Abstract
The fundamental utility of rage as a motivator for early AIDS activists is contrasted with the double silencing marking ethnomusicology’s relationship to same-sex desire: it is virtually non-existent in the discipline’s literature, and the erasure has generated no response, enraged or otherwise, within academia. Additionally, two themes animating ensuing discussions are presented. First, the field’s belated acceptance of ‘gender’ as a site of inquiry, overwhelmingly used as a shorthand for ‘studies of/by women’, is revealed as related to the creation of a veneer of ‘diversity’ that functions to keep men/masculinity immune from examination. And second, ethnomusicology’s self-construction as the ethical other to musicology is exposed as resting not on epistemological/methodological desiderata, but an intense homophobic drive to construct a masculine disciplinary identity in contradistinction to musicology’s assumed femininity.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to fully convey (in words, via texts) the terrifying, overwhelming experiential sphere of LGBT+ people from countless geocultural locations and social strata in the early days of the AIDS epidemic.Footnote 1 What had initially been only partially understood and encountered in a nebulous, rumoured form (a ‘gay cancer’) transformed—via countless, exponentially increasing numbers of physical manifestations—into a lived confrontation with a pitiless mortality. And although the syndrome eventually attracted enough scientific scrutiny to grant it a greater ontological certainty—in part via the bestowal of an acronymFootnote 2—there were many who believed that research progressed in a manner that was incomplete, glacial, and grudging. The scientific-medical community was viewed as not entirely free from the same sorts of prejudices that guided the official, political response favouring silence (engendering death) over action in relation to a crisis afflicting a reviled ‘minority group’—a group, in fact, in many instances comprising multiple ‘minority’ statuses ascribed in relation to sexuality, race, religion, or other variables, and one often obliquely referred to as ‘the love that dare not speak its name’. AIDS was constructed as a plague affecting only communities that many in the majority preferred to remain invisible, and so of little interest to ‘normal’, ‘blameless’ citizens. Indeed, the syndrome was constantly (and continues to be) posited by many as divine retribution for the evil transgression of homosexuality.
It was in the context of watching countless loved ones suffer and ultimately (most often) succumb that business as usual appeared to many in LBGT+ and other marginalized groups, as well as their allies, not only inadequate but ethically/morally unacceptable. If, in decades past, assemblages such as the Mattachine Society had proudly donned the drag of aspirations to a status of ‘model minority’, then many of those whose lives had been impacted by AIDS—and, it appeared, a political-medical-scientific establishment undergirded by apathy (and hostility) rather than urgency (and compassion)—began to coalesce around an understanding that self-abnegation and obsequiousness to the structures of power were likely to result in continued neglect and disregard, and a future filled with the corpses of countless friends, lovers, and family members. This experience of understanding one’s self and community as disposable resulted in considerable, animating anger (pent up certainly for many over years, decades, lifetimes of having been subjected to abuse, discrimination, and violence); as Sedgwick has argued, the indissoluble links of queerness to a source in childhood shame (a connection that, one assumes, provokes a rage at being shamed) is, in part, what affords it ‘a near-inexhaustible source of transformational energy’ (1993: 4). Thus coalitions, rather than capitulating to the tacit eviscerating and infantilizing compulsions to remain silent, compliant, with a Pollyannish, optimistic belief in a paternalistic medical-political complex (marked, in part, by decades of homophobic abuses) began to explore the marshalling of ‘negative emotions’ in order to counter the complacency, indifference, and denials of an establishment that had shown little beneficence to a community of what were constructed as sexual reprobates. Here, the collectives OutRage! and Gran Fury are emblematic—the requisiteness of the ‘negative’ apparent in their very appellations. The latter group in particular highlighted the ways in which the material and symbolic were intertwined, both in terms of the attempted eradication of those constructed as expendable Others, and the intervention against such efforts.Footnote 3
To posit an exact equivalence between the responses to same-sex desire in relation to AIDS and ethnomusicology (both injurious to LGBT+ persons) would be problematic on numerous levels. Yet Gran Fury’s understanding of the intricate and intimate entanglements of the material and the symbolic (or ideological-discursive) reminds us that ‘homophobia’s symbolic violence…does not need to be expressed to be committed’, that ‘silence is its home’ (Tin 2003/2008: 20). As such, it is indeed instructive to explore the workings of the silencing (and erasure) of specific groups of Others—especially as they play out in spheres ostensibly constructed as resting upon an ethos of equity—as well as the number and quality of responses to the silencing over the course of decades. It is important to note from the outset that although ethnomusicology as a discipline has been defined, in part, by what was early on self-presented as an empirically and ethically essential drive to explore musical products and processes outside the (Western) cannon, elisions were likewise field-defining. For example, while class, race, and geography may have begun to have been emancipated from the strictures of academic chauvinism as early as the mid-twentieth century (at least superficially), within this discipline that was engendered in the service of giving voice to those silenced by what was presented as a Eurocentric music scholarship (read: musicology), gender still continued to be implicated in the devaluation of significant numbers of musical practices up until a much later date.
