Hip-Hop Sees No Color: Talking point #2

Leslie A. Grinner
"Hip-Hop Sees No Color: An Exploration of Privilege and Power in Save the Last Dance"
Argument (I think)

Let me preface this by saying that I have never seen Save the Last Dance. Therefore some of my comments may not be totally actuate without that background knowledge.

Grinner argues that as a result of the dominant ideology expressed in media texts the observe must critically analyze that ideology and what it is saying about the norms of society. As part of her argument she offers SCWAMP as a tool for dissecting that ideology. SCWAMP, as Grinner describes it, stands for Straight, Christian, White, Able-bodied, Male and Property holding.

While I fully agree with Grinner and the application of SCWAMP, I was left dissatisfied with her use of it. I found some of her conclusions to be false, or not well supported via her explanation in terms of the media text at hand.

Staightness/Heterosexuality
What Grinner writes about in this section is the concept of Heterosexism. Heterosexism is defined as the presumption that everyone is, or should be, heterosexual. Her examples of how heterosexism is present in Save the Last Dance seem a bit weak. There is no real comment about language. She gives one example, "At one point, Nikki confronts Sara with the idea that white women are always "creepin' up and takin' our men." That seems to be more a comment about race than about sexuality orientation and heterosexism. She [Grinner] goes on to describe that scene as "one of the few scenes presenting an opportunity to deal with the issues of race and gender raised by the film." The reality is that race and gender have nothing to do with sexual orientation be it heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or any other sexual identity. That comment and scene reflection could have been better suited in the sections on race and gender (Note: using her language here. This concept is really Gender, but rather sex as I will explain later). It seems that Grinner tried to hard to force the connection between race and sexual orientation. Maybe that is a result of the context of the movie, but those are two things [race and sexual orientation] that are actually closely linked.

Christianity
In the purpose of full disclosure let me say that I am a faithful Christian. I will whole heartedly admit that this certainly gives me a sense of power and privilege in today's society. With that I did have one major issue with her assessment of Christianity. "Many of the legal and moral codes guiding our society, such as "an eye for an eye," are steeped in Christian ethos." The principle behind that sentence [Many of the legal and moral codes guiding our society] is completely accurate. In fact there is part of law known as Natural Law - Law from God or other greater power - that is frequently used in the American legal system. However, Grinner's specific example is not actually true. She describes that teaching of an eye for an eye as one that is "steeped in Christian ethos." That is actually a teaching that Jesus directly counters in the Gospel making it contrary to Christian teaching. "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." (Matthew 5:38-39 NRSV). Now, if Christians do in fact live by this motto depends on the person and the time. But, regardless of human action, the teachings of Christ are clear "turn the other cheek."

Whiteness
If anything, I felt she could have gone a little deeper into this section. In my opinion, one of the most harmful things about popular culture, is the lack of examples of "successful" black families on television. Despite all the laws, actions, and even the election of a Black present, Whiteness still (and for the foreseeable future) reigns supreme.

Able-Bodiedness
Just as with whiteness there is not much that I wanted to add or subtract from her argument. I think the inclusion of nonphysical disabilities was brilliant. So often the term "able-bodied" leaves the hearer with images of people in wheelchairs, people who are blind or deaf, etc. Including people who are overweight and intellectually disabled shows how far reaching this concept of able-bodiedness really is.

Male
The issue I took with this was her terminology and the implications of the terminology she used. To describe male and female, Grinner used the term gender. Despite popular opinion, sex and gender are not interchangeable terms. Sex refers to one's biological sex. Gender refers to the way a person identifies. By using Gender and limiting it to the societal construction of the gender binary, Grinner re-enforces the societal norm that everyone fits into that binary. By using this binary Grinner fails to recognize how male privilege impacts those people who are part of the transgender community - those people who live outside the gender binary.

All that aside, this leaves me with saying "Duh!" Of course males are seen as superior over females in today's society.

Property-holding
This, like able-bodiedness, is a perfect example of how Grinner takes this concept and broadens the readers understanding of it. Her she is not only referring to physical ownership of property, but also economic, intellectual, and cultural property. What a great way to talk about a concept that is deeply rooted in the history and tradition of this nation.

I am a firm supported and believer in SCWAMP, however Grinner's application of it leaves something - at least for me - to be desired.

Questions/Comments/Point To Share
I wonder what others found of her application of SCWAMP, and in which ways our own possession of societal power impacts that opinion.