? Most dancers come to enjoy themselves, and that includes having F-U-N. So what damage can we do if we discourage them from having fun? They start to think about whether they really need to go dancing! There is only so much puzzle solving, exercise, learning, workshopping dancers will handle before they give up! So what if they muck up your timing and calling if they swing in the middle of a "grand square", or swing the opposite dancing whilst going it up or back? I personally hate the "do it now" thing where dancers do a solo full turn around whilst in a circle - but - if they are having so much fun that they wish to express themselves with that type of enthusiasm - so be it! If I let them have their fun maybe they will set aside one bracket for me to do more serious stuff.

Have we become so good at catering to the "vocal minority" that we are not looking after the "silent majority"? Are the "vocal minority" mostly made up of dancers who are also hobbyists? Are the "silent majority" also mostly made up of recreational dancers? I don't know - nor does anyone - but unless we find out for sure we may never cater for the majority of people. Meanwhile - if it is true - we may have (unintentionally) been causing our own demise by catering for the minority and turning away the majority.

We have an extremely well planned system of dance programs. They each have a committee to oversee how they are conducted. It is all very democratic and all decisions affecting them are carefully planned with the overall good of the movement. We even recognise mistakes and correct them, so far we have re-instated the Basic Program and re-introduced "Spin Chain Thru" and "8 Chain Thru" to the Mainstream Program. With all this smartness the dance programs should be the envy of other dance forms, sports and hobbies? Or have we gotten so smart that our dance programs have no relevance to the average people now?

Have we become so good at organising big weekend dances that dancers get overcommitted with their busy schedules - so that when it comes to events such as State Conventions - they realise they haven't spent enough time with their own families - and decide not to go to the convention?

There is an old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". But unfortunately another saying became popular in corporate circles in the 1990's which was "if it ain't broke, you haven't looked hard enough, so fix it anyway". As a result some things have been changed under the guise of "improvement". In retrospect some of the improvements have not worked.