Forró Follower: Active or Passive?
- Rafael Piccolotto de Lima
- Feb 6
- 13 min read
Updated: Feb 6
Have you ever noticed how the same dance can unfold in completely different ways?
And I’m not talking about choosing steps, or styles and subgenres within forró, like forró universitário, roots, or any other branch.
I’m talking about attitude and the kind of relationship and collaboration that arises between two partners in the act of dancing together.
It’s about attentive listening, adapting to each other, how clearly the roles of leader and follower are defined, which responsibilities each takes on individually, and which are shared between them, and how symbiotic or individualistic each partner’s approach can be.
In partner dancing, different attitudes, postures, and approaches create radically distinct experiences. These choices directly affect the flow of the dance, the dynamics of movement, and even the sense of connection between partners.
In this post, I explore these dynamics from the follower’s perspective. Throughout the blog, I describe in a technical and detailed way the different characteristics and approaches a follower can take, aiming to clarify how these choices shape the dance as a whole.
It’s important to note the perspective from which this text is written: as a leader (myself) sharing my experience dancing with very different forró followers. Although I occasionally dance as a follower, both in classes to help teach leaders and sometimes at social events, I strongly identify with the leader’s role, which is where I feel most natural and comfortable. So this blog should be read from that point of view.
At the end of the post, I also share some more personal reflections, where I outline my individual preferences, separated from the technical descriptions presented throughout the content.
1. Passive Follower
The first category is the completely passive follower. In this case, it sometimes feels as if the body needs to be carried through the dance. The embrace tends to be heavy, there is little bodily response, minimal spontaneous movement, and clear difficulty with transitions and changes of direction. Response time is usually slow, which requires the leader to constantly work just to keep the dance flowing.
This type is very common among beginners who haven’t yet developed body awareness, who aren’t familiar with the movements, and who end up relying entirely on the leader to make the dance happen. It’s common to hear passive followers say things like: “I’ve never taken a class, I just learned by dancing socially,” “I don’t know the moves, I just do whatever the leader makes me do,” “I can only do the moves when the leader guides me,” or “I don’t think followers need to learn the moves, they just follow what the leader does.” These statements are classic and reflect the mindset that leads to this kind of posture: waiting, responding slowly, and depending almost entirely on the leader.
There is also a slightly more advanced version of this profile, where the follower isn’t as heavy and can keep up with the movements better, but there is still no energy coming from them. The dance works, but it remains rather lifeless.
2. Active Follower, but Resistant to Leading
In contrast, some followers are active but less responsive to the leader. They come to the dance with their own energy, style, and habitual way of moving, rather than waiting to see how the interaction unfolds. Their attention to the leader is limited, which can make it challenging to follow partner moves or adapt to the overall flow and shape of the dance.
This profile often appears in beginners or in followers accustomed to dancing with less experienced leaders. In these situations, the follower takes on a highly active role, bringing her own flair, style, and personality, essentially taking responsibility for making the dance happen from her perspective. While this can make the dance lively, it leaves little room for dialogue or for being led.
3. Symbiotic Follower (Active)
Another type I find particularly interesting is the symbiotic follower. This is a follower who is highly sensitive and responsive, with initiatives deeply connected to the movements proposed by the leader and to the way the leader dances. This follower is very active, but their activity is built on listening and fusion. They are like a chameleon in the dance.
When the leader has good technique, repertoire, and musicality, this type of partnership can create an incredibly intense experience for both partners. The leader feels their dance amplified, while the follower enters a kind of journey, experiencing the dance almost through the leader’s body and the way they shape the movements.
The video above is a great example of a follower with a symbiotic attitude and skill. This dance with Mara Figueiredo was our very first dance together. We met that day and started dancing while being filmed directly for the channel, during a visit I made to the Fuá dance school in São Paulo.
Even without any shared dance history, the dance flowed with a clear sense of listening, presence, and continuity. Beyond being sensitive and skillfully symbiotic, she dances in an active and slightly proactive way, influencing the dynamics without breaking the flow.
This naturally leads us to the next section of the blog, while also hinting at the flares and personal touches that will be explored further later in the text.
4. Proactive Symbiotic Follower
Here, the follower contributes to the dance in a way that complements the leader’s guidance. Their proposals come through subtle adjustments in how they respond to what is suggested.
