Thresholds of Resistance

As the light slowly comes up in the New Museum’s white box theatre, I am keenly aware of the invisible boundaries that separate me from my partner. I move toward her, my feet tracing circular patterns on the floor as I swivel left and right. Planting my feet in a stable stance and settling my shoulders down, I fix my position to establish the conditions of Anchoring Study—firm enough to offer support yet soft enough to receive. I feel her reach out to touch my shoulder—the contact is light and tentative, a soft caress that seeks the boundaries of what is physically possible to achieve together.

In this moment, I am acutely aware of the complex interplay of power, care, and consent that underlies our interactions. We seek to maintain our connection, to create a space of intimacy and care that is grounded in mutual respect. I am also aware of the challenges that come with such precarious interactions. The power dynamics of the dance floor can be fraught, and any miscommunication or misunderstanding can complicate those dynamics and cause harm—from casual, accidental missteps to gross bodily injury, from fear of manipulation to betrayal of trust—depending on the scale of the movement. And yet, in this moment, I am filled with a sense of possibility and hope. I am reminded that the boundaries that separate us are not insurmountable barriers, but rather opportunities for sensitivity and care.

This is the opening scene of More or Less, an evening-length meditation created as part of the New Museum Residency “Everything You Do Matters, No Matter What You Do.” As we partner, I am reminded of the beauty and complexity of human interactions, of the infinite potential that exists within each of us to build relationships grounded in trust and compassion. With each step, with each touch, we seek to navigate invisible boundaries. These boundaries involve thresholds of resistance: fluid inflection points where a dancer has to make a choice between softening and toning muscles of support.

These invisible boundaries are present within every interaction. They shape the contours of our social lives, defining what is acceptable or tolerable within social and interpersonal relationships. The partnering studies that form and inform More or Less involve the physical manifestation of thresholds of resistance, as encoded through shared movement.

Anchoring Study, a partnering exercise that directly investigates thresholds of resistance, builds on four factors important in all of the partnering studies—direction, duration, intensity, and point of contact. As the anchoring partner assumes a fixed position, the moving partner creates a point of contact to negotiate movement around, toward, and away from the anchor. While fixed, the anchor makes choices to either soften or resist as the mover pours their weight into them. The mover must respond to the changing threshold without knocking over the anchor. One of the main challenges in entering into the work is the way in which these factors are not always visible from the outside. A position that looks quite static may actually be the result of dynamic, bounded tension in multiple directions. To render these factors salient beyond the kinesthetic experience of the dancers often requires some kind of annotation, to guide spectators where to look. 

To feel this for yourself, I invite you to try a simple exercise. If it is available to you, rub both hands together vigorously for twenty to thirty seconds, then separate the hands a few inches apart. The resulting tingling sensation is an important primer for recognizing that the robust kinesthetic experience is not visible from the outside. This is an important starting point for entering into and recognizing invisible physical boundaries.

The idea of invisible boundaries isn't just a physical thing in dance—it applies to broader forms of social interaction. Thresholds of resistance can be understood as the physical, psychological, or social boundaries that individuals establish to protect themselves from harm or discomfort in their interactions with others. These boundaries can vary depending on a range of factors, including personal preferences, cultural norms, power dynamics, and past experiences.

As such, thresholds are not static. They shift and evolve depending on context, culture, and personal preference. For some, a hug may be a welcome gesture of affection, while for others it may be an intrusion. Understanding these thresholds requires a deep sense of empathy and compassion, a willingness to listen to the signals that others give us and to respond with care and respect.

Sometimes these thresholds take physical form. We give each other space, we shake hands, we embrace. We hold these acts in common, a shared language of respect and intimacy that transcends cultural and linguistic boundaries. In mundane physical interactions, such as handshakes, thresholds of resistance can play a critical role in shaping the nature of these interactions. The intensity, direction, and duration of the handshake can vary widely depending on the context and the individuals involved. For some people, a firm handshake may be seen as a sign of confidence and respect, while for others, it may be perceived as aggressive or intimidating. Like handshakes, hugs can be a common way of greeting, or further expressing affection. However, the level of physical contact involved can vary widely depending on the individuals and their relationship. Some people may be comfortable with a brief and light hug, while others may prefer a more prolonged and intimate embrace. The distance that individuals prefer between themselves and others—that is, personal space—can vary depending on the situation and the cultural norms involved. In some cultures, it may be common for people to stand close together during conversations, while in others, a greater amount of personal space may be preferred.

Thresholds may reflect psychological and social ease (or lack thereof), indicating what one is willing to accept in an interaction. Sensing thresholds of physical resistance involves negotiating thresholds of psychological acceptability and tolerance. Given that our thresholds change from day to day and from person to person, attuning to invisible thresholds takes practice. This is especially important considering that sensing thresholds may be quite subtle, given how certain behaviours, conditions, or circumstances affect physical and psychological legibility. We look away, we avoid certain topics of conversation, we lower our voices. These acts are no less significant, for they too help define the boundaries of our interactions and the limits of our trust.

In addition to physical and social factors, thresholds of resistance are also shaped by moral considerations, which play a critical role in determining what individuals are willing to tolerate or resist in their interactions. The ethics of care, a moral framework that emphasizes the importance of relationships and compassion, provides a useful lens through which to examine the role of moral factors in thresholds of resistance.

Theorists like Nel Noddings,11Nel Noddings, Caring: A Relational Approach to Ethics and Moral Education (Oakland: University of California Press, 2013). Miranda Fricker,22Miranda Fricker, Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). and Kristie Dotson33Kristie Dotson, “Conceptualizing Epistemic Oppression,” Social Epistemology 28, no. 2 (2014): 115-138. teach us that social boundaries are shaped by issues of power, trust, and respect. In order for interactions to be truly equitable and respectful, individuals must be able to give their informed consent and feel comfortable confiding in others. These are not just personal preferences, but essential components of ethical interactions that respect individuals' autonomy and dignity. Consent requires individuals to have access to accurate and relevant information, while confiding requires a high degree of trust and confidence in others. These considerations are especially important given the power dynamics in asymmetrical interactions, where some individuals may be more vulnerable to manipulation or coercion.

To prepare for Anchoring Study, we often ground ourselves by moving in relation to architecture or furniture—walls, chairs, tables, railings. Though inanimate, the attunement to small movements—friction, inertia, momentum—can provide opportunities to practice sensing and, furthermore, responding to what we sense. Thresholds of resistance require sensitivity to invisible boundaries. They call us to attend to the moral and epistemic dimensions of consent and confiding. Successfully negotiating subtle thresholds of resistance seems to require a certain degree of care, compassion, and mutual respect. Yet an important question remains about how we practice shared attention—when and where can we rehearse how we interact? How can we make visible or attune to what is invisible?

More or Less is a meditative call to action, a reminder that the world we inhabit is shaped not only by the physical spaces we occupy, but by the emotional and moral boundaries we create with each other. Partnering practices, like the kind in Anchoring Study, provide a robust foundation from which to play and experiment in and out of contact. How we attend to each other matters—dancing together does not guarantee care and compassion, but it does provide a site where the subtle dynamics of interaction can serve as a fertile social soil for the cultivation of collective agency.