Response to Andy's Response (Challenge Question Cycle)

Andy's response to me

I’m intrigued by your idea that assuming both roles is outside the realms of polyphonic, experiential, and interpretive ethnographies. Based on Clifford, then, the only remaining mode of discourse is the dialogical, and this may be a valid characterization of this writing style. However, there is one big problem: all the dialogue happens within the author’s mind, and real people are not involved. Thus, if this was to become a formal method of writing ethnographies, a new mode of discourse would have to be invented to characterize writing from both the role of the insider and the outsider.

The main reason that I categorized the increased objectivity of this writing style as an advantage was because I thought that, provided it is done correctly, presenting two or more views would be less biased and colored by the ethnographer’s prior experiences than an experiential or an interpretive discourse. I did not go so far as to categorize this as deception, but it certainly could be, especially if it done incorrectly. I considered this possibility when I wrote that no one can really forget his prior biases and past.

Of course, an insider’s ethnography is no more or less informative than an outsider’s ethnography—as you wrote, they just include different elements. But I disagree that an insiders’ ethnography would be difficult for an outsider to interpret because of cultural practices and vocabulary. Sure, they are different, but unless an ethnographer was writing only for the culture he was studying (which in my opinion, is extremely unlikely), he would have to define and explain the unfamiliar prior to presenting the insider’s views. The only unfamiliarity should stem from the insiders’ different background and experiences.

Critical Review #10: Neustadt 2002

Among other analyses, Neustadt's writing contrasts two different albums released at roughly the same time: Buena Vista Social Club (BVSC) and Tremendo delirio (CH, after La Charanga Habanera, the band's name). He compares the different musical styles: son (BVSC), which as, according to Argeliers León, has already passed out of vogue, and timba (CH), which was the popular genre at the time in Cuba. The images projected by the two albums differ as well. BVSC represents "exotic holdovers" (140) from the past, while CH is a satirical representation of contemporary Cuban life. The album art for these two releases represent these differences as well. The BVSC cover uses blurred and muted colors on the front and is black and white on the back, drawing attention to vintage 1940s and 1950s American cars. This furthers the image of the pre-Revolution Cuba, frozen in time. In contrast, the CH album is brightly colored, with "props" made of neon-colored condoms. According to Neustadt, it is "clearly ironic" (148), and this augments their satire. Unsurprisingly, BVSC was marketed to (and mostly bought by) "'First World' Europeans or Anglos--not Latin Americans and certainly not Cubans" (149); it satisfied demand for exotic music in Europe and North America. In contrast, CH appeals to Cubans who live in Cuba through their lyrics concerning "shared perception and experience" (140).

Discussion Question: These two vastly different albums were released at roughly the same time. Why do you think they are still different? Also, compare the translations in the Neustadt reading and the BVSC album liner. Where are they different? What (or who) is responsible for these differences, and why do you think they are different?

Challenge Question Feedback (Julie answered my second question)

I have very similar ideas as Julie does. Specifically, I also believe that the three main critiques of Ethnomusicology are valid, and that good training, interviewing many members of the studied culture, staying for a significant time in the studied culture, and reflexivity are the main ways that the criticisms can be mitigated.

However, I do have some ideas to add. I think that in addition to addressing the two other concerns, reflexivity can also play a large role in reducing the asymmetries of power: the ethnomusicologist should recognize the impact that his ethnography may have on his career and include ways that it may have prejudiced his observations and subsequent writings in his ethnography. Additionally, though Julie writes about interviewing many people and incorporating their views, she does not mention polyphonic discourse. In my opinion, this is the best way to address the poststructuralist criticism that individual experience is fiction. Because many parties are interacting on different levels and each interprets it in a unique way, it makes sense for all (or, at the very least, many different) voices to be represented in the ethnography. This effectively makes writing about the experience a shared project, much like how the experience itself was a shared one. Of course, as the “editor” of his ethnography, the ethnomusicologist is responsible for choosing which opinions to include in his ethnography, but if he is objective and reflexive, this should not be a problem.

Overall, I thought that Julie’s response was insightful and well-written. Indeed, there may be no better way to approach the critiques of Ethnomusicology aside from consciously acknowledging the criticisms and actively planning how to overcome or, at the very least, to ameliorate these concerns.

