Lead and Follow as Styles, Not Roles, in Contra Dance
I’d like to speak to you about becoming a better contra dancer. I’m going to touch on a variety of points, but focus on something I’m passionate about: creating a safe dance space.
Some of you may ask, “What in the world does creating a safe contra dance space have to do with who leads and who follows?”
You may claim, “But lead and follow are roles! Gents lead and ladies follow.” I’ll address this misnomer.
Perhaps, instead, you believe, “Any gender can dance either role in contra. We use the terms 'gents' and 'ladies', but they are antiquated, and ‘Lead’ and ‘Follow’ are good substitutes.” I’ll address this more subtle misnomer, as well.
“Lead” and “Follow” are not roles. Instead, they're styles. In that context, many folks dance the “gents” role in the style of “lead”, and many dance the “ladies” role in the style of “follow”. But not everyone. And definitely not to the degree that would warrant labeling one role as “lead” or “follow”.
In fact, using the terms “lead” and “follow” in contra dancing is actually detrimental. Besides being inaccurate, they leads to bad habits and limit both dancers and callers. By leaving behind the concept of “lead” and “follow” as roles, we can become better dancers.
People successfully dance stylistically lead in the “ladies” role, and follow in the “gents” role. This alone shows that the two roles are not inherently tied to the lead / follow styles.
One example of how “leading” and following” is not tied to roles involves “role-swapping”. Role-swapping is when a man dances in “ladies” role, or a woman dances as “gents” role. It has become common in contra, especially here in New England. In swapping roles, they often they preserve the stylistic lead or follow, even though they are dancing a role that many think of as opposite.
For instance, there are plenty of men that I know who danced “gents” role for years, then learned “ladies” role. I often find that these men, even while dancing “ladies role”, still dance in a leading style. When they are twirled, they do so on their own power. Moreover, they often initiate twirls themselves. They continue the traditionally “gent’s task” of initiating the end of a swing, even dancing “ladies” role.
Likewise, I’ve encountered women dancing the “gents” role. Sometimes our swings end late, or I’m not prompted into a chain. In those cases, to be on time, I need to lead these moves. Other times, I’ll initiate a twirl for myself. Or change the speed of the swing if it’s too fast. Or ease my partner into a gent’s allemande left. There’s me, in “ladies” role, leading / initiating moves.
Sometimes, we need to lead moves to keep the dance going, even when we’re “supposed to be following”, or a move doesn’t have a distinct “leader”. Situations arise where role does not correlate to lead / follow style. When an experienced dancer pairs with a new dancer, they may need to do a lot of leading. When a dancer makes a minor adjustment for a dancer with a handicap, they may be taking cues based on the physical need. Sometimes a dancer gets lost in a moment, or simply forgets the next figure, and they need to follow what others are leading to keep the dance going, even when they’re “supposed to lead” or when there’s no clear “lead” role in a figure.
Contra dancing is a country dance. It’s a community dance. It’s a dance done in a large group of people, rather than separate pairs. We all dance together, and the whole line of people moves together. Leading and following as actions are often in the context of keeping the line dancing together. These actions are not simply tied to one role or the other.
Consequently, we already break any perceived “lead/follow rule” to be on time and dance together. Why should this be “breaking a rule”, rather than be the rule itself?
I wish I could wrap up here. I’d like to have sufficiently proven my point that lead / follow are not roles, simply by counter-examples. Unfortunately, gender roles are deeply ingrained in most people’s minds. Even the most progressive people grow up bombarded with society saying how “Men are Leaders”, “Women are Followers”. It’s important that we really examine this from additional angles.
Here are the points I’m going to make:
Lead / Follow is simply inaccurate at describing contra dancing.
Bad dancing habits are reinforced by seeing Lead / Follow as roles.
Negative gender connotations are reinforced by Lead / Follow as roles.
Lead / Follow as roles limit callers.
Lead / Follow as roles limit dancers.
Contra resembles other country dances which have no lead / follow role.
But first, I realize that discussing this topic using either Gents / Ladies or Leads / Follows can sometimes be confusing. I will frequently use: Jets and Rubies.
For reference, you may want to read my post about gender-free dance terms. The short list to “Why Jets and Rubies?” is that these terms are:
a natural pair (gemstones, one black, one red)
without negative connotations or power dynamic
easy and clear to say on the mic and hear on monitors
1:2 syllable pairing (like gent/lady)
audibly distinct from each other
for dancers who’ve never been to a gender-free dance, they are similar enough sounding to existing terms as to increase acceptance and ease transition
used at several gender-free contras
If you think up a better set of terms, please look at the spreadsheet with criteria for gender-free terms, and explain the reasons your terms are better.
