We Are All in Music Studies Now (But I'm Not Really Talking About That)

This less than polemical title is what Amico is actually (kind of) suggesting (via Nooshin) in his recent article (30), despite the language about “The End of Ethnomusicology.” As one of the people cited as being “discipline-defying,” I have to say Amico articulated most of the frustrations I have about disciplinary definitions. The top three issues which have caused concern for me (not the issues themselves, but the way in which they are positioned in discourses) are: 1) ethnic identity, 2) ethnography, and 3) Western music. These are issues that I have had conversations with ethnomusicologists about, or on which ethnomusicologists have spoken about in public fora such as email lists or conferences (as opposed to scholarly publications). My focus on ethnomusicological common sense as embodied in public discourse is in line with Amico’s critique about the reliance of ethnomusicologists on the “one percent” (10) vanguard of scholarship, as evidence that problems related to the three issues above have been more or less resolved.

I have benefited from the friendship and feedback of several ethnomusicologists over many years, including the 22 in the 6 panels I convened at SEM conferences from 2014-2020. Thus, the following account of some expressions of ethnomusicological conventional wisdom is not intended to disrespect anyone, but to gently point out that my advice has generally not been sought with regards to the specific musical cultures that I have been enculturated in for many years (27 years in Singapore, 5 years in Suzhou, China).

1) Ethnicity. My research reveals what should be common knowledge, that traditional musical forms face declining audience numbers over subsequent generations of listeners, such that some young people have no relationships with traditional musics. This information has been received with skepticism, perhaps unconsciously reflecting the belief that ethnicity is a unified entity with ethnic identity and musical preference in alignment. It has been suggested to me that my preliminary "assumptions" will be proven false through interactions with music-makers (this was after my research had been completed). The problematics of the ethnicity concept reflected in these interactions is outlined by Amico as implicit or “ascribed” (12) authenticity/reality putatively unearthed through ethnography taking place in particular localities, thus reinforcing/naturalizing differences and stable ethnic identities.

 

2) Ethnography. Many well-intentioned ethnomusicologists have explained to me ethnomusicology’s methodology-based definition as ethnographic research on both global and Western musical traditions. (Such explanations are not necessary if one’s interlocutor has been present at SEM conferences for a few years, or if they have read Slobin’s Micromusics.) Those who have been in the field for longer can speak to this better than I can, but isn’t the “universal” outlook a reaction to postcolonial theory that forced academia to reckon with the power asymmetry inherent in disciplines based in Western universities but with a global purview? As Amico points out, the coloniality of the disciplinary “ethno” prefix continues to be a source of contention, suggesting a need for decolonization efforts that must incorporate historical perspectives on the discipline. The near exclusive reliance on ethnography (also pointed out by Amico) is interconnected with other issues. First is the assumption that cultural others are so different that ethnography is the only means by which musical reality can be assessed. Putting aside whether reality can be assessed as such (or whether it is always a construction, a view which is mainstream in anthropology), the difference of cultural others can be exaggerated without a close examination of the precise musical practices in which they engage; consider that e.g. the high school music curriculum in Singapore was 100% Western music until around 2000. Second, the idea that reality is accessible has contributed to resistance against research collaborations (e.g. with “native” co-authors, research team members), perhaps because the "authenticity" of data retrieved is assumed to be guaranteed by first person ethnographic experience.

 

3) Western music. It is conventional wisdom among some ethnomusicologists, many of whom work in departments dominated by Western music, that the latter music is oppressive. This is not necessarily the case for postcolonial milieus in which political, economic, and military power has been returned to the former colonies, and where Western and traditional musics are inextricably intertwined. The assumption of certain musics as having an “inability to engender resistance” (Amico, 16) (and thus not worthy of study) is countered by the central anthropological tenet that all cultural (re)production involves the exercise of agency. This is why Beethoven was deemed to be sounding out both Marxist revolution and bourgeois-capitalist capitulation from the 1950s-70s in China. The oppressor in post-independence China is not Western music per se, but the communist party’s state apparatus, which included musical appropriation and censorship. That is to say, it is not music per se which is oppressive, but the uses to which music are put (cultural imperialism does not exhaust the full range of musical functions, including what may seem like the paradoxical appropriation of Western sounds for anti-racism). The exclusive study of musical cultures in a counter-hegemonic frame that is distinctive to ethnomusicology has sometimes meant the elision of critique of oppression in global musical cultures (including heteronormative readings of female impersonators in China opera, or purely aesthetic assessments of cultural production during the Cultural Revolution in China). I wonder if it is the disciplinary counter-hegemonic stance which is preventing some of our most well-respected ethnomusicologists from taking further steps towards decolonization. When one is focused on putative externalities (like Western music), internal problems of one’s home discipline may not be as obvious?

The US Musicological Frame: “Western Music” Redacted, But Is History Now Anti-Racist?