An optimistic (or charitable) explanation for the ensuing corrective of the 1980s (marked by such important publications as Koskoff’s edited volume, one of the few in the field at that time in which the vast majority of contributors were women) (1987) would be to assume that the egalitarian impulse that putatively undergirded the discipline, the desire to right both academic/intellectual and social/cultural injustices, organically both allowed for and encouraged work—at the level of disciplinary tenets, as well as individual researcher-professors—that would address this subjugation. Yet it seems equally likely that owing to the specific historical-cultural context, other potentiators were implicated. Marked by a heightened (albeit often inadequate and timid/tentative) attention to and visibility of feminist studies, and widely read, influential, and ultimately discipline-defining publications such as Sedgwick’s Epistemology of the Closet and Butler’s Gender Trouble (Sedgwick 1990; Butler 1990), the zeitgeist of the moment almost certainly compelled the largely male-helmed discipline of ethnomusicology to recognize and engage with gender, lest it reveal itself every bit as structurally hierarchical as those against which it defined itself—exclusionary constructions positioning musicology as the second component of a simplistic ‘us/them’ binary, via a widespread cultural dynamic of ‘continuing [a] dichotomization between members and outsiders’ (Barth 1969: 14).Footnote 4 Ethnomusicology, a discipline that has historically drawn on and shown a wholehearted interest in the theoretical apparatuses of neighbouring disciplines—from Marxism to structuralism and beyond—could not realistically feign obliviousness to the gendered voices echoing through the hallways of its academic contemporaries.
Whether the appearance of the gender corrective was the result of magnanimity or perceived coercion, the general period from the 1990s into the aughts witnessed a reasonable (if still insufficient) number of significant gender-focused publications (e.g., Doubleday 1999, 2008; Herndon and Ziegler 1990; Magrini 2003; Moisala and Diamond 2000; Sugarman 1997; Waxer 2001; inter alia), leaving some to dare to dream of brighter days to come.Footnote 5 Yet appearing as such work did in an overwhelmingly masculinist sphere (as I will soon show), such ground-breaking scholarship was often constructed not as central to culturally grounded explorations of music and music-making, but somehow of importance only to those with ‘special interests’. Moreover, the extent to which many studies (to say nothing of committees, organizations, departments) appeared to collapse ‘gender’ into ‘woman’ indicates a historical and indeed continuing uneasiness of the discipline with the arguably more radical interrogations necessitated by an embracing of feminist theory—a dynamic not unrelated to my concerns here, not least of which is the status of the experiencing body.Footnote 6 In this context, ‘gendered women’, sitting (at this historical moment) at the children’s table of the ethnomusicological banquet, arguably served a cynical purpose: the window dressing of inclusion occluding two interrelated variables that have occupied a considerable amount of space in the contemporary scholarship of other disciplines that have regularly influenced ethnomusicological inquiry, yet which were absent for decades from ethnomusicological inquiry—same-sex sexuality and desire, and masculinity.
