Dirty Dance Deeds

 November 18, 2013 

Anna

The Personal Is Political 

Since the inception of the popular reality television show “Dance Moms”, the American people have become fixated with the idea that the world of competitive dance is a viciously virulent one. I am here to tell you that this inclination is absolutely accurate. I hope this post will illustrate that Machiavellian’smost devious dirty-handed deeds are committed within the costumed confines of the competitive dance world.

I danced for fifteen years, beginning when I was only four years old. When I was in seventh grade I joined the local competition team, the Sawyer Dance Troupe. Each year our troupe would attend two regional competitions – one in Chicago and one in Detroit. Bi-yearly we would fly to Florida to compete amongst nearly 1000 other dancers at the DanceAmerica National Finals. Throughout eight years of competition, I have witnessed the catty atmosphere that exists between opposing dancers, teams, choreographers, directors, and parents. Whether warming-up backstage, sitting in the dressing room, or riding in the hotel elevator one could always catch snippets of hushed yet pugnacious chatter. “So and so most definitely stole her fishnets. She’s such a rat.” Or, “If Andy wasn’t so stupid and hadn’t have turned the wrong way, then maybe Dancer’s Pointe wouldn’t have placed.” There is no end to the berating, especially when there’s the glory of a golden trophy at stake.

Though much of the detriment that occurs is purely verbal, that isn’t to say that there aren’t those who won’t take their competitive edge to the next level, and this includes competition fixing. An excellent example of this happens to be one of my own. Last March the troupe had travelled to Detroit to compete at regionals. After weeks of preparation through day-long rehearsals, we all felt more ready than ever. We were to be competing 29 group numbers and 23 solos in one afternoon. I performed my solo, “Uninvited”, around three in the afternoon. Luckily enough, there was only one other soloist in my category. This meant that we would both place, either first or second. I performed first. Following my category, there was an announcement from the director’s table asking that a representative from my studio visit the adjudicators. This was an uncommon, thus very curious situation. Regardless, the rest of the afternoon went as anticipated.

Some of my teammates on stage for awards at DanceAmerica 2013

Around 10 PM all of the dancers gathered on the stage for the awards ceremony. Nervous whispers abounded as sweaty hands clutched onto good luck charms. Our categories continued to come up and awards were announced without question until, of course, my solo category. The master of ceremonies, a thin, leggy, blonde woman, continued to say, “Entry number 346 [that's me!] has been moved into the Senior Solo Lyrical category; therefore, the results for the Senior Solo Modern/Abstract category are as follows: “Pandora’s Box”, first place! The dancer is [...] from Positively Dance!”

What?! But seriously, what?

Myself and my teammates were absolutely livid upon hearing this. We later learned that the category of my solo had been changed due to a complaint from the director of my competitor’s company. She had claimed that my solo’s choreography did not fit the parameters of the category in which it was places. Translation: I am fabricating a complaint in order to eliminate my dancer’s competition in order to pave the way to her soloist’s first place trophy.

What is this if not a perfect example of Machiavelli’s theory of dirty hands? For that director the ends did justify the means. In order for her dancer to receive a coveted first, the director had to act outside of moral consideration and violate commonly accepted moral principles through being untruthful. She benefitted the greater good of her competitive team by allowing them to accumulate another first place trophy. She performed a ruthless act in order to achieve the effect that she wanted; this is purely the Machiavellian way.

Costume theft, smack-talking, backstage dealings, competition rigging… The stone-cold and ruthless Machiavellian world is going by a new name now: we call it the dance world.

Cookies’ Collective Action Problem

 November 25, 2013 

Anna

The Personal Is Political

A precursor: Zachary and David have written blog posts about similar sink snags, and excellently at that; but, I would like to suggest that these occurrences, though similar, are also products of selfish misbehavior and not only collective action problems. That being said, living in a dorm is never an easy thing to do. Living in close quarters with any one is a difficult task, whether it be a sister, parent, or friend. Tensions are high during the school year regardless, but six girls confined to one suite for an entire year can be a perfect formula for a lot of unnecessarily catty arguments. Commonly people hear of fights between roommates,  fights over objects (or people), and fights over space, especially shared spaces.

