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.