In Parts One to Three, I explored how coercive dance environments were sustained through glorification, silence, and internalised roles such as the scapegoat and golden child. Yet another layer of the system often goes unexamined: the role of the enabler.
Enablers are those who, knowingly or unknowingly, supported harmful dynamics by excusing, minimising, or defending abusive authority. In family systems theory, this role is well documented (Bowen, 1978; Minuchin, 1974). It may be the partner who rationalises destructive behaviour, the staff member who dismisses complaints to preserve order, or the parent who insists that “the teacher knows best.” In organisational psychology, enabling is understood as a process of system justification (Jost & Banaji, 1994): the unconscious drive to defend existing hierarchies because doing so preserves meaning and predictability, even when those hierarchies are unjust.
In coercive dance environments, enablers often appeared as co teachers, administrators, or parents who aligned with the studio leader’s authority. Their compliance and defence lent legitimacy to harmful methods and helped normalise the abuse of power. While bystanders in coercive school systems were often powerless children whose silence was a survival response, enablers were people in power, adults with the capacity to recognise harm and act differently. Their participation was not passive but active in maintaining the system.
What Is an Enabler?
An enabler is not necessarily someone who intended harm. In coercive systems, enabling was frequently a psychological defence: aligning with power in order to avoid becoming a target. Enablers may have echoed the leader’s criticisms, dismissed concerns as “overreactions,” or reframed cruelty as “necessary discipline.” By adopting the language of authority, they reinforced the hierarchy and protected the system from scrutiny.
Research on abusive family dynamics (Satir, 1988; Miller, 1997) shows that enabling behaviour often arises from fear of conflict, exclusion, or punishment. Social psychology also demonstrates how individuals internalise the norms of powerful figures to maintain belonging (Asch, 1955; Milgram, 1974). Within dance institutions shaped by coercion, this meant that teachers or parents often defended the leader’s actions, silenced those who spoke up, or publicly praised the very practices that caused harm.
A common example might include the parent who bakes for the director or offers favours in exchange for perceived safety or status, or the assistant teacher who repeats the leader’s harsh tone to demonstrate loyalty. These actions, while appearing supportive, inadvertently strengthen the authority’s control and signal to others that compliance ensures protection.
Why People Enabled
People did not usually enable harm out of malice. More often, enabling served as a strategy to reduce personal risk, preserve belonging, or protect identity.
1.Fear of becoming scapegoated.
In authoritarian systems, questioning authority could lead to humiliation or exclusion. Aligning with the leader’s perspective felt safer than dissent. Bowen (1978) observed that in rigid hierarchies, individuals often align with power to avoid becoming the “identified patient.”
2.Desire for proximity to power.
Proximity often brought privileges: attention, opportunities, or perceived protection. This reflects Minuchin’s (1974) concept of enmeshment, where family members gain security by aligning with dominant figures.
3.Belief that abuse equalled discipline.
Many internalised the idea that cruelty produced greatness. In Jost and Banaji’s (1994) theory of system justification, defending oppressive practices helps individuals preserve a sense of fairness and coherence within the system.
4.Cognitive dissonance.
To acknowledge harm would have meant confronting one’s own participation. Festinger’s (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance explains how people reduce psychological discomfort by rationalising their choices. In dance, this often took the form of “it made me strong” or “that’s how ballet has always been.”
A Personal Reflection
I remember a moment that revealed the true cost of enabling. After almost two years away from the environment that had caused me so much harm, I was blindsided and coerced to return against my will. I was fifteen and training full time in ballet. I protested with everything I had, but my objections were dismissed. It was framed as an opportunity to progress faster and achieve quicker results and to just “try it for one day”.
I arrived at the studio and went into the dressing room. Within minutes I heard the familiar sound of screaming from the first studio. My body reacted before my mind could. My hands began to shake, my heart started to race. My whole system recognised the threat long before I consciously did.
The parent of a student stood calmly nearby, quietly listening as her daughter was being screamed at. I turned to her, trembling, and the words poured out of me: “How can you stand here and listen to your daughter being yelled at like that?” Tears came, but beneath them was a deep internal rage. Anger I had never been allowed to feel, or even recognise, until that moment. Having been away from this coercive environment, I could not comprehend how this was still considered normal. At that age, I didn’t yet have the language for what was happening; the triangulation, gaslighting, the intermittent reinforcement and breadcrumbing that were far more damaging than the hitting and screaming. My reaction was not weakness. It was my nervous system’s refusal to re-enter coercion.
The principal must have heard my distress and opened the door. When our eyes met, everything I had once suppressed rose to the surface. “How can you scream like that? This is so wrong. I don’t want to be here.”
I then left.
That was the beginning of finding my voice.
That day, I understood something essential about enabling. It was not only the leader who caused harm. It was also the silence of those standing in the room. The parent’s who forced their will and the parents, teachers and supporters whose stillness reflected what many of us had once done: staying quiet, rationalising cruelty, believing abuse was part of discipline and “results.”