In the wake of the recent controversy over music theory’s white racial frame, there is heightened awareness among musicologists of the need for anti-racist research and pedagogy. One type of anti-racism has taken the form of removing “Western music” from the academic lexicon (a project begun in global music history; see Irving 2019), much as “Westernization” and the “West” were previously discursively redacted, because the former is oppressive, and the latter is over-generalized. Against this background, consider three historical developments: the dissemination of European music to East and Southeast Asia since the 1800s; the diversification of the Singaporean high school curriculum around 2000 from 100% Western music to 60%, with 40% newly-introduced Asian musics; the establishment of the Tianjin Julliard School in China in 2019. What all this points to is the historical fact of Western music’s expansion and contraction in the global arena. The ease with which the term “Western music” is dropped points in part to the gap between musicological research and musicologist-designed course syllabi, versus the material world of global musical practices, far removed from the pages of US musicology journals and from US music classrooms. Though it is possible to replace “Western” with words like “modern” and “cosmopolitan” to describe global musical practices, these terms refer to the positionality rather than sounds of musicians performing the same four notes of Beethoven Fifth. Discursive redaction of Western music in US academia has little effect on sounds from across the Pacific Ocean; consider that of the nine oldest conservatories in China, only China Conservatory is dedicated to Chinese music, with the rest competing to produce the next Lang Lang. (For the purposes of this short post, I am considering only US musicology and not other musicologies.)

I make the foregoing argument not to detract from US musicology’s anti-racist efforts, but to point out the ways in which such efforts ultimately reflect US priorities, namely, the urgent need for a concrete response to the violence of racism, horrifically evidenced in the murder of George Floyd. Racism is one of the reasons why conceptual revision in disciplinary and curricular reform—including in the form of discursive redaction—are sometimes emphasized over the actual history of global music that would require a reliably specific musical nonmenclature for naming the (Western, modern, cosmopolitan?) sounds that are impacted by waves of westernization, dewesternization, and rewesternization (corresponding respectively to the three historical developments listed in the opening paragraph). Discursive redaction has been given new life in the age of social media, but it is rooted in post-structuralist approaches in which there has long been a tension between naming and redacting a marginalized identity, where the former alternately allows for the object to be named (for the purposes of resistance) and reified (as an unchanging essence), while the latter points to a future in which oppression of that identity has ceased and thus the identity itself becomes obsolete.

 

After redacting “Western,” “music history” itself could become the object of musicological study and teaching. In theory, this could take the form of emphasizing and expanding the lessons of new musicology: non-teleological historiography refuting “heights” of musical development by geniuses such as Beethoven; refusal of historiography itself as overly generalized, focusing instead on “centuries”-framed cultural studies (18^th-, 19^th-, 20^th-centuries). In theory, that is, the new music history could end up like much of the New Musicology of the 90s—examining primarily Europe and North America. Against this possibility, there is some utility in arguing explicitly for the inclusion of global, non-European, and non-North American locations in the new music history.

 

Despite the redaction in “Western music history,” a contradiction persists in that such history typically redacts "Western music" that has been sounded globally e.g. in East and Southeast Asia since the 1800s, but projects a US redactional construction of anti-racist music history over the global history of Western music. I would argue that the ability to articulate such contradictions are necessary to a responsible anti-racist musicological agenda. Consider another contradiction: the complexities of racism are such that even global sounds, when included as tokenism in a conservatory environment, can—in that specific setting—become part of the apparatus of institutional racism. That is to say, it is not Western or global musics that are essentially racist or anti-racist, but discourses that construct musics as racist or anti-racist. It is often easier to redact terms than to address pervasive, often clandestine ideologies that are intertwined with various histories and historiographies.

 

Indeed, the vagaries of history begin with the very concept of history, which is tied up with the racist bifurcation between Western music, literacy (notation), and history, on the one hand, versus global music, orality, and ethnography (which emerged in the age of European imperialism), on the other. Even assuming that the problematics of history have been resolved and we can proceed with music history, problems can easily occur without a comprehensive global historiographical framework. An anti-racist music history that is entirely methodological in its revisionary efforts might end up focusing on postcolonial issues such as Western musical orientalism, without stepping out of Europe and North America, or it may do so only  minimally. Even a diversified history can still be Eurocentric if it commences with chants (folding outward from Gregorian to e.g. Buddhist chants) that constitute the conventional originary point for European but not global music histories. Such a chronological history can reproduce Eurocentrism in the periodization of everything before 1500s as the Middle Ages, whereas it is only Europe that was in the “middle” of the fall of the Roman empire and Europe’s recovery. 

 

From a pedagogical perspective, in many cases, the primary purpose of the undergraduate Western music history survey was never to teach about music history per se (archival research, historiography), but to provide a diachronic array of chronologically-ordered background contexts in which musical works are foregrounded (this is not necessarily a problem from a pedagogical point of view, as long as there is an understanding that music and "context" are co-constituting, e.g. Chinese composers's symphonies co-constructed Chinese modernity). If the pedagogical necessity of history proper is asserted, this needs to be clarified in the light of the racist conceptual bifurcation of Western music notation's historical trace and global musics's orality. I would point to the common undergraduate pedagogical ground of context for both Western and global musics, since the latter are presented in a “synchronic” array of contexts in which social function is emphasized (c.f. diachronic contexts of Western music). This raises the issue (and the promises and dangers) of merging musical disciplines and courses, which may be inevitable for anti-racist music research and teaching.