In short, while the interrogation of these often-interrelated constructions has produced a rich array of critical inquiries in disciplines ranging from comparative literature to cultural anthropology,Footnote 7 such perspectives have been, until only very recently, stunningly absent from ethnomusicological research. Even more remarkably, the discipline of musicology, continually positioned as the conservative and reactionary Other against which ethnomusicology has defined itself, has in this regard produced numerous texts exploring non-normative sexual identity in relation to musical practice.Footnote 8 Both Brett (1994) and Biddle and Gibson (2009) are perhaps correct in their suggestions that musicological attention to masculinity and non-normative sexualities (to say nothing of feminism) has been grudging and relatively minimal (at least relative to other humanities and social science disciplines); indeed Brett, in a deliciously blunt salvo, characterizes musicology’s treatment of homosexuality (an ‘obliteration by silence’) as ‘one of the most crushing indictments of positivistic musical scholarship’ (15–16). However, publications from so-called ‘stodgy’, ‘elitist’ musicology and allied disciplines—monographs, edited volumes, numerous journal articlesFootnote 9—functioned as beacons of light for those relegated to the shadows, standing in high relief to the dearth of ethnomusicological studies theoretically engaging LGBT+ persons, same-sex desire, and/or the construction of (male, heterosexual) masculinity. Up until approximately 2013, there were, in the course of over six decades only four ethnomusicological monographs with sustained attention to any of these areas of inquiry (Fikentscher 2000; Hayes 2010; Spiller 2010; Stokes 2010),Footnote 10 none published before the twenty-first century. Additionally, a search of the discipline’s journal over the same time frame results in barely more than tumbleweeds and cricket chirps.Footnote 11 There have been no themed journal issues, as has been the case with popular music studies.Footnote 12 And while the supposedly ‘musty, old’ New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians in 2001 included a lengthy entry devoted to ‘gay and lesbian music’ (Brett and Wood 2001),Footnote 13 such a rubric has no correlate in the mammoth Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, which contains only a smattering of superficial references to either homosexuality, same-sex desire, or masculinity.Footnote 14 I have most likely missed one or another study (or paragraph, or footnote), yet any revelation of such omissions as ‘aha!’ moments would be akin to arguing that gender parity exists in popular music practice by shouting ‘Sandy West!’ or ‘Fay Milton!’—taken from a roster of 100 rather than 100,000.
What I will argue in the following two chapters is that a significant number of ethnomusicologists—the enactors and effects of the ideologies and discourses of ethnomusicology—have historically been invested in the performative and discursive-ideological construction of a type of masculinity that necessarily forecloses the very possibility of allowing visibility/audibility to same-sex desire within the discipline. Moreover, it is this injunction that has contributed to ethnomusicology’s retention of its most exploitive, colonialist, and paternalistic impulses, as well as its intellectual stagnation. Part of this mania for masculinity relates to the ‘feminine’ connotations that have often clustered around the sonic/musical (as opposed to, say, the visual, with its relation to graphic representation, narrative, and control).Footnote 15 Structural inequalities allow for this continued policing and banishment, yet structure must be viewed not only as cause of inequality, but also an effect of an uneasily lived gendered subjectivity.Footnote 16 Additionally, I will underscore just how imbricated the (heterosexual) masculine is with the homosexual and homophobic; as Kimmel has argued, many men in Western society,Footnote 17 terrified of being judged weak or ineffectual (that is, insufficiently masculine), and equating the homosexual with such negative assessments, must constantly enact masculinity in order to gain acceptance. Homophobia is thus ‘a central organizing principle of our cultural definition of manhood’, motivated by ‘the fear that other men will unmask us, emasculate us, reveal…that we are not real men’ (1994: 131). It is notable that Kimmel’s work continues, over the course of two decades, to uncover the homophobic impulses undergirding constructions of masculinityFootnote 18—common ‘in both the working-class bar and the university coffee house’ (2008: 13)—and it is not Kimmel alone who has made such connections. Although some researchers (Anderson 2009; McCormack 2012; Anderson and McCormack 2018) have argued that the virulence of homophobia has been progressively waning in certain (Western) contexts, others have found ample evidence to support the contention that the perceived attainment of stereotypical masculinity is a driving force for significant numbers of men (especially at formative points in their development), and its support and propagation are often reliant upon a vilification and denigration of male homosexuality (Diefendorf and Bridges 2020; Pascoe 2007).Footnote 19
In the specific disciplinary landscape with which I am concerned, I argue that by constructing themselves and their discipline-progeny from the outset in contradistinction to musicology—concurrent with the embrace of cultural anthropology (on far more than simply a methodological level)—ethnomusicologists have been invested in something much more malign than enacting intellectual allegiances, or feuds over academic turf.Footnote 20 The tacit homophobia that marks the discipline is responsible for the ongoing silence surrounding same-sex sexuality (as distinct from the often de-sexed understandings of queerness frequently encountered in much humanities-based scholarship), as well as the silence about the silence. Silence was the overwhelming response from the vast majority of political, administrative, and juridical entities at the beginning and height of the AIDS epidemic, and it is certainly no coincidence that ethnomusicology’s continuation of this averted gaze and the concomitant locked lips—at the very time when increased attention was arguably most necessary (especially among academic practitioners ostensibly motivated by a commitment to fighting social injustice)—was concurrent with the discipline’s own increasing visibility, and its move towards greater institutionalization and lust for increased institutional power. Any acknowledgment of the field’s myopia has generally occurred only in private (individual, exasperated musings, or casual conversations, often with an air of nonchalant resignation; ‘the way things are’, ‘boys will be boys’), never manifesting as official, unwavering, or enraged demands for recognition or transformation, a stunning absence in the context of multiple cultural moments marked by social actions motivated by fury.