This can show up as a firmer, more enveloping embrace, or, on the contrary, a lighter and looser one. In a turn, it might be executed more fluidly or more sharply. In a walk, it may carry more or less energy than initially suggested. These are small choices of bodily intention that don’t drastically change the direction of the dance but deeply influence its dynamics.
These subtle responses do not take away the leader’s role in choosing movements, but they strongly affect the mood, intensity, and flow of the dance. It is an active, sensitive, and collaborative participation, built entirely on listening and bodily dialogue.
5. Follower with Added Ornaments and Personal Flares
This group includes dancers who add stylistic, aesthetic, and expressive elements to the dance without breaking the existing lead. In other words, the leader maintains their role, creating structure and suggesting movements, while the follower adds extra movements on top of that foundation without requiring changes to the lead.
Unlike the symbiotic and proactive follower, whose variations aim to subtly influence the partner and create a fluid dialogue, here the energy is more individual. Ornaments and personal touches are executed with the follower’s own focus, without necessarily seeking to affect the leader’s dancing.
This is a broad category that includes very different approaches, so it deserves subdivision. Below, I present two subcategories: flourishes that are subtle and integrated into the lead, and more extensive flourishes that occupy more space and take on a more individualistic character.
5.1 Ornaments and Personal Flourishes Integrated with the Lead
In this first case, the follower adds flourishes, personal touches, and stylistic choices naturally, lightly, or moderately. These choices appear mainly in the quality of movement, body usage, musicality, and intention, giving personality to the proposed movements without altering their structure.
Here, there is a clear balance of activity and movement between leader and follower. The lead remains fluid, the dialogue stays active, and the added elements function as refinement, charm, and individual expression, enriching the dance without changing the dynamics of the roles.
5.2 Constant Independence within the Structure
In the second case, flourishes begin to occupy nearly every possible opportunity. The follower uses every space to create variations, independent movements, and constant stylization, often dancing almost parallel to the leader, even while staying within the overall structure suggested.
A dance friend shared with me: “When I dance with people who have a more limited repertoire, I discovered I could have fun and explore movements on my own, even if the dance felt repetitive or monotonous from the leader’s perspective.”
This approach, however, has two sides. On one hand, it gives the follower autonomy, creativity, and individual enjoyment. They can explore movements, test ideas, and add their personality to the dance, staying engaged even when the partner has a limited repertoire. On the other hand, it sends a clear message to the leader: what they are proposing may not be enough. The focus shifts from the shared experience to the follower’s individual experience, which aims to make the dance interesting regardless of the partner.
Some of these variations, especially those involving weight shifts or positioning changes, can create moments where the leader is put on hold, waiting for the follower to finish their movements before resuming the lead. Alternatively, the leader might choose to dance independently. In this scenario, both partners end up performing flourishes and playful movements in parallel, more side by side than in dialogue.
Recently, this same friend danced with me in this style, exploring individual movements within the dance. For me, it was interesting to notice how the dynamic shifted: the dance became more individualistic, where connection took a backseat, and her personal expression became central. I joined the playfulness and started adding my own flourishes, following her vibe.
When this dynamic happens occasionally, it can be fun and interesting. However, there are followers who maintain this approach throughout the dance, which significantly changes the sense of partnership and tends to reduce listening and symbiotic connection.
6. Independent and Disruptive Follower
This last group encompasses more extreme approaches to following, where the follower’s independence takes priority, significantly altering the flow of the dance and, at times, even nullifying or reversing the leader’s role.
Although these behaviors can take many forms, they all share the characteristic of challenging or redefining the relationship between leader and follower.
6.1 Backleading and Temporary Role Reversal
One example is the follower who practices backleading. In this situation, the follower directly leads movements, interrupting the leader’s flow and placing them, even if only momentarily, in a passive role, where they are no longer leading but waiting for the partner to “self-lead.”
This role reversal can occur as a brief, isolated body cue or extend over longer periods of the dance. At times, the leadership role is, so to speak, returned to the leader, creating an explicit alternation of roles.