From Selective Disavowal to Comprehensive Anti-Racism in Music Theory

The symposium on Philip Ewell’s SMT 2019 plenary presentation, “Music Theory’s White Racial Frame,” in the most recent issue of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies (JSS) has been widely criticized for its systemic racism. (Note the difference between (i) individual racist beliefs, versus (ii) social structures that systematically exclude and disadvantage people of color—i.e. "systemic racism," or just "racism." The “social structure” definition applies in most contemporary discussions of institutionalized racism.) As I observe the unfolding reactions to the JSS issue, with anti-racist statements by formal and informal collectives as well as individuals, I thought it is important to direct attention also to the need to not just disavow systemic racism in Schenkerian theory and JSS, but to take further concrete action now by looking within our individual and collective teaching and scholarship, rethinking every element of music theory—i.e. to immediately and systematically materialize the promise made in several anti-racist statements (and in yet other words, action commences rather than concludes with drafting and signing a letter). Disavowal needs to be accompanied by a commitment to rooting out systemic racism in all areas of music theory, and in ethno/musicology if that is one's discipline. This is in part because selective disavowal can lead to distortions and unintended forms of coerciveness against minorities. Selective disavowal without a wider systemic anti-racism has the structural effect of at least temporarily implying that other areas of music research and teaching are not racist, excusing them from critique—clearly, music theory as a whole (beyond Schenker) is embedded in systemic exclusions that we know as systemic racism. Selective disavowals have the effect of ascribing a "racist" identity to the discarded object (as opposed to racist approaches to a given music-theoretical object), potentially re-inscribing violent epistemologies of essentialist racial identities onto people of color—through the implication that people of color "ought to" be anti-racist and thus cannot authentically teach or conduct research in Schenkerian theory or Western music in general. A similar problem is found with blanket decolonial projects aimed at dismantling Western music, which ignore the presence of composers, performers, and music scholars of Western music who are people of color. Any kind of dichotomous bifurcation, such as that effected by a selective disavowal, inevitably implies dualist-essentialist identities that always turn into the epistemic violence of coercive minority identity, commonly known as minority stereotyping. Put more simply, racism does not inhere in particular musics or theories; rather, racism is a social structure within which musics and theories are embedded, and thus all musics, theories, and disciplines have racist elements which need to be confronted.

 

As the contribution by Suzannah Clark in the JSS issue shows, it is possible to trace the racist elements in Schenkerian theory, as a first step in revising the entire theoretical apparatus. While Schenker was clearly racist, and his theory necessarily has racist elements, there are a wide range of ambiguities, complexities, and multiplicities which unfortunately were raised in the JSS issue for the purposes of deflection and defense, thus posing the real danger of shutting down all discussion of various issues: (i) race and racism, (ii) context and history, (iii) Schenker’s Jewish identity (not as a "defense" of Schenker, nor as an attack taking the form of accusing critics of Schenker of anti-Semitism; but as a real facet of his identity), (iv) the complex co-constitution and separability—or not—of music theory and race, (v) the applicability—or not—of facets of Schenkerian theory to repertoires beyond Western music, and more. Future scholarship will need to consider the contingency of racist elements of the Schenkerian apparatus, making difficult judgements on what elements can reasonably be regarded as having musical explanatory power and may be separable from racist ideology, on the one hand, and what elements are inextricably intertwined with racism (Clark suggests that Schenker's privileging of the dominant and exclusion of the subdominant speaks to his racial ideology). Various components of Schenkerian theory such as centricity-hierarchy or diminution were infused with his racism but have not been shown, by themselves and across musical genres, to be universally co-constituted with racism. I believe the work I outlined here is what Ewell is referring to when he wrote in his recent article in Music Theory Online: "If Schenkerian theory is to survive in the twenty-first century, as I hope it does, we must confront the uncomfortable realities not just of Schenker himself but, more important, of the legacy of how we have engaged with his ideas and what that means with respect to race in American music theory."

 

The British Left Singapore in 1959; But Western Cultural Imperialism Remained

Singapore's high school music education program can lead to what is known as AP music in the US, or A-Level music in the UK. In the 1980s and 90s, this was 100% Western music, reflecting the history of the country, which was colonized in 1819 by the British. While decolonization was achieved in 1959 (when the British left), this did not mean decoloniality, as evidenced in the persistence of Western cultural imperialism in the history of music education in Singapore.

The process of decolonizing music education began around 2000, when the musics of the Chinese majority and Malay and Indian minorities in Singapore were introduced (as part of a campaign for national identity), successfully diversifying the curriculum. At that point, the vast majority of teachers were trained in 100% Western music university programs, and so this was a systemic shock. Everyone had to become a student of global musics, cobbling books, CDs, and workshops by musicians to become fluent in these musics. The initial slate of musics included non-Singaporean musics—Japanese music, "African" music (problematically lumped as a continent, instead of regions or countries), and "Latin American" music (again, lumped as a continent). A few years later, the Ministry of Education reduced the slate of musics to just Western and Singaporean Asian musics (Chinese, Malay, Indian), which I consider to be a parochial-nationalist move.

Diversity in the music curriculum is positive, but it does not address the situation that I was often in, which is that 100% Chinese teachers are teaching 100% Chinese students. In my 5 years as a public school teacher in Singapore, I taught 1 Indian student, and had 0 minority colleagues. The diversification of the music curriculum came about because of awareness of Singapore's "Asian" identity. Multicultural musics were included based on the government-administrative framework of "different races" inherited from British colonization. But no one is seriously addressing the issues of inequality between the various Asian peoples in Singapore, nor the fact that these Asian musics are widely considered to be "antiquated" in a global milieu in which "Western" signifies "modern," which is where decolonial theory comes in. Singapore may not be the same as other countries which are caught within the imperialist ambitions of modern-day hegemons, which may effect political regime changes for the purposes of economic profit. But decoloniality has been and continues to be relevant.