1. Lead and Follow Are Inaccurate
There are many times when a person dancing Jet is following, or a person dancing Ruby is leading. It could be that one person is distracted. It could be that a Ruby wants to lead a flourish (more on that in point #5). It could be that a dancer is new. It could be simply that the move in a dance has the Ruby leading and the Jet following.
Imagine using “lead” and “follow” in the the situation where a "follow” crosses the set and a “lead” trails behind:
“Follows lead, leads follow”
(I’ll discuss more on calling issues in point #4.)
Let’s examine the moves that people have told me are inherently “led” or “followed” by one role or another:
Good frame and shared weight have both dancers supporting each other with their connecting hands on the back of each other’s shoulder-blades, and connect lightly with the other hands.
Both dancers should be able to support their own mass, and not lean into or onto the other dancer.
Both dancers are walking forward.
Both dancers are looking at each other.
Both dancers are traveling clockwise.
There’s the flourish at the end, which can be initiated by either role (more on flourishes in point #5).
I’ve heard said, including by callers:
“Gents / Leads / Jets initiate the end of the swing.”
Really? What about the example when an Jet doesn’t end the swing with good timing? What about the many callers who simply teach their beginner classes?:
“To end the swing, open up like a book.”
There’s nothing led or followed with that; this teaching works absolutely fine. I have met hundreds of contra dancers who are taught this way and don’t need any gendered or lead / follow prompting for how to end a swing. In fact, they’re better dancers when they learn it this way, because they both take responsibility for paying attention and being on-time (more about this in point #2).
Finally, there’s one difference in the swing between roles: whose arm is on top. Traditionally, it’s the rubies / “ladies”. So, if one person’s arm is on top, and you need to disengage for the next move ... doesn’t that mean the person whose arm is on top needs to start moving their arm first to get it out of the way? Would that mean the “lady” / “follow” led that?
Promenade / Courtesy Turn
As a caller, in my beginner lessons, I stress for all dancers to share weight in all of the moves where they make physical connection. Why then would I expect the promenade / courtesy turn to be any different? When a basic circle figure is taught, I’ve never seen someone say, “Okay, men, you have to drag all the women around.” In the same way, when two dancers are in promenade or courtesy turn position, they both have a solid, shared connection in both of their hands. And as they move, they move together.
In fact, if anyone could be said to be “leading” either a courtesy turn or star promenade, it’s the “ladies” / rubies. The jets are walking backwards while the rubies, walking forwards, can see the direction they are moving. The jets can’t see where they’re going as they back up, so they are relying on the rubies.
So we just established that the second half of a chain is not “led” by the jets, and possibly “led” by the rubies. What about the first half? Let’s see ... how does a “ladies chain” start, again? The rubies initiate it by taking rights hands and pulling by each other.
“But gents lead ladies into a chain by guiding them with their right hand.”
Maybe sometimes, but no more than one dancer might lead another into an allemande, start of a hey, do-si-do in the center, or rollaways. Either role may be called upon to do either side of any of these moves, further reinforcing the idea that “lead” is a style that is contextual to what is immediately happening, rather than something one role does all or even most of the time.
So why should anyone think a chain is “led by the gents”?
(I won’t get into the fact that calling it a “Ladies Chain” is redundant, and that a “Gent’s Chain” as it currently is should be instead called “Left-hand chain”. Imagine if choreographers felt more comfortable doing chains other than ladies-from-right-side? Whole dance choreography books could be filled with new dances. But I digress.)
I’ll get into flourishes in point #5, but simply:
There are flourishes initiated by either role. As an Jet, I’ve had a Ruby twirl me out of a star, twirl me at the end of a swing, or twirl me when I’m on the outside of a down/up-the-hall.
Flourishes that are “led by the gents” can be led by the other role as well. Plenty of people dancing “lady” role have initiated twirling themselves.
Flourishes are optional. They’re not a prescribed part of contra dancing. Even if flourishes were all led by one role, they’re not part of what a caller says to do, nor teaches on a typical night of dancing. They’re imported from various different forms of couples dances, and thus are a bit modified when they enter the context of folk dancing such as contra. They should always be done with permission.
Misunderstandings of “lead” and “follow” in contra, it reduces dance safety.
When two dancers listen to each other, they pay attention to their safety and enjoyment, and focus on maximizing both for everyone. Sometimes they need to lead, sometimes they need to follow. They should always look to read the communication between the two of them. By contrast, when one dancer assumes they’re “in charge”, the communication is much more one-directional.
Using a “Lead / Follow” role produces faulty assumptions, especially for new dancers who have not yet learned the communication between roles. It also comes with, for some, a certain macho mentality of “guys in charge”. Some of these assumptions of “who’s in charge” are bad habits, for example:
The “lead / gent” forces a twirl, and yanks the other person’s arm.
The “lady / follow” lets the “gent / lead” do most of the work on a swing or chain or star promenade. (How many of you jets out there have sore right shoulders at the end of a night when rubies haven’t been giving good weight?)