It is a choice that temporarily dissolves the traditional division of roles. For the leader, this requires constant adaptation and quick reading of what is being assumed or proposed. A perceptive leader learns to reduce assertiveness, adjusting their lead to avoid conflicts or mismatches. It is like dancing on eggshells, leading carefully so as not to create friction when the follower chooses to backlead, temporarily placing the leader in a follower position. In these moments, a sense of limbo and uncertainty often arises. Someone who previously saw themselves clearly as a leader may lose certainty about their role, hesitating between leading, following, or simply waiting for the dynamic to reorganize.
6.2 Denial and “Negotiation” of Movements
Another distinct case is the denial of movements. Here, the follower allows the leader to suggest and propose movements, but responds in a completely different way, often directly opposing the original suggestion.
A turn may be interrupted. A walk may go in the opposite direction. A proposed movement may transform into a pause. The leader finds themselves constantly reassessing their lead, breaking the dance’s flow with each step.
The dance becomes a continuous negotiation, where every movement must be renegotiated in real time: whether it will happen, how it will happen, and in which direction. This logic profoundly changes the sense of continuity, fluidity, and bodily dialogue, demanding improvised solutions with every new proposal.
7. (Bonus) Denial of Roles
Beyond the spectrum explored in this blog, from passivity to extreme independence, there is also the possibility of completely rejecting the roles of leader and follower. From this perspective, the dance transforms into a shared experience, without defined classic roles: no leader, no follower.
This approach opens new possibilities for exploration in partner dance, but it is not the primary focus here. The goal of this text is to examine nuances and variations within the traditional leader-follower structure, understanding how each profile impacts dynamics, listening, and the flow of the dance.
So, Active or Passive Forró Follower After All?
Returning to the question that gives this post its title, perhaps the most honest answer is another question: does a passive follower really exist in partner dance?
In practice, every follower is active in some way. The difference isn’t whether activity exists, but in the level of engagement and, above all, in where that energy is directed.
Even in what I called the passive follower, there is action. She moves, responds, uses the energy proposed by the leader, and does the minimum required to make the dance happen. However, this activity is almost always reactive, delayed, and dependent on a clear impulse coming from the leader. The energy doesn’t originate from her, it arrives to her.
At the opposite extreme, there are situations of high autonomy, where the follower moves independently or even initiates clear leading impulses from the follower position, challenging or redefining the traditional roles in the dance.
Between these two poles lies a broad, continuous spectrum of possibilities. And here is a central point for understanding all the categories presented in this post: it’s not just how active the follower is that matters, but where that activity is directed.
Didactically, this energy can manifest in three main ways:
A. In resonance with the lead
Energy is used to amplify, reinforce, and interact with the leader’s direction, musicality, and bodily movement. This is the realm of symbiosis, fine listening, and the joint construction of movement.
B. Focused on individual expression
The activity is directed toward the follower’s own dance. Flourishes, ornaments, variations, and stylistic choices take the spotlight, creating almost solo moments within the partner dance.
C. With impulses of autonomy and dynamic change
The energy interacts with the lead in a more disruptive way. Changes in direction, temporary leadership reversals, backleading, denial of movements, and unexpected alterations emerge.
Perhaps, then, the more interesting question isn’t whether the follower is active or passive, but how that activity is organized, expressed, and how it influences the shared experience on the dance floor.
Categories as a Pedagogical Tool, Not Labels
All the divisions presented in this post should not be seen as rigid boxes or fixed identities. They exist primarily as a pedagogical tool to highlight different postures, attitudes, and dynamics that can arise in partner dance based on the follower’s choices, skills, and capacities.
In practice, dance rarely happens in such categorical ways. It’s not black and white, and very few people fit into just one follower type throughout their journey. On the contrary, I remember many followers I deeply admire who, while having a dominant preference, naturally move through different postures depending on the moment, the connection, the partner, and the movement being built.
A good example of this is Camila Alves, with whom I have partnered several times over the years. In a demonstration at the end of a workshop on musicality (watch the video below), for instance, it’s possible to see how she transitions through different attitudes within the same dance.
At times, an active symbiosis emerges, with attentive listening, immediate responses, and joint construction. At other moments, she adds flourishes and personal touches organically, without breaking the dance’s flow. There are also instances when she changes patterns and directions based on her own initiatives, not led ones, prompting me to follow her to preserve connection and continuity.