Decoloniality is not as simple as diversifying the music curriculum because the very multicultural framework used for that project is inherited from British colonial-administrative division of the "races." This is translated today to strict racial quotas per housing block of government-built apartments that 85% of the population live in. My neighbors in Singapore are a Malay family, and if the quota for the Chinese have been reached in my block, the apartment can only ever be sold to a non-Chinese buyer, which means depressed apartment prices (because of lack of demand). In fact, the COVID-19 crisis in Singapore is sparked by the housing of massive numbers of Indian and mainland Chinese migrant workers in purpose-built dormitories, administered using the colonial logic of divide and govern.

Beyond the issue of race, decoloniality emphasizes the interconnectedness of vectors of oppression according to race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability. In music education, the initial lack of Asian musics is coupled with another form of invisibility: the queerness of canonic composers such as Schubert and Tchaikovsky is until now still straightened in a heteronormative milieu. Contemporary homophobia in Singapore can be traced to an arcane British colonial-era law (Section 377A of the penal code) that makes gays illegal. While the government stated that they will never make prosecutions based on that law, which they claim needs to be kept to reflect the moral majority, this kind of legal, symbolic, and cultural oppression must be addressed in curriculum reform to develop a music education that reflects the diversity of composers, performers, and music-makers.

Decolonizing Ethnomusicology

In previous weeks, there has been vigorous discussion of Danielle Brown’s open letter on racism in music studies in the SEM email list, but not in the discussion fora of AMS and SMT. As a member of all three societies, I offer the following thoughts on US ethnomusicology. My intention in posting this here is not to insist on one version of decolonizing; ultimately, I speak from my positionality as a queer person of color working outside the US, and partly outside ethnomusicology. If you find any part of this useful in your work--whether as teacher, researcher, peer reviewer, journal editor, academic society board member, or research grant body executive--feel free to use, adapt, modify, or elaborate on all or part of it, and amplify the decolonizing message with proposals for change. 


Introduction

1)    Demographics provide the easiest demonstration of the need for decolonizing US ethnomusicology. SEM's 2014 membership survey shows that 3/4 are US citizens; of the US citizens, 3/4 are "Euro-American" (using the terminology in the survey). Of the 1/4 international members, 7 of the 9 countries with most members are European/Australasian (the other two are Japan and South Korea), which suggests that about 3/4 of the international members are European/Australasian. This suggests that overall, SEM membership is about 25% people of color. In contrast, the percentage of members conducting research in areas where people of color live are: Africa (35%), Latin America (41%), Asia (73%). (Members may choose several research areas.) If you add up the total percentages for all research areas, this comes to 268.6% (because you can choose more than one area). The numbers for Africa, Latin America, and Asia alone add up to 150.1%, more than half of 268.6% (without including 63.8% for US, of which a huge chunk of research is focused on minority musics). Comparing the proportion of people of color (c. 25%) relative to proportion of research in the various regions of the world (>50%), SEM has a diversity problem. The diversity problem is likely worse among SEM members who are tenure faculty, since the proportion of people of color is higher among students. Ethnomusicology faculty and students should be comprised mostly of minority and global peoples, since ethnomusicology seeks to understand minority and global musics. There should be a minority-majority composition in ethnomusicology faculty, students, and societies.

2)    Following Mignolo, decoloniality counters coloniality, imperialism, modernity, capitalism, ecology, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and ableism. This proposal includes changes to decolonize ethnomusicology in relation to demographics, epistemic issues, multiplicity of decolonial contexts, otherings, methodology, academic norms and societies, conferences, publications, and individual agency. Not all aspects of decoloniality are addressed; emphasis is put on issues of coloniality, identity/othering, racism, access, agency, and ethnomusicologists's positionality.

Epistemic Issues

3)    Decoloniality varies according to context, which means there is a need to recognize that structures of sonic/musical empire and systemic racism differ. For US minorities, this ranges from embodied sonic/vocal stereotyping and violence (see William Cheng 2018), to “blacksound” in popular music (see Matthew Morrison 2019), and—within US university music programs—Western art music. Outside the US, there is e.g. the position of Uyghur music within the Chinese conservatory system (Chuen-Fung Wong 2009). Much needs to be written about minority and global musics in this regard; the long-term ethnomusicological agenda (for the coming years and decades) should include the project of examining empire and systemic racism in their full complexity. The complexity of these systems can be seen in e.g. black and brown performers, conductors, and composers of Western music in US, and other global peoples who appropriate and recontextualize Western music for their own ends. US ethnomusicology needs to recognize its existing form of decoloniality, focused on resisting Western music, as being specific to the professional contexts of US ethnomusicologists, most of whom work in music departments focused on Western music. Latin America, where there is continuing US imperialism and political interventions on behalf of US capitalism, is a different context from East Asia, where there is a history of intra-regional coloniality intertwined with Western cultural imperialism.

