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.