Scientists often claim that the feature which distinguishes humans from animals is either: using tools, laughing, feeling ashamed (see Mark Twain on this), or whatever else seems important at the moment. They usually go by the boards after a moment's reflection shows an ape using tool to catch termites, after which he laughs and feels ashamed at not sharing.
I have a different theory, equally wrong. It is that humans have a need to express themselves, unlike, say, peacocks.
Jon Carroll has a column on the expressive dance form known as pole-dancing, not to be confused with the waltz, although comparison with the tango might not be too far afield.
The reason for posting here, is that Carroll grants that pole dancing is no-doubt as salacious as the town fathers, morals police, and congregational elders believe. But he says it is protected activity, nonetheless.
That's the thing about arguing First Amendment issues. First you have to grant that the expression may incite to performance of the most dreaded, feared activity, such as the violent overthrow of the democratic form of (capitalist) government in favor of totalitarian communism (the big issue of the last century), and then you have to allow it anyway, at least up until the barricades are about to be stormed. Or sexual intercourse between consenting adults may occur, equally scary, to some.
The case is Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Unless the roof is about to fall in, the expression is allowed, regardless of content, assuming it can't be labeled, legally, obscene, which remains unprotected. Pole-dancing? Not obscene? The waltz? Not obscene? We get deep into the impenetrable thicket of trying to define in words which forms of expression, apart from content, should be protected and which not. As Justice Potter Stewart once observed of print-forms of obscenity, he couldn't define it, "But I know it when I see it." We call this Chinese hidden law, the law of unwritten rules.
There's an old line that goes something like, "In Russia, everything that is not expressly permitted is forbidden. In America, everything that is not expressly prohibited is permitted. While in France, everything that is expressly permitted or prohibited is mandatory." Or some such.
The Carroll article is below.
This pole is not a toy
Monday, September 8, 2008
So this is a good story. According to the New
York Times, a woman named Stephanie Babines began two years ago to
offer instruction in "pole dancing, power lap dancing, salsa and other
forms of dance and fitness in people's homes and in a rented dance
studio." For those of you not initiated in the ways of the world, pole
dancing is not some vaguely Ukrainian folk dance in which a brightly
colored pole is swung this way and that by summer solstice revelers. In
fact, pole dancing generally takes place in what are often called
"titty bars" and involves the splits, the downward rub, the floor crawl
and other forms on titillating terpsichorean expression. I know this
because I saw it on an episode of "CSI." Nevertheless, pole dancing is also a form of gymnastics, requiring
considerable upper-body strength, and deprived of the dark room/$20
bills slipped into G-strings context, it is a lot like any other form
of calisthenics - except it has a job-training aspect that say,
Pilates, lacks. I have no idea what "power lap dancing" is all about. I would think
lap dancing all by itself has enough power to satisfy the average human
of whatever sexual orientation, but I do not keep up with the times.
Maybe power lap dancing involves lifting weights. That would be
amusing, perhaps. In any event, Babines applied for a permit to open a dance studio,
so that she would not have to be a gypsy dance instructor. Like so many
Americans, she dreamed of owning her own business. Nevertheless, the community of Adams Township, Pa., denied her
request for a permit. The township code enforcement officer, Gary
Peaco, ruled that the dance studio was an "adult business" and would be
illegal within 1,000 feet of a bar or residential area. (I point out
that an establishment offering intimate string quartet concerts would
also be an adult business, but "adult" now means "dirty." It also means
"relating to the elderly," as in "adult diaper." What it no longer
means, apparently, is "adult.") Peaco testified that even though there was no nudity involved and no
audience, the dance styles were "provocative" and involved sexual
"innuendo." Dance? Provocative? Why, whatever can he mean? Look, dance is the
art form done with the body. It is often intended to be provocative.
Conservative church elders knew what they were doing when they banned
dancing because all it really involves is men and women shaking various
body parts at each other. Small movements, big movements; pelvic
thrusts or shoulder turns; doesn't matter. Social dancing is a form of
courtship, and courtship is about two people getting together for the
purpose of making pies. No, wait, making babies, or participating in
activities from which babies sometimes result. And you do want to know
whether your partner has rhythmic competence. Yes? Is this a secret? The waltz was considered very risque because, for the first time in
the recent history of high European culture, a respectable dance
involved bodies touching bodies. Certainly, the bodies were clothed,
but we are people of the world, except for Xothar over there - we know
that clothed bodies touching can have quite an erotic charge. Add
music, stir, and you bet it's provocative. If it's not provocative,
you're not doing it right. I understand that pole dancing is more openly sexual than the waltz
- but then, pole dancing is done for money, and subtlety is not prized
in topless-bar settings. There are social dances done in high schools -
including, we would assume, the high schools of Adams Township - that
make pole dances look like gavottes. Babines, as she would, puts her business in the context of aerobic
health and self-esteem. "I love making people feel better about
themselves. Through the classes, their bodies change. They start losing
inches off their waist. They start fitting into skinny jeans." I'm sure
that's true, and I'm sure it's a good reason for getting involved in
any form of dance class. But that's not all of it. Peaco is not wrong; the dancing is
provocative and does contain the dread innuendo. That's part of our
lives; that's part of what makes it fun to be alive. If a person can
get some innuendo-based skills and use them to, say, strengthen her
family life - how is that bad? If a person uses provocation to attract
another person and in time produces new upstanding citizens of Adams
Township - wouldn't that be a good thing? Or maybe people could just have nice clean dirty fun. Do we really need laws to make sure that doesn't happen? I think not. We dance in order to amuse the gods. Or perhaps we dance for cardiovascular fitness. But gosh, we dance, except in Pennsylvania. There are those who work the nightshift and those
who live in the night. Submerging the natural rhythms of human life,
workers on the nightshift live in service to the city that refuses to
sleep. These are the fry cooks and coffee jockeys, train conductors and
cab hacks, the cops, the docs, and the fishmongers selling cod by the
crate. These are also most often the immigrant newcomers, the
underemployed, and the economically marginalized. And then there are
those who live in the night. These are the tired, the homeless, and [email protected].
Comments