4)    US ethnomusicology needs to disassociate from the Eurocentric musical map structured as: Western-self, minority/global-other. This is an apparently “diversified” musical map (with token global musics and ethnomusicology courses within largely Western-focused music programs) that is really the hoary Eurocentric conception of the musical world. The negative effects of this map are several. It can:

a.     reproduce structures of inequities if diversity in the music curriculum is not matched with diversity in the faculty.

b.     lead to dissociation from “minority/global other,” which can result in deadly othering and stereotyping of minority (see references above) and global peoples

c.     lead to dissociation from “Western self,” indexed as oppressive, thereby directing attention away from one's own insider status to empire and systemic racism. Focusing on resisting Western music should not distract from addressing coloniality within the discipline of ethnomusicology that one participates in.

d.     disguise the universal presence of some combination of racism, classicism, sexism, homophobia, and ableism, which are not unique to the “Western self.”

5)    Ethnographic methodologies and conceptual frameworks such as insider/outsider (while indisputably valuable) stem partly from the origins of ethnomusicology in the asymmetrical global access that continues to be provided in the present day by colonialist-imperialist enterprises of the past (and present). “Native” researchers, who enter the discipline of ethnomusicology with a relatively high level of cultural fluency in the musics written about (there is no such thing as absolute insider status), rightly have their own approaches (which may incorporate—using examples from music research in China—study of ancient classical Chinese texts on music, theory and analysis of traditional music, history of Chinese music theory, archaeology etc.). Rather than arguing that ethnomusicology is defined by ethnography, consider how this marginalizes researchers on minority/global musics (which constitutes >50% of ethnomusicological research) who pursue hybrid methodologies and do not exclusively practice ethnography.

6)    Considering the positionality of knowledge production from a decolonial perspective, there is a need to prioritize the voices of ethnomusicologists whose cultures are being studied and the voices of ethnomusicologists who are disadvantaged by race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability.

7)    The norms of academia stand in the way of equity. US ethnomusicology should:

a.     reject the notion that "ethnomusicology" is solely the pursuit of ethnomusicological theory or some definition of intellectual distinction beyond the usual academic conventions.

b.      embrace the notion that the primary purpose of ethnomusicology is to work towards the goals of diversity and equity through music, as reflected in the composition of faculty, students, and the membership and leadership of SEM. Ethnomusicology is fundamentally a discipline which seeks to understand all musical cultures, which should be explained by the peoples of every musical culture.

c.     The status of ethnomusicology as an academic pursuit is itself a problem. This pursuit is only available to those with access, and there are many differentials in terms of access to education, time, and economic resources. Generally, the people of the musical cultures studied in ethnomusicology tend to have less access to everything. Give minority and global peoples the doctoral funding and jobs necessary to decolonize ethnomusicology.

Institutions and Individuals

8)    Broadly conceived, ethnomusicological institutions include academic societies, conferences, journals, universities, university presses, and the languages used for publications and conferences.

9)    Against the current demographics of US ethnomusicology outlined in point 1 (c. 25% people of color, versus over 50% research in minority/global musics), there should be an initial target of 35% people of color among ethnomusicology faculty, students, and societies (including both membership and leadership), an increase of about 10% from the 2014 level—with a long-term target of >50% people of color. To achieve that, the following are necessary:

a.     Elect minority and global members to boards of ethnomusicology societies, and actively recruit minority and global members.

b.     advocate for university job search committees to adopt racial/ethnic/global diversity as one of the key criteria, alongside research, teaching, and service; and, admit a majority of minority and global peoples to doctoral programs in ethnomusicology. The university is an institution of empire and systemic racism. It has cultivated research in eugenics, area studies directed towards imperialist state interventions, and Eurocentrism, especially in disciplines which are focused on global culture, but fail to provide access to people of color.

10)    Improve access to conferences.

a.     SEM 2020 is going to be held online, potentially changing the future conference format, by raising the prospect of having integrated online and in-person presentations. This will be a positive move for especially minority/global members who may not have the resources to attend conferences in person. There is an opportunity to think about expanding minority/global access to SEM. This will improve access for people with disabilities.

b.     The exclusive use of English in US ethnomusicological conferences and publications is a barrier to access. Accept contributions in other languages.

11)    Asymmetries of access to doctoral education, faculty jobs, and English language skills have resulted in the dominance of some voices over others in ethnomusicological publications. Authorship can be diversified in the following ways:

a.     establish new norms and new criteria in peer review, elevating younger and diverse scholars.

b.     work with publishers to establish new norms which can be enforced through peer review, elevating younger and diverse scholars. Part of the problem lies with the commercial nature of publishers, which may prefer well-known authors for monographs and edited volumes.

c.     co-authorship across various structures of power asymmetry. Ethnomusicology books and journals may require co-authorship. Anyone with some measure of privilege should pursue co-authorship. This may include (using examples I am more familiar with):

                                               i.     all authors from US, Europe, and Australasia,

                                             ii.     authors from high-income countries like Singapore,

                                           iii.     authors who are the majority ethnicity in countries like South Korea or Japan,

                                            iv.     authors who are professors in any country, regardless of majority/minority status, e.g. Tibetan professors in China, who work on Tibetan music.

d.      consider “non-academic” publications such as blog posts or program notes, co-authored with the peoples written about, in job searches and promotions.

e.     consider other forms of collaboration with the peoples written about—performance, educational, and curatorial work, and general public ethnomusicology—as “publications.”