Challenge Question Response (Andy's First Question)

In his ethnography entitled Heartland Excursions, Nettl assumes three voices. He describes them as “an ethnomusicologist teaching at Heartland U. and writing a conventional account,” “the principal native informant […who] knows its ins and outs as well as anyone,” (Nettl 8) and an outsider. While this approach does have some advantages over a single-voiced experiential or interpretive ethnography, it does not constitute true polyphony of voices and is intrinsically limited.

Though assuming different voices is not true polyphonic discourse, this style is not without its own advantages. In fact, it may be more objective than the experiential or interpretive modes of ethnographic authority (according to Clifford), which only present the ethnographer’s point of view. But the main advantage of having one person assume the different viewpoints is that he can then present multiple analyses of the same exact fact or event. This is difficult with true polyphony. Observations of different authorities are inherently colored by their prior experiences and biases, but what each individual chooses to observe and remark on may vary as well. Furthermore, instructing diverse people to observe the same thing carries the risk that the instruction will affect their subsequent conclusions. In my opinion, these are the main advantages of one ethnographer assuming the role of both the insider and the outsider.

Borrowing the phrasing of the question, I believe that despite its advantages, this form of discourse is inherently limited. When assuming the role of the outsider, the ethnographer can claim to have eliminated his prior biases, but can one really “forget” his past? In my opinion, it is far too easy to simply address those biases, therefore missing or ignoring other important details that only true outsiders would perceive as significant. It is my understanding that the polyphonic mode of discourse is a response to the idea that it is in fact impossible for any individual, ethnographer, translator, insider, or outsider, to be unprejudiced. Consequently, it is necessary to include as many of these presumed biases as possible so that the reader can incorporate as many points of view as possible into his own interpretation of the ethnography. In short, I believe that multiple voices from a single author are not equivalent to multiple speakers.

Another fundamental problem with this approach is that it only allows for one insider and one outsider. Of course, Nettl himself is the solitary insider in his writing, but not all members of a culture sees and “translates” it for others in the same way. The same problem exists for the outsider: Nettl describes his outsider as “the legendary ‘ethnomusicologist from Mars’” (8), claiming that this ethnographer “comes to the Heartlands with no knowledge and thus experiences everything from scratch” (8). While I agree that all experiences are new for the outsider, it is impossible for anyone with no knowledge to perform an ethnography. Any outsider’s observations will naturally be in the context of his home culture or cultures that he is familiar with; thus, different outsiders could also interpret the same culture differently. Again, polyphony seeks to bring in as many voices—insiders and outsiders alike—as possible, and this is not accomplished with one author assuming two general roles.

Writing an ethnography while assuming different roles, such as the insider and the outsider, does have some advantages. Specifically, the diverse viewpoints on the same aspects of culture generated by these different perspectives can be illuminating. However, as helpful as this can be, it is not polyphonic. No matter how hard someone tries, it is impossible to truly remove all personal biases and past experiences when analyzing a part of a culture, and this does not satisfy the requirement that many different insiders and outsiders must be included for a writing to be polyphonic. Therefore, although this writing style does improve on experiential or interpretive discourses, it cannot be categorized as true polyphony.

Critical Review #9: Campbell 1997

Campbell writes mainly about the changes in shape-note singing in the South following the Civil War. He mentions the incorporation of gospel music and the creation of seven shaped notes, as well as attempts by Aldine S. Kieffer to spread this "new" tradition. He also describes five revisions of The Sacred Harp: William Cooper's The Sacred Harp, Revised and Improved, three revisions by J. L. White (the first in conjunction with his brother B. F. White Jr.), and Joseph James' The Original Sacred Harp. At the time, most singing conventions wanted a revision, but without corrections other than typos, without any songs in the gospel style, and with new songs at the end of the book. Campbell also goes into much detail about how James "sold" his book to both traditionalists, by emphasizing the features that kept the old traditions, and modernists, by appealing to their "obsession with numbers, output, and quantification" (182). Interestingly, James did not limit himself to the musical style found in The Original Sacred Harp: he also published two other books. One included many newer gospel tunes, and the other was "specially arranged so its compositions can be easily played on instruments" (183). Regardless, Campbell did effectively prove that the shape-not tradition was not interpreted in any unique way, and that it was evolving.

Discussion Question: Do you think that James' revision, The Original Sacred Harp, would have been as popular if he did not include notes describing the traditions his book preserved as well as elements appealing to the more progressive?