Myself and my suitemates

In my suite we have not been fighting over who gets to study with the hunk from the sailing team, nor where to spend our Friday nights, but rather: Who is going to finally clean the filthy communal sink? 

It’s gross; it’s unhygienic; it’s starting to produce a pungent odor. This is one chore that really has to be completed. The cleaning of this sink, covered with make-up powder, toothpaste residue, and other unidentifiable substances has become our collective action problem. As one can gather from the teachings of Thomas Hobbes, in the case of a collective action problem, everyone would benefit from cooperation. Unfortunately, no one is willing to physically remove themselves from whatever else is occupying them to grab the sponge, apply some Scrubbing Bubbles™, and wipe the thing down.

My roommate, taking initiative, starting posting passive aggressive sticky notes on the mirror that is positioned above the sink. They said things like, “I’ve cleaned the sink already. Your turn.” and, “Don’t you think it’s time that someone else completed this chore? I’m getting tired.” Her rhetorical questions are on point considering that, according to Hobbes, we are all equal in the state of nature. We all have equal rights and equal abilities, so wouldn’t this also indicate that we have equal responsibilities?

Hobbes also believes that humans are selfish by nature. Everything that we do, we do out of selfish motivations. This could not be more true. Not one of the other girls in my suite is motivated to do anything to solve our collective action problem.

An accurate representation of every afternoon in our suite

Instead, we would all rather stalk the ROTC boys on Facebook or continuing procrastinating on our Calculus homework – anything that would please us as individuals, rather than benefit our commonwealth, the suite.

Knowing myself and the rest of my suite mates, it is unlikely that the sink will be cleaned in the near future. A disgusting prospect, I’m aware. What will it take in order to give us incentive to remove ourselves from our current selfish states? Perhaps a series of threatening emails from the RA, a “feared rather than loved“, Machiavellian-type of approach? Or perhaps the creation of a contract according to which we are all bound to sink-cleaning duty on a particular day? All interesting options, but until then… The sink doesn’t stink that badly and I have another season of Gossip Girl to catch up on.

A Democrat’s Dead Dogma

 November 25, 2013 

Anna

Political Theory in the News The Personal Is Political 

John Stuart Mill, author of “On Liberty”
Photo: Robert Nelson

While reading the second chapter of Mill’s “On Liberty”  I ran into the concept of ”dead dogma”. According to Mill, “… a dead dogma [is not] a living truth.” Dead dogma is either one or a collection of superficial beliefs which has the following qualities: easy to lose,  liable to manipulation, and accepted without really understanding its meaning. I would like to suggest that many children’s political and religious beliefs are forms of dead dogma.

When most of us were growing up, our little ears would catch snippets of “grown-up” conversation, whether it be at the dinner table or during a long car ride. Our parents, other family members, their friends, would occasionally find themselves engaged in heated debates about newly elected politicians or practices of the church and their disdain for (or support of) either. Also, I am sure that I’m not the only child that was dragged out of my cozy, downy bed on Sunday mornings to attend the dreaded church service or into the local polling station on Election Days. It is from these snippets of conversation and activities, I am suggesting, that we develop our own political and religious beliefs.

In passing, many conversations about politics or religion have gone a little like this:

Me: “Hey, nice Obama shirt! You’re a supporter?”

Them: “Oh heck ya! Love him!”

Me: “Right on, right on. Me too! Why do you like him?”

Them: “Uh… Well, he’s a democrat & I’m a democrat because my parents are democrats and liked Obama…”

… Yes. Okay, so wonderful. I am always up to find more Obama supporters (especially nowadays), but there’s a difference between being a supporter of Obama because his ideals line up with your own and being a supporter because that is what your parents have been advocating since 2008. Furthermore, as noted in The American Voter Revisited, when parents share the same party affiliation, they pass it to their children about 75% of the time.