12) Individuals are not powerless. As teachers, researchers, search committee members, and peer reviewers—as editors, department heads, school of music presidents—there are norms which ethnomusicologists, as individuals and in our leadership capacities, can implement officially and unofficially to amplify both the number and voice of people of color. Most ethnomusicologists are both insiders trying to survive as individuals within existing systems of empire and systemic racism and outsiders trying to dismantle these systems. As such, ethnomusicologists should recognize and articulate our participation in institutions of privilege while committing to changes within our individual or leadership capacity. 

Difference/Universality, Part 1: Queer Music Theorist, Disoriented

(Working draft. This post is about the concept of “disorientation” in Sara Ahmed’s Queer Phenomenology.)

When I was 18, I backpacked around Scotland and ended up on New Year’s Eve at a pub in the Orkney Islands off the northern tip of the country. I was having a good time until a homophobic older guy said something incredibly offensive to me. That was my first memory of being overtly discriminated against. In such a situation, I might have felt intimidated, but the 18-year old me, filled with liquid courage from a beer (you can drink at 18 in the UK), felt pretty much fearless and told him to basically shut the front door. I was fine because some random homophobe meant nothing to me.

What was difficult, though, was constantly being ignored by my "own" people. Having lived in the closet in Singapore for my entire life up to that point, I finally came out in London, and sought out the gay community. It didn’t take me long to figure out that the vast majority of white gays regarded people of color as invisible, and that hit me like a sucker punch. I felt like I had nowhere to go, and didn’t know what to do—it was disorientating. Being a person of color defined my experience with the gay community.

Later on, when I was completing my doctoral degree in the US, I returned frequently to San Francisco, where there were so many Asians that I had no difficulty orientating myself within the gay community. Of course, there was still exclusion, but I felt like I could breathe. One time I was waiting for a bus and ended up talking to a bartender about some novel he had read about Buddha’s life. “Was it Hesse’s Siddhartha?,” I asked (it was). Over a Swiss writer’s problematically orientalist novel, a gay-Chinese-musicologist bonded obliquely with a straight-white-bartender. This involved convoluted social intersectionalities and relationalities, but it was not disorienting in the least because our interaction was warm and positive.

I’m not suggesting that my specific experiences in these various places are necessarily indicative of their general social atmosphere. I recall them in an effort to think through experiences of disorientation that Sara Ahmed theorizes as “queer phenomenology.” Starting with the trope of the Orient, Ahmed weaves the imperial gaze of Europe—a way of orienting oneself towards the Other—together with minority racial and queer experiences of disorientation. The privilege of being able to orient oneself, to have access to well laid out paths, is enjoyed by whites, but also, in certain contexts, by people of color who usually face the disorientation of not knowing where to turn, having been shut out.

When doors have been opened for me, it was because others have been inclined towards the alternative and the other (even if viewed through an ethically suspect, orientalist lens). This predisposition towards alterity can be described as a kind of positively valenced, curiosity-based “disorientation” from one’s own culture. When everyone is so inclined, we have a friendly environment in which diversity is a universal value. This is one way of explaining the tenet of anti-normativity which was key in the queer theory of the 90s, and which I have observed in recent years as I led the project for queer music theory. Queer music theory is not just the province of queer music theorists—it encompasses work by all music theorists who are dedicated to the advancement of anti-normative music-theoretical methods, while crucially acknowledging the lives of LGBTQ people who have no choice but to be different. In queer music theory, anti-normativity serves as the general, universal ethical principle and as a means of coalition building across different identities. This is different from my experiences in Orkney and London, when heteronormativity was the universal. While there is a structural similarity between a universal anti-normativity in “queer” music-theoretical practice, and other oppressive forms of universality, the crux of the matter is that the former is anchored in the intention to advance queer recognition and is methodologically structured to achieve that goal.

We live in an age when difference has been commodified in monetized blog posts that purport to discover earth shattering difference (choice of words, politicians, ethical orientations). Add to this the catastrophic history of Eurocentric universality, and it may seem to be impossible for us to contemplate a complex ethical framework that differentiates between the positive and negative effects of both difference and universality. Certainly, we seem inclined to prefer to regard academics as purely progressive or oppressive unities instead of imperfect multiplicities. I have seen feminists, including feminists of color, who were rejected based on even just hearsay about (as opposed to evidence of) their alleged transphobia or anti-Semitism. Obviously, no form of discrimination is acceptable, but the lowering of the threshold of judgement to mere hearsay suggests that academia is organized more around the fantasy of a perfectly integrated scholar who is perfectly woke on all fronts, as opposed to the reality of multiple, well-intentioned but conflicting conceptual paradigms that impinge on anyone of us today. Assuming that the scholar has a body of work which indicates their commitment to social equity, intellectual disagreement should (at least at first) be regarded as grounds of intellectual foment that speak to the irreducible complexity of social life, rather than as the means of oppressing one another: this is something that all sides of any debate should bear in mind.

Politically, the concept and practice of coalition building on the left have all but vanished, as all forms of universality (such as within coalitions) are suspected of being racist means of distracting from the experiences of the marginalized. But a coalitional politics without a horizon of universality alongside its internal differences is doomed to failure in a democratic system built on majority rule. My project in The Means and End of Difference is a musicological attempt to cultivate habits of thought that can nourish remedies for this situation.