Enabling in Dance Contexts
Within coercive dance environments, enabling often took subtle yet powerful forms:
•Assistant or Co teachers mirroring the leader’s harsh tone to show allegiance.
•Parents defending the director publicly, even when their child was distressed.
•Administrators silencing complaints to “protect the school’s reputation.”
•Adults reinforcing myths such as “discipline builds resilience” or “the greats were always tough.”
Social psychology explains these behaviours as consequences of conformity and obedience (Asch, 1955; Milgram, 1974). When an authority sets the emotional and moral tone, others tend to follow, even against their own values. In groups shaped by fear and prestige, loyalty can masquerade as professionalism.
Long-Term Impacts on Enablers
Enablers, like scapegoats and golden children, carry forward the psychological residue of their role.
•Guilt and regret: Some later experience remorse for having defended harm or stayed silent.
•Denial and doubling down: Others continue to justify the system, as questioning it would threaten their self-concept.
•Potential for advocacy: Those who confront their enabling role often become powerful advocates for change, using their understanding of system dynamics to foster reform.
Research on bystander intervention (Darley & Latané, 1968) shows that silence under pressure is common, but awareness can later transform into responsibility. Similarly, McBride (2008) notes that recognising complicity in narcissistic family systems is a critical step in breaking cycles of harm.
Enablers vs Bystanders
It is important to distinguish between enablers and bystanders.
•Bystanders were in this scenario were typically children, powerless observers. Their silence was a survival response. They did not have agency or authority and therefore should not bear blame.
•Enablers were adults with influence: teachers, parents, or staff whose actions reinforced or defended harmful leadership. Their behaviour extended beyond inaction; it actively legitimised the system.
The bystander effect (Darley & Latané, 1968) explains how responsibility becomes diffused in groups, but enabling is more deliberate. It involves aligning with harm to maintain safety or advantage.
The Cycle of Perpetuation
Enablers ensured that coercive systems survived across generations. By rationalising or defending abuse, they maintained the illusion of legitimacy. This normalised harm as “tradition,” embedding it within dance culture.
Kellermann (2001) emphasised that trauma is not transmitted solely through direct injury but also through justification and silence. In dance schools, phrases such as “that’s just ballet” or “we all went through it” acted as cultural glue, binding members into compliance and discouraging reform.
Closing Reflection
Enablers remind us that harm persists not only through the actions of the abusive leader but also through the quieter defences that surround them. Recognising enabling is not about condemnation; it is about understanding how loyalty, fear, and misplaced reverence sustain coercive systems.
If you once found yourself protecting an authority figure, rationalising their behaviour, or repeating harmful narratives in the name of discipline, this awareness is not cause for shame. It is the beginning of transformation. Systems change when individuals begin to see the patterns they once upheld.
From Awareness to Agency: Moving Forward
Across this series, Glorifying the Greats Parts One to Four, we have traced how coercive dance cultures are maintained through adoration of authority, silencing of dissent, internalised family-like roles, and the enabling that protects these structures. Together, these dynamics reveal how psychological conditioning, hierarchy, and fear become mistaken for excellence.
For dancers, teachers, and parents seeking healthier environments, awareness of these patterns becomes a form of agency. Signs of a safe, high-functioning dance environment include:
•Transparent communication and shared accountability.
•Feedback that develops skill without humiliation.
•Leadership that welcomes questioning and dialogue.
•Adults who model boundaries and self-regulation rather than fear-based control.
•A culture that honours artistry and wellbeing equally.
Choosing a dance school, or leading one, means discerning whether the culture nurtures growth or demands obedience. True tradition in dance is not defined by suffering but by the lineage of care, integrity, and artistry that allows each generation to rise stronger than the last.
A Note of Care
If this article has stirred difficult memories or emotions, take a moment to ground yourself. Reach out to a trusted person, journal your reflections, or rest before continuing. If these patterns resonate with your experience, you are not alone. Trauma-informed therapists, coaches, and peers can help untangle the effects of coercive systems and rebuild trust in your own inner authority.
References
•Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31–35.
•Bowen, M. (1978). Family Therapy in Clinical Practice. Jason Aronson.
•Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4p1), 377.
•Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
•Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27.
•Kellermann, N. P. (2001). Transmission of Holocaust trauma: An integrative view. Psychiatry, 64(3), 256–267.
•McBride, K. (2008). Will I Ever Be Good Enough? Healing the Daughters of Narcissistic Mothers. Free Press.
•Miller, A. (1997). The Drama of the Gifted Child. Basic Books.
•Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and Family Therapy. Harvard University Press.
•Satir, V. (1988). The New Peoplemaking. Science and Behavior Books.
•Stern, R. (2007). The Gaslight Effect: How to Spot and Survive the Hidden Manipulation Others Use to Control Your Life. Morgan Road Books.
•Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority. Harper & Row.