How many political views are developed
(“Pathways to Political Socialization”) Credit: Institute for Social & Economic Research

Though I am well aware that there are many cases in which children have adopted their parents’ beliefs because either they want to. This would not be an example of dead dogma because they have made the decision autonomously and have not simply jumped onto the bandwagon so to speak.

Mill advocated that, “One must understand reasons for and against one’s opinion if one is to know the truth, as opposed to having (mere) true belief. This is being open-minded, but not “accepting” everything.” This means that, as young adults, we should take the opportunity to challenge our parents’ beliefs – not just accept them as truth. We should push ourselves to research the choices that we make, continuing to only make the choices that suit us best.

Burke and Mill on Same-sex Marriage

 December 7, 2013 

Anna

Political Theory in the News

We’ve all been hearing the recent, endless debates on gay marriage. State governments are proposing legislature that will give same-sex couples the right to be married. The debates over gay marriage that have ensued have two distinct sides – advocates and critics. The advocates tend to be more liberal, more apt to accept the idea of an ever-changing society. The critics, on the other hand, tend to be more conservative; thus, they tend to resort to traditional decision making, basing their opinions and decisions on what has been supported or successfully implemented in the past. I would like to discuss how my opinions of Mill and Burke’s respective views on same-sex marriage have changed. Personally, I used to believe that Mill is most comparable to an advocate of same-sex marriage while Burke is most comparable to a critic.

A gay rights activist wields a sign comparing the lack of gay rights to segregation

Mill is a steadfast supporter of equality and rights. It is common knowledge that the prohibition of same-sex marriage is unjust. Assuming adherence to the Declaration of Independence and its famous clause, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” all persons, homosexual or heterosexual, have the right to be married to the person of their choosing. Mill would agree that the allowance of same-sex marriage would be a large step toward combatting the injustices and inequality that homosexuals face in today’s society. Mill calls for society to seek improvements and reforms, and history has proven that in several of the previous cases that reforms have been beneficial (such as the Civil Rights Movement); therefore, I still think Mill would advocate for an end to any and all forms of inequality including the ban on same-sex marriage.

On the contrary, Burke is a classical conservative. He believes that government is not created for the purpose of ensuring individual rights. Burke agrees that we have certain rights, but not because man naturally had them, but as a result of convention. On this, Burke is in disagreement with Mill’s beliefs mentioned above. Additionally, Burke is a staunch advocate of the continuation of acting in a traditional manner. Often regarded as the most historical text pertaining to same-sex marriage, the Bible, presents the “traditional” view of homosexuality.

In 1 Corinthians 6, verses 6:9-10 Paul states, “ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,” “Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” In these verses Paul is listing ten things that will keep one from entering the kingdom of heaven, including homosexuality. Because of this mention and several others, our nation, predominantly Christian since its creation, has viewed homosexuality as it is presented in the Bible: morally wrong and unacceptable. It is from this belief that the restrictions surrounding same-sex marriage were instituted.

I used to believe Burke’s traditionalist beliefs would encourage him to support the principles of the Bible; thus, I also used to believe that Burke could be a  supporter of the continuation of the ban on same-sex marriage. However, I have recently learned that many of the most powerful arguments for gay marriage are classically conservative, to the extent that as they are making cautious changes to a tradition they value – which in this case would be marriage.

Marriage itself is steeped in tradition. Two people who care for one another enter into a legal contract that allows them to combine their assets and begin cultivating a life and a family with one another. Members of the LGBTQ community are only interested in broadening the sphere of inclusion for this tradition, not altering its principles; they want a piece of the tradition.   They are not advocating for new experiments in living [which Mill would support as well], such as cultivating families in nonspousal friendships, as Laura Rosenbury suggested in her article “Friends with Benefits?”; but rather, they are interested in becoming a part of the traditionalist pattern that has been sewn into the blanket idea of marriage.

The benefits of same-sex marriage and nonspousal friendships for members of the LGBTQ community would include receiving benefits which members of monogamous partners have been receiving for years [such as tax breaks, shared insurance etc.]. Because of this, I still believe that Mill would support the implementation of same-sex marriage. Considering that the community is not asking to progress marriage through change to the actual tradition, but rather through who has access to the benefits of the tradition, I am still unsure as to whether or not Burke would support or reject the proposal.