A “lead / gent” takes it as their responsibility to physically move a dancer in the other role who’s a little late, and it winds up a shove.
A “lead / gent” never learns to read subtle cues of declining flourishes, and forces flourishes on dancers with a weak shoulder or wrist.
A “follow / lady” allows them and their partner/neighbor to be extra late, expecting the “lead / gent” is in charge.
A “follow / lady” twirls like crazy, expecting the “lead / gent” to signal the end of the twirls, rather than be responsible for being on time themself.
A dancer feels less inclined to learn both roles, when one role is defined in a way that reflects their expressed gender’s norms. (I’ll note that this seems to discourage men, for fear of being seen as less manly, more than it does women.)
If you’re introduced with innocuous terms - again, like Jets and Rubies - then these power dynamics are absent, and from the start, these bad habits lack reinforcement by the role terms, in the way lead / follow roles do.
Beginning contra dancers concentrate on just what they're doing.
Intermediate level dancers pay attention to their partners, which is where lead / follow roles reside.
Experienced dancers are aware of and dance with their hands four.
Great dancers dance with the whole set.
“Lead / follow” fails to fully create a safe and welcoming space for dancers. We need to respect people based on how they express their gender. While one might argue “lead / follow” is better than the gendered role terms “gents / ladies”, it reinforces the same traditional gender roles.
“Lead / Follow” has an obvious power dynamic. The leader is in charge, and the follower either accepts or rejects. And in the history of dancing being very traditionally tied with gender-role, the man is in charge, the woman follows the man’s lead. It is this history of dance that comes loaded with “lead / follow” terms. As long as men are dancing mostly “lead” and women are dancing mostly “follow”, that connection of “man-lead” and “woman-follow” will still be there.
The counter-argument is that eventually “lead” and “follow” will lose their gender association. This falls apart even in a best-case scenario. Let’s look at a gender-free contra dancing in an LGBTQ community. They were created a few decades ago to create welcoming and safe spaces for LGBTQ communities to contra dance without worrying about gender. At the time, they could have picked “lead / follow”, but chose not to.
Let’s assume a gender-free contra community has all dancers equally dancing “lead” and “follow” roles. Redefining “lead” and “follow” to extract the gender connotations will still be difficult because of their prior experiences in dance. Worse, if many of these dancers do couples dances as well - where the roles are decidedly still “lead” and “follow” - then that gender connotation is nigh impossible to remove.
If even in a best-case scenario we see that “lead / follow” will have power dynamics and gender connotations, then certainly the less-than-best-case scenarios will have an even stronger lead-men, follow-women connection.
Consider that most contra communities do not primarily serve LGBTQ communities. We still see men most often still dancing as “gents”, and women most often still dancing as "ladies”. So if you’re at a typical mixed dance, using “lead / follow” roles reinforce the idea that Man equals Leader, and Woman equals Follower.
Even if all dances went with gender-free terms, I still think we’d see most men mostly wanting to dance with women, and most women mostly wanting to dance with men. We’d see mostly men dancing “lead”, and mostly women dancing “follow”, thus reinforcing “men lead, women follow”. Yuck.
I have a hard time with the idea that one gender is supposed to be in charge of everything. In contra, with no real “lead” or “follow” roles (as in couples dancing), the only thing that’s “lead” or “follow” about roles is tied to the history of “men lead, ladies follow”.
“But people already know what lead and follow means.”
I’ve heard this counter-argument, and the connection people have between lead / follow and man / woman is the reason why it’s not a good reason.
“Lead / Follow” roles have problems, and there’s no advantage using them over Jets / Rubies or other suitable gender-free terms. How can anyone justify claiming that choosing “Lead / Follow” as names of roles is the best option?
4. Lead and Follow Limit Callers
Here are a few examples of where callers use the words “lead” and “follow” in calling. I’ll use “Xs” and “Ys” to mean dance roles that could be either, depending on the choreography:
“Xs lead down the center”
“Xs lead slide left/right”
“Xs in the lead, promenade”
(I can provide examples of each of these in commonly called dances.)
Yes, I suppose we could swap out “lead” and “follow” for different words. In the second example, “cross” works better than “lead”. You could say “go down the center”, or “Xs start a hey for four”, or “Xs in front...”
But why add this inconvenience to callers?
Again, there’s no advantage to using lead and follow as roles.
Instead, let’s leave “lead” and “follow” to be used as verbs to describe the style of how people are dancing at a particular moment.
5. Lead and Follow Limit Dancers
Earlier this year I tried what I call “Dance Science”.
For years, I have often observed:
People who learned their second role still danced their second role in the style of lead / follow from their first role.
As a man who learned “ladies” role years ago, people dancing “gents” role forced flourishes, and did not pick up my cues when I danced “ladies” role.