Much to the contrary, in the present context, when ‘visibility/audibility’ occurs within the field (often as a type of queerness that engages only marginally with embodied, erotic, same-sex desire), decades of silencing—rather than motivating unabashedly emotional, urgent calls for scrutiny—are swept under the carpet, relegated to a past that magically will never return, assumed to be of little importance to an understanding of the dangers of disciplinarity and institutionalization. Yet such amnesia can only ever lead to repetition; anger, rage, fury are replaced by a compelled obliviousness that is necessary to support the status quo of power. The refusal to explore the specificity of such glaring elisions is implicated in the ability of injurious actions and structures to seethe and yet again erupt, never fully vanquished, often reappearing in even more virulent, destructive forms. These instruments of injury may be shockingly evident or dangerously surreptitious—merging, often, in our present disciplined, administered academic institutions, to perpetuate the very inequities they purport to battle. Yet no matter the mode or means of perpetuation, the response is the same: no outrage, no anger, only silence. In the following two chapters, the reasons for such silence—the prohibitions against speaking up at all, let alone with fury—will be explored.
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
AIDS was not, of course, the first acronym, with GRID (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency) having been sporadically adopted in the early days of the epidemic by some members of both the press and the scientific/medical communities.
- 3.
It is important to remember that questions of race and class within the ‘gay community’ were at the time, and continue to be, complex, often revealing elitist and racist attitudes. Such dynamics have been explored within popular and academic literature, and my personal experiences with both ACT UP and Queer Nation confirm that there were often intense debates about the extent to which AIDS activism should focus on individual groups impacted by the syndrome, or aim for a more transformative, coalitionist movement. Indeed, many in the former group—often, but not exclusively, white/male/(upper-)middle class/urban men—were accused of, if not outright racist, then race-insensitive, elitist views.
- 4.
Barth’s assessment here is in relation to the construction of boundaries around and between ethnic groups, not academic disciplines. However, the dynamics in many ways are strikingly similar. Moreover, although Barth highlights the flexibility of constructed boundaries of inclusion/exclusion, and their requiring constant maintenance, it is notable that the boundaries between the two musical disciplines have arguably remained relatively constant. Finally, Barth’s understanding that any ascription of sameness or difference cannot be understood as based upon ‘objective’ criteria; rather, some ‘signals’ or ‘emblems’ might be denied or, alternately, exploited, in relation to a group’s specific self-construction. In this regard, although ethnomusicology and musicology certainly share similarities at the level of history, ideology, and/or methodology, it is remarkable that it is indeed the differences—in part enacted around constructions of gender, as I will argue—that have remained as the bases of the differentiation.
- 5.
Some edited volumes in the aughts also contained references to gender. Post’s (2006) collection features a section on gender and sexuality, although skewed more towards the former; Keyes’s (2006) contribution to the collection does however include a brief discussion of lesbian women in relation to rap music, while Wong’s (2006) contains some discussion of masculinity. There are likewise several references to gender and a contribution on the same (Babiracki 2008) in the much-referenced Shadows in the Field (Barz and Cooley 2008), as well as a short chapter devoted to gender in the updated version of Nettl’s 2005 volume. See Koskoff (2000) for a brief historical overview of research on women and music up to the turn of the past century. For an exhaustive research guide on the same topic, see Pendle and Boyd (2005; reprinted several times, most recently in 2015).
- 6.
- 7.
Although Guttman (1997) highlights the inadequacies of anthropological studies of men and masculinity, the very existence of the wide number of publications in his survey alone further highlights the dearth of ethnomusicological research on—indeed interest in—masculinity. It is also notable that scholars within Guttman’s discipline explicitly called for and argued the importance of the academic study of same-sex desire at a time when support of such initiatives could easily have been seen as deleterious to one’s career. See, for example, the first newsletter of the Anthropological Research Group on Homosexuality (ARGOH) (January 1979), noting the re-forming of the group at the November 1978 Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) in Los Angeles.
- 8.
- 9.