Advocates and critics seen protesting

Michigan, on the other hand, has become increasingly accepting of the notion of a same-sex marriage. Historically, civil marriage and civil unions for gay and lesbian couples are banned under the state constitution. The constitutional amendment was passed in 2004. However, a January 2011 poll published by the Detroit News shows that 56% of voters “said they would allow civil unions that provide the legal benefits of marriage, while 39% are also in favor of granting full equal marriage to same-sex partners.”

Regardless of whether or not Burke and Mill would support same-sex marriage, our Michigan is certainly taking steps in a decisive direction.

What is the difference anyway?

 December 11, 2013 

Anna

Institutional Analysis The Personal Is Political 

This weekend my close friend was given the chance to reconnect with an ex-boyfriend who currently goes to Harvard. Needless to say, upon visiting the University of Michigan campus he had plenty of snide remarks to share. Even as far from Boston as Ann Arbor, this kid continued to basque in the Crimson glow of his beloved Harvard. Get this – he entered the Law Library and whooped at the top of his lungs when he noticed the stained glass Harvard crest on the window. Now, far be it from me to criticize someone’s pride in their institution, but I would like to propose two separate but relatable questions: One: What makes Harvard & Michigan so different anyway? Two: What makes a Harvard student, or any student, a better or more capable one?

Minor differences between the schools include: Harvard as small, elitist, traditional, private and Ivy League; whereas Michigan is gigantic, has quality education for the masses public & big time athletics and is a “Joe College” (fraternities…).

On the contrary, Michigan has been called “the Harvard of the Midwest”, so the academic comparability between institutions is present. In accordance with Louis Menand’s article “Live and Learn”, a list of three theories of education, I think Harvard and Michigan could snugly fit into the first theory. It is questionable that, because of this, there are staunch differences between the two as well.

The first theory is that college should be a challenging sorting-out process that  helps professional schools and some employers to find the most academically accomplished students. In defense of this claim: Harvard, as well as most other prestigious institutions, was based upon a system of elitist legacies. Following its inception, students were admitted based upon their social status and their family’s legacy at the university. This means that if you were the wealthy grandchild of a Harvard graduate, you were guaranteed a spot. This sense of elitist entitlement, in my opinion, has not changed much over the past centuries. Though outstanding academic achievement and financial need could also gain someone acceptance, the legacy clause still stands.

This is not to say that the same legacy clause does not exist at Michigan. It is also true, here, that if a student has a legacy he/she is very likely to gain acceptance. Students at both institutions, upon acceptance, are given access to opportunities that students elsewhere could only dream of (such as networking amongst alums, prestigious internships, study abroad programs, etc.). These opportunities allow for unmatched advantages in the workplace. Because of this, both institutions can be considered “elitist” in the regard that many students are accepted largely on the bases of exceptional academic achievement and legacy; thus, I am inclined to believe that Michigan and Harvard are quite similar.

But honestly what really makes students so appealing to elite universities? Is it the academic ability [their brains], community involvement [their service], their legacy, their work or research experience?  Latour asked in “Pandora’s Hope”, ”What does the gun add to the shooting?” Latour suggests that the gun enables the criminal, does the brain enable the acceptee, or is it more dependent on their personal connections? He continued to write that materialists claim that a person [good citizen] is transformed by carrying the gun. Because of this, materialists suggest that our qualities, personalities, and our competences “depend on what we hold in our hands”.

I feel as if Latour’s quotes can be interpreted as a thought akin to: The connections that students have and the opportunities for “real-world” experience they have been exposed to throughout their adolescent lives aid in acceptance to elites in a much larger manner than transcripts and test scores. So, in this way, I believe that materialists are correct in that our abilities depend on what we have access to – the privileges we have.

Going to any post-secondary institution is a gift. Even today not all students have the opportunity to earn a degree, especially from Michigan or Harvard. Though many acceptances are based upon unfair advantages, our education is truly in our hands. Here’s to making the most of it. Go Blue!