Challenge Question Response

Q.)1. In several different readings (Wong, Agawu, Shelemay, Miller, etc) the author discusses issues that arise from studying a culture that one is not part of. Write a 2-3 page paper about some of the problems involved in studying one's own musical group or culture.

A.)
In studying ethnomusicology, ethnographers constantly struggle to get the closest and most accurate portrait of the culture that they are studying. Often these ethnographers come from outside communities, and struggle with their etic perspectives. Therefore, much has been said in favor of directly empowering those within the musical culture to analyze and provide a true representation of their own music. Agawu emphasizes this point, arguing that in order for the generalization of African music to disappear, Africans must be given the chance to educate themselves in their own universities and ultimately provide insight on their own distinct musical cultures. This would do away with a lot of issues involving authority, and would help steer the audience of ethnomusicology away from its mainly Western base.

In some studies, this switch to the insider’s perspective has already been attempted. Deborah Wong’s idea of performance ethnography takes the idea and writes about how she can help meld and change the focus of taiko drumming through writing about what her own hopes will be. Is this right to change the musical culture that one is studying? Herein lies a potential problem of studying one’s own music, in that the ethnography will be biased with underlying motivations. In countering this argument, all ethnographies are biased, because there is really no way a single author can erase themselves totally from their studies, nor should they. In accepting the ethnography as biased, how should we look at the motivation to change or direct a tradition in the way an author wants? If this view is shared by the musical community, I argue that it is not a problem, the ethnographer is simply helping to further the tradition. If the author is trying to change the tradition drastically, and is doing so in a way that is not positively viewed by the musical community, I think there is a problem. This would lead to strained relationships between the researcher and the musicians, and at the same time provide an inaccurate view of most of the culture.

These relationships with the musicians are also of interest. In studying one’s own music, a researcher is bound to have many friends or at least feel close to the musicians being studied. That being said, problems might be created when the research is written not for the musicians, but for the scholars. In attempting to please one audience, the ethnographer might offend another, and this would lead to poor communication and understanding, points that ethnomusicology strives to connect.

Another problem that has been discussed in class is the difference between critical and celebratory ethnographies. In contrast to the celebratory ethnographies of etic ethnographers, some ethnographies of authors studying their own musical culture read as very critical. Nettl’s paper, for example, provides a critical view rather than a celebratory one. This critical aspect may not help fuel the idea of Western music continuing as a healthy changing tradition, and outsiders to this culture may view the music negatively rather than if they had read a celebratory ethnography. At the same time, the critical aspect of Nettl’s paper offers a unique perspective, and at times would probably offer a more truthful and interesting voice than a simple celebratory write-up. I think there is definitely more room in ethnomusicology for the critical aspect and with the study of one’s own culture, this needed authority is becoming more prevalent.

Other problems of studying one’s own culture appear in Nettl’s paper on Western music, in that it contains no outside voices, is not reflexive, and references many aspects of the Western music culture that only an insider would understand. The fact that it is from an emic view gives Nettl an authority, which is justified, but at the same time this authority lets Nettl overlook many aspects of a traditional ethnography. He assumes that his audience is familiar with his culture, creating problems of understanding. He only uses himself as an authority, which excludes other helpful perspectives on the culture. These problems stem from the authority of reporting on one’s own culture, and though the ethnographer creates an interesting, personalized inside view of a culture, the outsider’s perspective, one that can connect the author and culture with the audience, is missing. The best ethnographies should be a mix between emic and etic, combining various views of the musical culture from inside and outside, and though many problems crop up in studying one’s own culture, this method should continue to grow and these problems will be addressed and eventually sorted out.