In these situations, the dynamic approaches backleading, but without a clear role reversal. There is no explicit leadership coming from her, just actions that happen, to which I must adapt in real time.
It’s Not Just Choice: It’s Skill, Timing, and Bodily Development
It’s also important to recognize that not everything comes down to choice. Many of these postures are directly linked to technical ability, bodily repertoire, practice time, and dance maturity. For example, when we talk about a follower striving for a more symbiotic relationship with the leader, it doesn’t happen instantly. Developing that level of listening, lightness, responsiveness, and integration can take years.
It’s natural for the early stages of this process to be marked by attempts to simply follow, often without fully understanding the movements, responding late, carrying too much weight, or relying almost entirely on the lead. At this stage, the dance may appear passive, not by aesthetic or conceptual choice, but due to technical limitations inherent to the learning process.
Over time, this same follower tends to become lighter, more responsive, and more comfortable with movements and transitions. She continues to desire to follow, but does so with greater presence, bodily clarity, and fluidity. Only later, in some cases, does something approach this almost utopian idea of full symbiosis, where movements seem to feed each other, and the dance gains an organic, continuous, and shared quality.
Understanding these categories as points of observation, rather than definitive judgments, allows for a more generous, realistic, and profound reading of the dance and each person’s individual process within it.
Conclusion
In theory, it’s impossible to dispute the idea that in partner dance, there is no right or wrong. Each person is free to dance in a way that makes sense to them, experiment with different postures, and occupy space as they wish. At the same time, social dance is, above all, an interpersonal interaction. And as with any such relationship, there is an implicit desire for both parties to feel comfortable, satisfied, and happy with the roles they assume and how those roles develop.
That said, it also makes sense to acknowledge personal preferences.
My Preferences
In general, I tend to feel most connected and inspired by the more moderate approaches discussed throughout this post. In particular, the symbiotic follower, which I consider one of the most challenging to perform at a high level. Being this kind of follower demands great sensitivity, adaptability, responsiveness, and bodily and movement repertoire. When this symbiosis occurs, the experience feels almost magical: I (as a lead) feel my movements amplified, as if I had dancing superpowers, immersed in a pleasurable union of bodies, where each gesture feeds the other, creating a continuous cycle of momentum and flow.
Another type I deeply enjoy is the follower who, in addition to being symbiotic, is active and proactive. To me, she combines all the qualities of the symbiotic follower, with an added level of awareness and intention in how she influences the dance as it unfolds. Her proposals arise without causing friction, blocks, or conflict, and the dance develops as a living, intelligent dialogue.
This dynamic reminds me a lot of the “yes, and” principle from improvisational theater: everything proposed by the other is accepted, and from that emerges the possibility to contribute, expand, and indicate new directions, without denying or interrupting the flow of the partnership.
I remember a conversation I had with a great forró dancer and teacher, Milena Moraes, with whom I had the joy of sharing a brief partnership a few years ago. She mentioned that, in some dances, by responding in a deeply symbiotic way while also bringing her own manner of dancing and proposals through her bodily language, a curious sensation arose: despite the clear existence of leader and follower roles, it felt as if we both had the idea for the movement at the same time.
It was a co-creation. A dance that paradoxically felt like a dance without roles, yet sustained by a clear role structure. In my experience with her, I felt completely autonomous and comfortable in my place as a leader, while the direction of the dance seemed to emerge as a shared choice, built in real time. These are my favorite dances! (watch the video below)
And You?
As a leader, which type of follower inspires you the most?
And you, follower, have you explored all these possibilities?
How do you prefer to position yourself on the dance floor?
About the author
Rafael Piccolotto de Lima is an experienced teacher. He is passionate about arts, a doctor of musical arts, and a Latin Grammy nominee as a composer.
For him, all forms of expression are somehow related. Based on that premise, his interest and work have a wide spectrum: from a tail tux at a concert hall, to the dance shoes at a worn-out dance floor.
Born in Campinas, São Paulo - Brazil, now he lives at the NYC area, teaches weekly forró classes in Manhattan and is the creator of Forró New York, its festivals and online courses.
Website: www.rafaelpl.com
YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/rafaelpdelima
Instagram: www.instagram.com/rafaelpiccolottodelima/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/RafaelPiccolottodeLima/
Comments