Widely read examples include McClary’s Feminine Endings (1991) and the collected volume Queering the Pitch (Brett, Wood, and Thomas 1994). Additional examples from the often-allied fields of Popular Music and Performance Studies include Cruising the Performative (Foster, Brett, and Case 1995), Sexing the Groove (Whiteley 1997), Queering the Popular Pitch (Whiteley and Rycenga 2006), and Oh Boy: Masculinities and Popular Music (Jarman-Ivens 2007).
- 10.
The number of monographs increases after 2013, although the final tally is still relatively small (Amico 2014; Morad 2014; Morcom 2013; Sunardi 2015). Stokes’s excellent 1992 monograph engages the variable of sexuality, although not as the central issue. Lewis’s 2009 M.A. thesis also deals with issues of gender and sexuality in the discipline. Scholars outside of the field of ethnomusicology—specifically, from the field of anthropology—have also explored variables of sexuality and/or masculinity in relation to sound and music (e.g., Kheshti 2015; Marsden 2007).
- 11.
Although I do not claim the list is definitive, searches of the journals Ethnomusicology and Ethnomusicology Forum, since the time of each journal’s inception to early 2021, returned only a smattering of results on relevant keywords such as gay, lesbian, LGBT, queer, and intersex. Most searches produced no results. While terms such as ‘masculinity’ were truncated to increase the possibility of hits (e.g., ‘masculin*’), returns were low, with the vast majority of the very few results containing instances of the keyword which were only tangential or irrelevant. Arguably relevant results include Meintjes (2004), Mu (1998), O’Connell (2005), Stobart (2008), Sunardi (2011), and Tsitsishvili (2006). Kiefer’s two-page article from 1968 is a true anomaly. I did not search for combinations of music and any of the aforementioned terms in journals from cognate discipline (e.g., American Anthropologist, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, British Journal of Sociology, etc.), as my concern in this chapter is with the politics and dynamics of the discipline of ethnomusicology.
- 12.
See Bradby and Laing (2001) and Tongson and Stadler (2013). The journal Women and Music has been publishing research devoted to the critical study of gender for two decades, much of which has been produced by musicologists. And the journal The World of Music (New Series) published a special issue on masculinities and movement (Spiller 2014), which includes contributions from ethnomusicologists; the editors of the journal note, however, that the publication is not defined by any specific methodology, thus it is not strictly speaking a journal devoted to the dissemination of ethnomusicological research. It is notable (and predictable) that aside from the guest editor (Spiller, the focus of whose work is often a welcome deviation from the ethnomusicological norm), all the contributors were women—suggesting, again, how reluctant men within the discipline are to interrogate masculinity or embodiment.
- 13.
An overview of the history of the apparently difficult road to publication can be found in the ‘Preface to “Lesbian and Gay Music”’ by Wood (1994/2006) in the Second Edition of Queering the Pitch. The full, unexpurgated version, with the title ‘Lesbian and Gay Music’, and edited by Palombini, appeared in 2002 in the Electronic Musicological Review/Revista eletrônica musicologia. A subsequent version of Brett and Woods’s article, revised by Brett and Hubbs, appeared online with the title ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Music’ in Oxford Music Online/Grove Music Online (Brett, Hubbs, and Wood 2012).
- 14.
While some might argue that Garland, which is arranged geographically, is ill-suited to engage with a construction that is itself not geographically defined, it is necessary to note that the publication often subsumes ‘theoretical’ sections under the main geographical headings.
- 15.
- 16.
For example: ‘structural’ impediments to giving voice to non-heterosexual subjects, and their practices, may easily be enacted by peer reviewers, departmental culture, acquisitions editors, tenure committees, conference organizers, dissertation supervisors, or even vague or voiced concerns (often threats) of ‘career suicide’. I will return to some of these issues later in this text, but simply wish to argue here that such structural dynamics, the results of homophobia, cannot be eradicated via recourse to equally ‘structural’ remedies.
- 17.
Kimmel’s analysis pertains largely to U.S. culture, although his insights are arguably applicable to other modern, postindustrial societies.
- 18.
According to Kimmel, ‘Homophobic harassment…, racial slurs, and seething sexism often lie alongside the casual banter of the band of brothers’ (2008: 13). Additionally, with reference to the sexual degradation often found in relation to male hazing rituals, he suggests that ‘the more obviously homoerotic the ritual, the more overtly homophobic must be the accompanying narrative’ (112-113)—adding, however, that such rituals also function in relation to demarcating male versus female space, thus related to patriarchy and, implicitly, misogyny.
