Thoughts and Ideas

Response from TheLiberalCollector and CarpeOmnia to Thought 2: On Community and Grinding

Great response from Max and Graham to my previous post on Community and Grinding.

To summarize what I take from Max’ points:

• Regulating dancing because some are unhappy with its results veres towards a “depressing utilitarianism.”  Total happiness is important, but other things are important, too (for example: free expression, justice, etc.)
• If its bad that dancing “illuminates difference,” what’s the alternative?  Suppressing difference?  We can’t suppress our differences.  Even if most of our differences are uncontrollable, the truth of the matter is: we’re all different, and that’s what makes our world exciting.
• The answer is not suppressing an illuminated difference (through regulating grinding and the such).  Rather, we should offer a variety of community events to illuminate a variety of skills.  Grinding skills should be embraced, but so should math skills and baseball skills.  And none of those skills should overly dominate society or spill over into other spheres.  i.e. Grinding skills shouldn’t affect your status in math class and math skills shouldn’t affect your status on the dance floor.  As Max points out, we face a problem with this in “the real world” because economic success injustly spills over into good health/education/democratic success. (See Michael Walzer and his Spheres of Justice for more).
• Citing this, maybe grinding is simply the sexual prowessed’s chance to illuminate their differences in an educational world that mostly illuminates the educationally and intellectually prowessed.  However, perhaps the supremacy of dance in a high schooler’s social arc (i.e. Prom) should be supplemented with newfound social milestones that advantage those with a variety of other skills.
• I believe that the point still stands that dances with a sexual culture raise certain barriers and limit the amount of potential social connections.  However, I agree wtih Max’ points that we shouldn’t suppress differences, disrespect grinding skills or allow utilitarian analysis to reign supreme.  Thus, regulation might not be the appropriate avenue- just because something is not the perfect, universal, social bridger does not mean it should be suppressed.  Perhaps, instead, our outlook should be to allow such community events to proceed while striving to offer additional—and more universal—opportunities for social bonding.

As Graham wrote:

1. Limiting popular dance styles will reduce participation, turning inclusive (or social constructive) events into limited events.
2. Limiting popular dance styles will not get rid of the problems of partner-choice or teenage sex.
3. Our generation should freely choose to find more expressive, creative, and inclusive ways of dancing.

I really dig Graham’s point on the fact that community events that exclude at the event are better than exclusion outside of the event.  I.e. People dancing only with their cliques at one party is better than everyone throwing private parties…for practical (safety) and community-building reasons.  Any single event, no matter how exclusive the activity, at least has the potential for interaction across boundaries—if people are in different places, there’s no chance at interaction.  This also speaks to the point that community events need to be popular— there’s a balance that needs to be struck between popularity and inclusion-based activity (though they are not mutually exclusive); i.e. people won’t connect if no one’s there and people won’t connect if the activity there is preventing people from connecting.

carpeomnia wrote:

As a student who was closely involved in setting some high school policy on dancing I might have some insight. In part I think that you have created a problem for yourself by turning two issues into one. The first being high-school students choosing how to dance and, the second: who they choose to dance with.

In dealing with HOW, one has to address the schools worries:

Teachers and administrators have made dancing a problem by lumping it in with teenage sex. The two are not necessarily related. Dancing is a great way to flirt and in some cases might lead to sex. Additionally dancers may inappropriately, depending on the setting, mix dancing and sex-acts. I think  sex-acts during high school dances (even at prom) are not appropriate. I think schools are justified in preventing and punishing this. However, it seems more logical to allow students to dance as they please while targeting the real problem: teenage sex.

What are the real functions of dances?

• Create a supervised, alcohol & drug free environment for teenagers.
• Create an inclusive & social environment for the whole school. Or this could be phrased: build social capital between high school students.

Both are good reasons to maximize attendance. If teachers ban the type of dancing students want to engage in I think that significant numbers of students, led by the ‘trend setters’ (aka social leaders), will fall away from the school sponsored dance. They will continue to dance how they want where they can. This means that instead of a large and inclusive event some students will go to private parties and some (probably the already less popular) will still go to the dance. Students will only be interacting with pre-existing friends. This will build no new social capital and will actually move the school in a negative direction by reinforcing cliques.

The note asking if grinding actually building social capital is a central point. Should we, teenagers and 20-somethings, decide to dance differently independent of any parental or communal demands? I think so. Grinding is boring especially at high school dances. It really isn’t a very expressive or creative dance; repetitive back and forth or side to side hip-movements get old after about 2 songs. It also builds very little capital. Couples grinding tend to already be dates or friends; additionally, couples don’t talk or even make eye contact while grinding.