Difference/Universality, Part 2: Primer for Identity Politics

(Working draft)

This is a “primer for a primer” on identity politics:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/#ContPhilEngaIdenPoli

In the following, I’ll present the main ideas found in the complex secondary literature review on the entire body of work on identity politics (race, class, gender, sexuality, philosophy, poststructuralism) covered in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy primer. This post is not a replacement for reading the original primer!

The Stanford primer was revised in 2016 and unfortunately does not give an adequate account of writings since then on especially disability and transgender theory.

Some of the ideas below will already be familiar to the reader, but I have decided to be comprehensive in my approach, as relatively recent developments are related to earlier thinking.

Reading strategy. I would say that the key strategy in reading the primer is to recognize the complexity of the subject of identity politics, expressed in persistent contradictions about it that run throughout the primer. Primarily, there is a recognition of the existence of identity, coupled with the critique that identity is constructed by hegemonic society. Thus any emphasis on identity is simultaneously (i) a means of articulating minority viewpoints and a fulcrum for resisting the majority, and (ii) the maintenance of the hegemonic system in which power asymmetry led to the inequality that necessitates the articulation of different identities. This points to (iii) the need for supplements or alternatives to identity, e.g. the creation of an anti-hegemonic coalition of identities, or a turn to embodiment. All three threads need to be kept in play if identity is to be understood in its full complexity. This is the conceptual background to my work in The Means and End of Difference.

Arguments for identity/difference

(i) What is identity?

·      The basic premise, from a contemporary academic viewpoint (as opposed to a historical or popular viewpoint), is that identity exists within and is “constructed” by society. Social identity is not a reflection of biology and anatomy. “Racial” identity is a means of assigning people of different ancestry into socially-determined groups, as opposed to scientific, biological groups (Omi and Winant 1986, Alcoff 1997, 2006, Piper 1996, Ignatiev 1995).

(ii) The importance of identity:

·      Identity expresses an authentic sense of self (Asante 2000).

·      Identity demands respect for different life experiences (Kruks 2001).

·      Identity is the foundation for empirical political action because it accurately describes the unequal conditions of different groups (Cudd 2006, Fanon 1968, McIntosh 1993, Martin 1994, Young 1990).

(iii) Strategies for the use of identity:

·      Identity may be adopted strategically for political purposes (Spivak 1990).

·      Identity can be articulated in relation to one another, in order to avoid creating the “essentialist” impression that these identities are naturally existing, as opposed to socially constructed (Young 2000, Nelson 2001).

·      Hybrid identities should be recognized (Anzaldúa 1999).

Criticism of identity/difference

(i) Problems with identity:

·      Identity is socially constructed (Haslanger 1995, 2005, Hacking 1999, Foucault 1980, Garber 1995) within an unjust system. Hence relying on majority-minority identities discursively reinforces and reproduces the power asymmetry in an unjust system (Fraser 1997, Coulthard 2014, Butler 1999, Connolly 2002), and reflects a simplified account of power (McNay 2008).

·      The essentialist identity of (maternal, caring) “woman” is created by patriarchy (entire section on “Gender and Feminism). See Ruddick 1989 and Gilligan 1993 for a controversial attempt to recoup “essentialist” feminine identity.

·      Identity is exclusionary when transgender identity is excluded in gay and lesbian theorizing (Stone 1991, Lugones 1994).

·      LGBTQ identity alone as a means of resistance is inadequate: identity-based organizing is not immune to the multiplicity of homophobic strategies because identity allows for both resistance and oppression (Sedgwick 1990).

·      Internal variation (by race, class, gender, sexuality, or within their sub-categories) within a specific group identity is ignored (Heyes 2000).

·      A narrow focus on only minority racial, gender, or sexual identity distracts from systemic white perspectives and oppression (Pateman 1988, Young 1990, Di Stefano 1991, Mills 1997, Pateman and Mills 2007, hooks 1981, Mohanty 1991) as well as liberal-capitalist exploitation (Young 1990, P. Williams 1991, Brown 1995, M. Williams 1998, Farred 2000, McNay 2008).

·      A focus on racial, gender, and sexual identity (as opposed to class identity) is due to the reluctance of middle-class whites in academia to examine their privileged economic position. In addition, there may be a focus on racial, gender, and sexual identity (as opposed to class identity) because whites in academia do not recognize their class oppression, displacing this onto others instead (Brown 1995).

(ii) Alternatives to identity:

·      Articulating a future (Zerilli 2005, Weir 2008, Bhambra and Margee 2010, Coole and Frost 2010, Connolly 2011) is important, as opposed to identities premised on the pain of historical oppression (Brown 1995).

·      Meaning, action, feeling, embodiment, affect, time, and space (Protevi 2009, 2011, Butler 2011, Heyes 2007) provide a fuller account of social inequities and existence than identity, which is restrictive (Appiah 1994) and reductive (Spelman 1988).

Arguments against universality 

·      Assimilation to the majority perpetuates hegemony (Young 1990, Card 2007).

·      Color-blindness (not recognizing difference) disguises and perpetuates racism (Appiah and Gutmann 1996).

·      Heterosexuality as a norm is oppressive: varied sexual orientations are immutable and cannot be “cured.”

·      In decolonial and lesbian feminist thought, separatism is the solution (Laforest in Beiner and Norman 2001, Alfred 1999, Asante 2000, Rich 1980, Frye 1983, Wittig 1992).

