The traditional view of dancing is that the leader (typically man) should control everything in the dance. The progressive view is that the follower should have equal say, in other words, they should be also controlling the dance. I am not saying either of these views is wrong or my view is better. It all depends on your preferred love language of dancing, in other words, what you are aiming for in your dance.
But if our aim is deeper emotional connection, the wish to control is not so interesting. It appears to me the wish to control is often related with fixed mindset (also called mindset of scarcity).
In fixed mindset, we focus on some valuable resource (in this case control or power) resource, and as we feel this resource is limited, it becomes zero-sum game. If the leader decides how we dance, the follower cannot decide, so the follower needs to convince the leader to give some control to the follower and so on.
My aim is to actually opposite, to have as little control as possible. I don’t even like to show off my “personality” or “artistic expression”. I think the “personality” is my ego, boring repetition of patterns seen in some video or taught by some teacher. However, when engulfed in flow, the dance is never boring, there is endless creative power. The dance is never the same. But this creativity is not “my” dancing. I am just witnessing it happening. I can only prevent it from happening.
On the surface, it may appear that my view of roles is very traditional. But while it may appear similar, it is very different. Actually, my view of roles is very pragmatic.
It appears that it is easier for me to let go of wish to control if there is already some level of emotional connection within the dance. If the leader initially takes the responsibilites related to what happens outside the couple, such as other couples, the basic movement to music etc. this frees the follower to concentrate on the emotional connection. This helps me more in releasing the control than anything else.
Thus, I see the leader and follower roles more in terms of responsibilities than rights. This is consistent with leadership literature. Leaders are foremost the servants of the people they are leading.