In dealing with the WHO:

It is almost impossible for high schools to regulate who dances with who. They might limit ticket sales to only approved students or enforce a strict guest policy but these don’t control what happens once students are in the door. Limiting the type of dancing students can engage in does not solve this problem. Yes, grinding absolutely highlights physical inequalities but so does any dance that involves physical contact. I personally don’t find dancing that much fun if there is no physical contact. However, those who do should be free to choose to dance in such a way. The issue here is really the issue of bullying. Dancing can be used by attractive or popular students to exclude the less extroverted and/or less attractive students. The question here is less if we want to allow sexual dancing, but rather if we want to have high school dances at all. I think that dances do have a social benefit but I would be open to less excluding alternatives.

I’ve tried to follow the framework of social capital but I do really think this is a rights issue. Do schools have a right to regulate student expression? Yes, but only when they can show a legitimate interest and that the regulation is closely related to furthering that interest. On the first point preventing public teenage sex and bullying is very clearly a legitimate interest. But, as I have attempted to argue above, the school has not shown that banning grinding is closely related to or at all effective in furthering that interest.

Summary/Concluding points:

1. Limiting popular dance styles will reduce participation, turning inclusive (or social constructive) events into limited events.
2. Limiting popular dance styles will not get rid of the problems of partner-choice or teenage sex.
3. Our generation should freely choose to find more expressive, creative, and inclusive ways of dancing (possibly grinding near rather than on one another would allow for more expression and less explicit sexuality).

Also, I didn’t read the first response before posting this. It is safe to say that we took very unique approaches.

theliberalcollector:

Good work, Pete. As you know, I’m a big fan of arguing for change within a community on behalf of that community, rather than on behalf of individual rights. MLK did it to mobilize the Civil Rights Movement. You, surely, should do it to overthrow the anti-grinding regime!

There are a couple thing, though. Your argument, in my opinion, veres way too close to a sort of depressing utilitarianism. Should we really be measuring whether a dance move is good based on the aggregate quantity of happiness it produces in a room?

Happiness is definitely something a community needs to consider. We should have a happy citizenry. But this isn’t really a community-based argument, because it is, after all, grounded in the pychology of individual exclusion. This brings up a good point: I don’t think you can call Putnam a communitarian, because he is, at the end of the day, attending to individual satisfaction.

A true communal argument would, unfortunately, need to make claims about the community’s sense of “good taste” and that begins to get sketchy very quickly.

My sense of this is that there is a communal argument here, but it’s not quite the one you made, and not nearly as complicated. I would just say that: dances are dances, and in America cerca 2009 they look a certain way. There’s nothing any more to stand athward yelling stop! at; the community has already spoken.

My second point is that I would be very careful arguing that sexualized dancing is bad because it “illuminates difference.” The alternative to “illuminating difference” is not to bring people up, but drag people down. Like the Harrison Bergeron of grinding, the foreign kid with the oily hair must make his hips less lucious so as to make everyone more equal.

I’m not a meritocrat - far from it. But everything, we should admit, in some ways illuminates difference. That’s because people are different. We engage in a host of differentiated activities every day - from putting on clothes (some are better at that) to driving, to making small talk, to going to school and so on and so forth. All of this illuminates difference.

The key, I think, is not to prevent that difference (not have sexualized dances) but to prevent it from dominating (also sponsor other communal events). Good grinding skills should be embraced. But so should good math skills. And good baseball skills.

This argument, obviously, is a broader one, one about the structure of a well-ordered society. We currently live in a society where dominance in the economic sphere translates into dominance of all other spheres.

And at least we can all agree - let’s thank God - that’s not the case with grinding!

Thought 2: Community-Based Arguments in Free Expression Cases (case study: Bumpin’ and Grinding)

In high schools across the country, there have been debates regarding grinding during dances.  Basically, the question asked is: Should people at a public dance be allowed to dance sexually, or should said dancing be regulated?

Many discussions center on rights-based arguments:

• Pro-grinders argue, “We have the right to dance this way,” which is accompanied by sub-points such as “People have always criticized new types of ‘more intense’ dancing” and “It’s free expression!”
• Anti-grinders (i.e. grinding regulators) argue, “We have the right to regulate this,” citing their jurisdiction over the situation (i.e. administrators of a school stating that they have a right to regulate events that happen in their domain).  These are accompanied by sub-points such as “this is inappropriate” and “you would not have the right to do this outside of this dance; why should you be allowed to do it inside this dance?”

