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?