- 19.
Diefendorf and Bridges, for example, find that while qualitative data point to a decrease in homophobia, qualitative data indicate the exact opposite, arguably highlighting the necessity of attention beyond superficial ‘representation’. See also Boise’s critique of Anderson’s concept of ‘inclusive masculinity’ (2014).
- 20.
Bohlman suggests that the belief in a foundational ‘negative’ definition of ethnomusicology—that is, defined as not musicology—is at best overstated, noting that the early practitioners took more issue with comparative musicology (if a negative definition was to be assessed at all) (1992). However, for the purposes of my argument, it is important to highlight that what this reaction was based upon, according to Bohlman, was the centrality of the Western canon (a centrality figured in terms of worth) in the comparative scheme, as well as what the newer scholars deemed to be the insufficiency of the method. In this regard, the friction between ethnomusicologists and musicologists—which exists within many academic music departments to this day—does indeed have similarities with that described by Bohlman. Moreover, and perhaps even more important, is Bohlman’s characterization of these motivations as rationally and intellectually arrived at, and ethically motivated. It is my contention here, as noted above, that the actions of ethnomusicologists have more to do with gender ideology and performativity, where the variables of conscious decision or agency are limited at best.
Bibliography
Print Material
Amico, Stephen. 2014. Roll Over, Tchaikovsky!: Russian Popular Music and Post-Soviet Homosexuality. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Anderson, Eric. 2009. Inclusive Masculinity: The Changing Nature of Masculinities. London: Routledge.
Anderson, Eric and Mark McCormack. 2018. ‘Inclusive Masculinity Theory: Overview, Reflection, and Refinement’. Journal of Gender Studies 27(5): 547–561.
Babiracki, Carol M. 2008. ‘What’s the Difference? Reflections on Gender and Research in Village India’. Shadows in the Field: New Perspectives for Fieldwork in Ethnomusicology (Second Edition) (ed. Gregory Barz and Timothy J. Cooley). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 167–182.
Barth, Fredrik. 1969. ‘Introduction’. Ethic Groups and Boundaries (ed. Fredrik Barth). Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
Barz, Gregory and Timothy J. Cooley, eds. 2008. Shadows in the Field: New Perspectives for Fieldwork in Ethnomusicology (Second Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Biddle, Ian D. and Kristen Gibson. 2009. ‘Introduction’. Masculinity and Western Musical Practice (ed. Ian D. Biddle and Kristen Gibson). Farnham: Ashgate. 1–12.
Bohlman, Philip V. 1992. ‘Ethnomusicology’s Challenge to the Canon: The Canon’s Challenge to Ethnomusicology’. Disciplining Music: Musicology and Its Canons (ed. Katherine Bergeron and Philip V. Bohlman). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 116–137.
Boise, Sam de. 2014. ‘I’m Not Homophobic, “I’ve Got Gay Friends”: Evaluating the Validity of Inclusive Masculinity’. Men and Masculinities 18(3): 318–339.
Bowers, Jane and Judith Tick, eds. 1986. Women Making Music: The Western Art Tradition, 1150–1950. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Bradby, Barbara and Dave Laing, eds. 2001. Special Issue: ‘Gender and Sexuality’. Popular Music 20(3).
Brett, Philip. 1994. ‘Music, Essentialism, and the Closet’. Queering the Pitch: The New Gay and Lesbian Musicology (ed. Philip Brett, Elizabeth Wood, and Gary C. Thomas). New York: Routledge. 9–26.
Brett, Philip and Elizabeth Wood. 2001. ‘Gay and Lesbian Music’. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (ed. Stanley Sadie). London: Macmillan. 9: 597–608.
Brett, Philip and Elizabeth Wood (ed. Carlos Palombini). 2002. ‘Lesbian and Gay Music’. Electronic Musicological Review/Revista eletrônica de musicologia 7. Accessed at http://www.rem.ufpr.br/_REM/REMv7/Brett_Wood/Brett_and_Wood.html; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Brett, Philip, Elizabeth Wood, and Gary C. Thomas, eds. 1994. Queering the Pitch: The New Gay and Lesbian Musicology. London: Routledge.
Brett, Philip, Nadine Hubbs, and Elizabeth Wood. 2012. ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Music’. Oxford Music Online/Grove Music Online. Accessed at https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.2224712; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
Diefendorf, Sarah and Tristan Bridges. 2020. ‘On the Enduring Relationship between Masculinity and Homophobia’. Sexualities 23(3): 1264–1284.
