SEM Perusing

One of the most remarkable things that I have noticed while perusing the Journal of the Society for Ethnomusicology is the lack of hostility assumed on the part of the reader. Often, in our readings, I get the impression that the Ethnomusicologist is always slightly defensive that the reader might not be taking them completely seriously. I think that this has a few possible benefits, in that the professional who is constantly forced to defend their place in the academic community often has a very intellect and secure understanding of it. I think part of the reason for this is that so far we have been reading, for the most part, about the fundamentals of ethnomusicology, being that we are only just leaving the introductory portion of the course. It seems to me that there is a greater chance of coming across a defensive position when the text is geared towards those who have never encountered ethnomusicology before than in a more advanced text intended for those with experience. However, any qualifications aside, it was very pleasant to read from the perspective of someone who is comfortable with ethnomusicology.

There is a very different type of dialogue created when the intended reader is one who has professional knowledge of the field. For example, “The Challenge of ‘Bi-Musicality’” by Mantle Hood jumps right into why bi-musicality is necessary in order to study other cultures without first arguing that this is a worthy goal. I know that it might seem obvious that in an Ethnomusicology Journal they pre-suppose that the reader will be amiable to the notion of studying the music of other cultures, but I do not think it trivial. I think that the basic rules of dialogue are changed dramatically in this journal, and I think that the impact of this change cannot be underestimated. It allows the writer to take riskier positions knowing that the reader will have the expertise to understand the broad strokes of the argument even if it is in a rudimentary form. It allows the writer to address more controversial topics that they might not be willing to address to the outside community. Also, it increases the chances that the writer would receive helpful feedback in crafting their argument. While all of these things may seem obvious, they provide a forum for discussion that I think is crucial to helping any fledgling field grow.

Specifically, I think that Mantle Hood’s article articulates some of the values that are very important to the field as we know it today. It was interesting to read about some of the direct changes in the field that came about due to the shift towards cultural relativism. So many things feel to us that they are taken for granted, especially given our modern education, that it is rewarding to read something from a different context, where perhaps a western-centric philosophy was still exerting influence held over from its previous years of dominance.