In my experience with such debates, these rights-based arguments lead nowhere.  Therefore, I believe we should work community-based arguments into the mix.

Grinding presents an interesting case when it comes to community building:

In one way, a culture of grinding builds “bonding social capital,” which community theorist Robert Putnam summarizes as the stuff that brings already-connected people closer.  When a culture of grinding at a dance lowers the barriers to grinding among dancers, it allows those with a former connection and level of comfort to connect further;  i.e. it allows you an opportunity to non-awkwardly connect physically with those whom you feel comfortable.  Overall: in grinding with someone…you bond.  Thus, a culture of grinding allows for such interaction, which strengthens relationships between people.**  Strong(er) and full(er) relationships are good for community.  Therefore, from this perspective, grinding is a good community builder.

**[note:  I completely acknowledge the point that physical connections can be solely shallow and I acknowledge the completely legitimacy of the argument that shallow, physical bonds (like grinding) can weaken relationships.  However, I won’t delve into that seperate debate here.  For this entry, I will assume that two mutually-grinding individuals are brought closer by their grinding.]

However, grinding runs into problems when it is viewed through the lens of “bridging social capital,” which Putnam summarizes as the stuff that brings previously non-connected, different people together.  A dance does indeed go a long way to bridge barriers.  Anyone who has seen Footloose (or unfortunately High School Musical) knows the power of dance to bridge across barriers of race, belief, class, status and much more.  The zanier atmosphere of a dance lowers social barriers and allows interactions among those who had previously felt too uncomfortable to interact.  These interactions translate into relationships.

Unfortunately, an atmosphere of sexual dancing adds new social barriers.  Sexual dancing is much less universal than non-sexual dancing…i.e. the set of people that one will dance with non-sexually is larger than the set of people that one will dance with sexually.  Picture Jane, John and Bob.  In a dance with a non-sexual culture, Jane will have the opportunity to dance with John and Bob, creating two new bonds.  However, in a dance with a sexual culture (grinding prominent), Jane will only dance with John, becuase she does not feel comfortable dancing sexually with Bob.  Though John and Jane’s relationship will be bonded even more than it would have at a non-sexual dance, we sacrifice the opportunity for Jane and Bob to connect.  Some bridging social capital is sacrificed for bonding social capital.

Dances with a culture of grinding offer less of an opportunity for bridging social capital because there is a barrier between those who do not feel comfortable dancing sexually with each other.  This is because sexual dances illuminate differences in sexual attractiveness.  Because of the delicate nature of sexuality, those who could connect normally in other situations (non-sexual dances) suddenly become “awkward,” or worse, “creepers” when they connect at dances.  However, in truth, most are not “creepers”—they are doing the same thing that others are doing…they just happen to be less attractive.  Thus, sexually-charged dance functions allow for bonding social capital among those who pass sexual comfort/prowess/attractiveness tests and prevent bridging social capital among those who don’t.

Is this a bad thing?  I am not arguing that its good or bad- I feel that grinding is unquestionably fine at private and privately-funded events.  Rather, I am simply saying that community (as opposed to just rights) should be considered when balancing cases of free expression and school events.  Though we could ask boys to try to be more sexually attractive, or girls to be more comfortable, should we have to do that?  On the other hand, perhaps the schools are doing a service by providing for bonding social capital among those who feel comfortable grinding.

Then again, do we want a function that divides across lines that are uncontrollable (physical attractiveness)?  Do we want publicly-funded functions under the guise of community-building that systematically exclude those who do not possess a certain skill set?  True, we do have other things that do this already.   They’re called sports teams: they bridge across everything but “skill at baseball” and provide a lot of bonding social capital.  Though they exclude those who are not athletic enough, most people are fine with the concept of a sport’s team.  Then again, with a sport’s team, someone’s not called a “creeper” when they don’t make the cut.

I’d love some comments/critiques/thoughts.  Any thoughts?

Idea 2: Combat Nocturnal Boredom and Provide Charitable Labor

Okay, so this idea’s been lingering in my head.

Problem A:  Suburban kids tend to be bored at night. [Sorry, I hate generalizations, too, but just run with me].  Though we were relatively good at being active in the day, my friends and I spent most of our late high school nights driving around and finding parks, parking lots, and 24-hour restaurants.  We would have loved to just have something…anything!…to do that was both social and productive.