Arguments for universality (within a coalition)

·      Alliance and coalition formation (Heyes 2000, Young 1997, Cornell 2000) is necessary, as opposed to an exclusive focus on the difference between identities.

Difference/Universality, Part 3: The Means and End of Difference

(Working draft)

Having lived in different parts of the world, I have closely observed variations in social inequities and power structures that inform my project in the rethinking of difference through multiple angles. Below I’ll give an account of some first-hand experiences which have influenced my work. My own primer for the Stanford (Encyclopedia of Philosophy) primer on identity politics provides the conceptual apparatus which the following speaks to.

One of my most striking memories of living in China for the past 5 years was when I checked in to a hotel in Shanghai, and the concierge—upon seeing my Singaporean passport—said, “Oh, so you’re a laowai.” Laowai is a derogatory term which denotes foreigners, but literally translates as “old outsider.” It is usually used to refer to white foreigners, so the concierge’s application of the term to me was rather shocking. What that speech act accomplished, in no uncertain terms, was that I—a Chinese Singaporean in China—am as much of an outsider as white foreigners. This experience of being marginalized as a Chinese in China brought back other memories, e.g. people yelling out “Chinese,” or, even better, “Japanese,” during the years which I spent in London. The dynamics of the contexts were different: being a minority in the UK is not the same as being “not Chinese enough” in China. Whereas I felt like I had to escape from the people mis/identifying my difference in the UK, I never felt afraid in China, though I had to prove my Chineseness by reciting the syllabus for my Chinese music history course to the then chair of music education at my university. (She asked, in an innocuous conversational tone, during the first few months I spent in China, “So what are you teaching for the history of music in China?”)

Within my personal experiences of marginalization, there were definitive differences. There is, in addition, the difference in the way that racism operated in my encounters in London, versus in the tumultuous race politics of the US. Over the past decade, social media has contributed to the development of ever more insidious forms of racism, as racist discursive innovation is nurtured by the textual nature of voluminous Facebook posts and tweets. “All Lives Matter,” while maintaining the “plausible” deniability of being about a universal concern for humanity, is in fact intended as a racist invisibilization of the Black Lives Matter movement. Oppression exerts itself through both universalization and minoritization (“Japanese!”).

Because systemic racism is universal and can be found everywhere in racist society, so anti-racism must be vigilant against all acts and discourses—anti-racism must be universal as well. Yet the universalization of our anti-racist responses can create problems when we examine cases that depart from catastrophic oppression, because anti-hegemony constitutes part of the totality of social life, and points to strategies which we may use to fight back.

Over the past few years, I have been involved in the work of queer advocacy within the Society for Music Theory. In 2018-9, I was appointed to a Task Force for Diversity which recommended the formation of a standing committee for LGBTQ issues. The task force was comprised of representatives from various constituencies, including the SMT Executive Board, as well as groups dedicated to issues of race, gender, and accessibility. Together we formed an alliance that was dedicated to the advancement of queer advocacy, even though most members of the task force did not identify as queer—that is to say, members of the task force, coming from multiple anti-normative perspectives (whether race, gender, or accessibility), converged on the specific anti-normativity of issues surrounding LGBTQ music theory theorists and queer music theory. In this case, a paradoxical universality of anti-normativity within our alliance was critical to the advancement of minority rights, showing that even universals are not universally oppressive. Anti-normativity was a key tenet for queer theorists in the 90s (David Halperin, Lee Edelman), and continued to be the guidepost for more recent theorizations of queer temporality (Elizaeth Freeman) and queer phenomenology (Sara Ahmed).

Aside from my work and life in the US, UK, and China, my experience in Singapore has brought another perspective to the problem of inequity, related in this instance to the issue of difference and stereotype. Those of us from various parts of Asia are regularly consigned as “other” in the West and are expected to “perform” our identity. One of the Singaporean composers I work with, Joyce Koh, recounted to me the alienating experience of being expected by the French audience to write “intercultural” music incorporating Chinese culture into her modernist musical language, which she developed over the course of her doctoral degree at York University (UK), and a decade spent working in Paris, initially at IRCAM and under the mentorship of Tristan Murail. In this case, the cosmopolitan universality of modernism was a means of escape from enforced ethnic stereotype, complicating the colonial history of Eurocentric cosmopolitanism. There are times when joining a progressive or cosmopolitan universality can be freeing.

I go into detail about all these experiences because they inform my rethinking of difference and universality, wherein the difference of identity can in some contexts be oppressive, and universality (of anti-normativity and cosmopolitanism) can in some contexts be progressive. Which is to say, that context is everything when we perform ethical analysis. This is why we need to recognize how difference and universality are each means to multiple, different ends. I realize that this level of detail is increasingly difficult to maintain in a US context which has been becoming more and more racist over the past 4 years. But as scholars, our responsibility is to articulate ever more finessed truths, because the complexity of systemic racism calls for a multiplicity of anti-racist approaches. This ties back to a fundamental point: As musicologists, we know that the articulation of historical and cultural difference, as well as difference within archival and ethnographic data, is one of the hallmarks of good scholarship. It’s time to bring this differentiation to the analysis of ethical frameworks and precepts.

For more on the new universality, see my guest lecture at University of Oregon, Provincializing Western Modernism, Ping-Ponging the New Universality, and my panel at AMS 2019, Reassembling the Bird's Eye View in Musicology.