Some of my most satisfying dances include role-swapping with partners in unexpected moments - unexpected because they did not fit the prescribed “lead / follow” roles.
Hence, with friends that are good dancers and enjoyed role-swapping, we tried a few variations, of which I’ll mention three:
Variation 1: Swapping assumed styles
“Gent” / Jet dancing “follow” in style
“Lady” / Ruby dancing “lead” in style
Ultimately, this came down to the ruby initiating all flourishes, and being responsible for initiating the end the swing. For science. The Jet needed to resist the urge to initiate flourishes or the end of a swing.
Downside: A couple times, the ruby briefly forgot that they were in charge of ending the swing. We wound up a beat behind. No big deal.
Upside: Some amazing things happened with flourishes:
We realized just how similar “gent” and “lady” roles really were.
We didn’t mess up any of our neighbors.
The “gent” paid more attention to the flourishes, and the “lady” had more of a choice.
The “gent” got twirled sometimes.
We improvised new flourishes.
Let me say that last one again:
Because we chose to break the “gents lead, ladies follow” convention, we invented new freaking flourishes.
And since dance science experiments, we’re more receptive dancers.
Variation 2: Random role-swapping
In this variation, we stuck to traditional “gents lead, ladies follow” role / style pairings, but we focused on role-swapping at any time. (Often times, in contra, role-swapping is done each 30ish-second iteration through a dance.)
Both dancers paid more attention through the whole dance.
Variation 3: Total Disassociation of Role and Style
This last was my favorite. Partners would decide who would be “lady” and who would be “gent” the whole dance, but either dancer could initiate flourishes.
We followed one simple rule:
Whoever initiates a flourish has the floor until returning to non-flourish.
This was some of the most fun dancing I’ve ever had in contra. Both dancers had to pay attention and read each other’s intentions and cues. We were both dancing very much in the moment, connected.
... but all of that is restricted when people look at dance roles as “lead / follow”.
So, by all means, if one person wants to “follow”, then “follow”. If you want to “lead”, then “lead”. But make it a choice of style, not dictated by the role. Preserve your freedom of choice.
Contra is a country folk dance. It’s done in large groups, rather than just with a partner. It’s cued by a caller. Like English Country Dancing or Square Dancing, the cohesion of the whole formation of people is central for the dance to work well. The focus is on everyone participating towards the whole.
If you’ve danced English Country Dancing, you’ve probably noticed that most dances feel almost identical dancing as a “lady” or “gent”. Because contra-style swings are rare, and flourishes even rarer, there’s essentially no difference in the roles. Moves for each role are almost always the same: Set, 1-hand-turn, 2-hand-turn, Hey, Up a double, Turn alone, Cloverleaf, and so on. The biggest differences between roles are when you interact with a neighbor or corner, as they are different people depending on which role you choose. Even still, many dances will have you dance both with neighbor and corner, making this distinction less pronounced.
In Modern Western Square Dancing, many dances are totally improvised by the caller. There is little time for flourishes. And while there are more moves that are different for “boys” and “girls” (as MWSD officially calls the roles), the only “leader” is the caller.
The only reasons modern contra is different is because of opportunity for flourishes and because of the history of how our society’s treats gender. Our society prescribes how man and woman should each act. Twirling borrowed from country waltzing or even swing. Men are always supposed to twirl the women. Never vice versa.
If you want a couple’s dance with strong lead and follow prescribed by the role, I might suggest swing, or tango, or waltz, or salsa. I enjoy these, when that’s what I’m in the mood for. With contra, I am looking for the freedom to dance with a group of equals while also expressing my individual style.
It’s no longer 1970; it’s 2015. Not only is it time to move forward, but we’ve already been doing so for a couple decades. We’re approaching a critical shift where large parts of our society reject male machismo and female subservience as hard fast rules. Contra dance has evolved along with this shift, and we ought to ensure our terms are up to our more egalitarian attitudes as a society.
Lead / follow as roles fall behind, and in contra should be left behind.
Lead / Follow as role names have a variety of problems:
They have power dynamics.
They lead to bad dance habits.
They have gender associations built in from dance history.
They’re wrong in describing what contra is about.
If you’re a regular or organizer of a gender-free contra dance, may I suggest trying Jets / Rubies? Again, see my post about gender-free dance terms for a more in-depth analysis.
Dance as “lead”!
Dance as “follow”!
... and realize these are styles, not roles.
Treat them as styles, and you will improve as a dancer. You will be more receptive to other dancers, have even better timing, and dance more safely.
Think about the questions you ask a partner before a dance begins:
Here are two that mean different things:
What role would you like to dance?
Would you like to lead or follow?
“Yes, I’d like to lead this time. Would you like to dance ‘Gent’ or ‘Lady’?”
“Let’s both lead. But I’d like to dance ‘Ruby’.”
“Want to swap roles and lead?”
