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?