Doubleday, Veronica. 1999. ‘The Frame Drum in the Middle East: Women, Musical Instruments, and Power’. Ethnomusicology 43(1): 101–134.
Doubleday, Veronica. 2008. ‘Sounds of Power: An Overview of Musical Instruments and Gender’. Ethnomusicology Forum 17(1): 3–39.
Fikentscher, Kai. 2000. “You Better Work!”: Underground Dance Music in New York City. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England/Wesleyan University Press.
Foster, Susan Leigh, Philip Brett, and Sue-Ellen Case, eds. 1995. Cruising the Performative: Interventions into the Representation of Ethnicity, Nationality, and Sexuality. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Garlick, Steve. 2010. ‘Taking Control of Sex?: Hegemonic Masculinity, Technology, and Internet Pornography’. Men and Masculinities 12(5): 597–614.
Garlick, Steve. 2011. ‘A New Sexual Revolution?: Critical Theory, Pornography, and the Internet’. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie 48(3): 221–239.
Garlick, Steve. 2016. The Nature of Masculinity: Critical Theory, New Materialisms, and Technologies of Embodiment. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Gill, John. 1995. Queer Noises: Male and Female Homosexuality in Twentieth-Century Music. London: Cassell.
Guttman, Matthew C. 1997. ‘Trafficking in Men: The Anthropology of Masculinity’. Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 385–409.
Hawkins, Stan. 2009. The British Pop Dandy: Masculinity, Popular Music, and Culture. Franham: Ashgate.
Hayes, Eileen. 2010. Songs in Black and Lavender: Race, Sexual Politics, and Women’s Music. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Herndon, Marcia and Susanne Ziegler, eds. 1990. Music, Gender, and Culture. Wilhelmshaven; Florian Noetzel.
Holsinger, Bruce. 2001. Music, Body, and Desire in Medieval Culture: Hildegard of Bingen to Chaucer. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hubbs, Nadine. 2004. The Queer Composition of America’s Sound: Gay Modernists, American Music, and National Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Jarman-Ivens, Freya, ed. 2007. Oh Boy!: Masculinities and Popular Music. New York: Routledge.
Jezic, Diane Peacock. 1988. Women Composers: The Lost Tradition Found. New York: The Feminist Press.
Keyes, Cheryl. 2006. ‘Empowering Self, Making Choices, Creating Spaces: Black Female Identity via Rap Music Performance’. Ethnomusicology: A Contemporary Reader (ed. Jennifer C. Post). New York: Routledge. 97–108.
Kheshti, Roshanak. 2015. Modernity’s Ear: Listening to Race and Gender in World Music. New York: New York University Press.
Kiefer, Thomas M. 1968. ‘A Note on Cross-Sex Identification among Musicians’. Ethnomusicology 12(1): 107–109.
Kimmel, Michael S. 1994. ‘Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, Shame, and Silence in the Construction of Gender Identity’. Theorizing Masculinities (ed. Harry Brod and Michael Kaufman). Thousand Oaks: Sage. 119–141.
Kimmel, Michael S. 2008. Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men. New York: Harper Collins.
Koskoff, Ellen, ed. 1987. Women and Music in Cross-Cultural Perspective. New York: Greenwood Press.
Koskoff, Ellen. 2000. ‘Foreword’. Music and Gender (ed. Pirkko Moisala and Beverly Diamond). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ix–xiii.
Lampert, Nicolas. 2013. A People’s Art History of the United States: 250 Years of Activist Art and Artists Working in Social Justice Movements. New York: The New Press.
Lewis, David. 2009. New Directions for Gender Research in Ethnomusicology. M.A. Thesis, Indiana University.
Magrini, Tullia, ed. 2003. Music and Gender: Perspectives from the Mediterranean. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Marsden, Magnus. 2007. ‘All-male Sonic Gatherings, Islamic Reform, and Masculinity in Northern Pakistan’. American Ethnologist 34(3): 473–490.
McClary, Susan. 1991. Feminine Endings: Music, Gender, and Sexuality. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
McCormack, Mark. 2012. The Declining Significance of Homophobia: How Teenage Boys Are Redefining Masculinity and Heterosexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meintjes, Louise. 2004. ‘Shoot the Sergeant, Shatter the Mountain: The Production of Masculinity in Zulu Ngoma Song and Dance in Post-Apartheid South Africa’. Ethnomusicology Forum 13(2): 173–201.