Problem B:  Charities need hands for mindless tasks…packing boxes, stacking cans, counting things, etc.

Solution?: Have a place that is half-hang-out, half-charity labor center.  It will be open at nights and on weekends and teens could stop by with their friends at any time and do charitable work.  The work would have to be relatively mindless (packing boxes, organizing food/clothes, etc.), so that the teens could do the work while also socializing.  The centers could have TVs and food and have special events like “Watch the Super Bowl and pack boxes,” “Friday night sort and dance” and “Sandwich-making kareoke.”

I would love to hear ideas/thoughts regarding this.  I might run with it if the idea develops some more.

A few prebuttals, though:

-I know that this isn’t valiant.  This isn’t a way to make teens feel good about themselves without having them put in much effort.  Rather, its simply an idea that could be an effective way of providing charitable labor and alleviating nocturnal suburban boredom.

-I know that there has to be some details worked out.  For example, how do you ensure that the centers are not abused—that people who go there actually do the work?

Any thoughts?

Thought 1: Varied Assessment

During finals, I was thinking a lot about assessment, and I think its worth discussing if our current assessment tradition is the best one.

Currently, timed essays have close to a monopoly on final assessments in the liberal arts. Why not have the option of showing your knowledge through a timed discussion with the assessor?

Benefits of allowing an assessed discussion:

-It provides fairness to those that are better at speaking fast (as opposed to writing fast).

-It prevents over- or under- explaining.  If you start saying too much, the assessor could say “I see you understand this…keep going.”  If you don’t say enough, the assessor could say “what do you mean by that?  Please elaborate.”  Overall, it provides a live, interactive assessment.

-One can use other things aside from their voice to explain their points.  They can point to things, draw images/graphs and interact with them, use hand gestures, and/or annunciate certain words.

Prebuttals:

-Some might say that writing is what one faces in the real world.  I agree*- writing is what most academics use to articulate their points.  However, two prebuttals:  for one, memorized, timed writing rarely occurts in the real world (aside from journalists and rapid-response teams).  Most points are articulated through thoughtful, comprehensive, researched essays written over a free period of time.  Secondly, though there has been a resurgence in text-culture, writing is giving way to other forms of articulation, with   speech and image-interaction rising in importance (just ask Al Gore if writing about Global Warming or doing a PowerPoint on Global Warming was more effective).  Why can’t assessments reflect this valueing of speech, discussion and image-interaction?

-Some might say that discussion-based assessment is biased towards those who can speak confidently.  I agree, but is not written-based assessment biased towards those who can write better?  Either way, some important skill gets in the way…why not give the option to those who are conversationalists the right to prove their knowledge through conversation like we give the option to those who are strong writers the right to provide their knowledge through writing?

Cons:

-Writing has anonymity, whereas in-person conversations do not.  However, could not one have a conversation with a different assessor?  Yet still, one can more strongly influence an assessor unfairly through in-person conversations than with writing (i.e. a charismatic person can unfairly influence the process more strongly in person than they can with just writing).

-Writing can be edited…conversations cannot be as easily edited.  I can go back and re-write something in a blue book assessment, but I cannot as more fluidly go back in a conversation.

*Please note, however, that I am not endorsing the basing of schooling completely on “the real world.”

Any thoughts?

Idea 1: Using Wikis for Political Causes

What if we built public interest congressional lobbying pushes through a wiki.

Granularize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granularity) tasks:

-Page for research

-Page for coming up with a slogan

-Pages for crafting personalized letters to each congressman

-Pages for crafting specific letters to the editor

-etc.

It’s hard for the average guy who cares about, say, fishery protection to quit his job and join a lobbying effort.  But, it’s not hard for him to write up a paragraph on a specific policy point.  It’s not hard for another guy to write up a specific argument point to a specific congressman.  It’s not hard for another guy to come up with posters and another guy to organize a rally and another guy to pipe up about the current climate in the Ohio-23rd. etc. etc.  If there’s another task, the administrator could pipe up on the main page and ask someone out there in cyberspace to take up the task.

Problems:

-How do you regulate it so that the people working on it all have the same goal (i.e. no spies for the other side).

-How much administration?  Would fact-checking the user-generated contributions be just as burdensome as writing it oneself?

-How do you granularize efficiently?  Are the tasks required for a Congressional lobbying push even granularizable?