Meyer, Richard. 1995. ‘This Is to Enrage You: Gran Fury and the Graphics of AIDS Activism’. But Is It Art? The Spirit of Art as Activism (ed. Nina Felshin). Seattle: Bay Press. 51–83.
Mockus, Martha. 2008. Sounding Out: Pauline Oliveros and Lesbian Musicality. New York: Routledge.
Moisala, Pirkko and Beverly Diamond, eds. 2000. Music and Gender. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Morad, Moshe. 2014. Fiesta de Diez Pesos: Music and Gay Identity in Special Period Cuba. Farnham: Ashgate.
Morcom, Anna. 2013. Illicit Worlds of Indian Dance: Cultures of Exclusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mu, Yang. 1998. ‘Erotic Musical Activity in Multiethnic China’. Ethnomusicology 42(2): 199–264.
Nettl, Bruno. 2005. The Study of Ethnomusicology: Thirty-One Issues and Concepts. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
O’Connell, John Morgan. 2005. ‘In the Time of Alaturka: Identifying Difference in Musical Discourse’. Ethnomusicology 49(2): 177–205.
Pascoe, C.J. 2007. ‘Dude, You’re a Fag’: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pendle, Karin and Melinda Boyd. 2005. Women in Music: A Research and Information Guide. New York: Routledge.
Peraino, Judith Ann. 2006. Listening to the Sirens: Musical Technologies of Queer Identity from Homer to Hedwig. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Post, Jennifer C., ed. 2006. Ethnomusicology: A Contemporary Reader. New York: Routledge.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. 1990. Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. 1993. ‘Queer Performativity: Henry James’s The Art of the Novel’. GLQ 1: 1–16.
Spiller, Henry. 2010. Erotic Triangles: Sundanese Dance and Masculinity in West Java. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Spiller, Henry, ed. 2014. Special Issue: ‘Music, Movement, and Masculinities’. The World of Music (New Series) 3(2).
Stobart, Henry. 2008. ‘In Touch with the Earth? Musical Instruments, Gender, and Fertility in the Bolivian Andes’. Ethnomusicology Forum 17(1): 67–94.
Stokes, Martin. 1992. The Arabesk Debate: Music and Musicians in Modern Turkey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stokes, Martin. 2010. The Republic of Love: Cultural Intimacy in Turkish Popular Music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sugarman, Jane C. 1997. Engendering Song: Singing and Subjectivity at Prespa Albanian Weddings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sunardi, Christina. 2011. ‘Negotiating Authority and Articulating Gender: Performer Interaction in Malang, East Java’. Ethnomusicology 55(1): 32–54.
Sunardi, Christina. 2015. Stunning Males and Powerful Females: Gender and Tradition in East Javanese Dance. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Tin, Louis-Georges (trans. Marek Redburn). 2003/2008. ‘Introduction’. The Dictionary of Homophobia: A Global History of Gay and Lesbian Experience (ed. Louis-Georges Tin). Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press.
Tongson, Karen and Gustavus Stadler, eds. 2013. Special Issue: ‘Trans/Queer’. Journal of Popular Music Studies. 25(4).
Tsitsishvili, Nino. 2006. ‘“A Man Can Sing and Play Better than a Woman”: Singing and Patriarchy at the Georgian Supra Feast’. Ethnomusicology 50(3): 452–493.
Waxer, Lise. 2001. ‘Las Caleñas Son Como Las Flores: The Rise of All-Women Salsa Bands in Cali, Colombia’. Ethnomusicology 45(2): 228–259.
Whiteley, Sheila, ed. 1997. Sexing the Groove: Popular Music and Gender. London: Routledge.
Whiteley, Sheila and Jennifer Rycenga, eds. 2006. Queering the Popular Pitch. New York: Routledge.
Wong, Deborah. 2006. ‘Taiko and the Asian/American Body: Drums, Rising Sun, and the Question of Gender’. Ethnomusicology: A Contemporary Reader (ed. Jennifer C. Post). New York: Routledge. 87–95.
Wood, Elizabeth. 1994/2006. ‘Preface to “Lesbian and Gay Music”’. Queering the Pitch: The New Gay and Lesbian Musicology (Second Edition) (ed. Philip Brett, Elizabeth Wood, and Gary C. Thomas). New York: Routledge. 349–350.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Amico, S. (2024). ‘This Is to Enrage You’. In: Ethnomusicology, Queerness, Masculinity. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15313-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15313-6_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-15312-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-15313-6
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)