Abstract
This chapter explores in greater detail the motivations for and processes of the construction of masculinity within ethnomusicology. Understanding the centuries-long feminization of music in Western culture, anthropology and its methodology—fieldwork—are revealed as utilized in the creation of a specifically academic masculinity. However, while fieldwork is instrumental in the creation of one facet of masculinity (i.e., representation of a self marked by bravado, courage, intrepidness; the ‘anthropologist as hero’), it is argued that for the largely white, privileged male academic, recourse to such stereotypes alone is insufficient. As such, it is intellect and rationality, manifesting via the use and production of Theory (itself coded as masculine) that allow for the maintaining of power over the musical, the racialized Other, and the positivistic, feminized musicologist.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
The relationship of music to masculine identity in Western culture has for centuries been, and continues to be, a complicated affair. Augustine’s much-noted anxieties concerning music’s ability to ravish, to annihilate the spiritual (and rational) via the lure of the sensual, is echoed in later assessments, in increasingly manifestly gendered terms. As Leach notes, Boethius, subscribing to the same rational/sensual bifurcation, ‘defines music of the highest character as “temperate, simple, and masculine”…rather than “effeminate, violent, or fickle”’ (2009: 23).Footnote 1 Such a conflation of sensuality and musical sound (and practice), and the misogynistic devaluation of the feminine (phantasmatically cordoned off in the female body)Footnote 2 were surely responsible for the various remedies enlisted in order to rationalize—and thus masculinize—music. From the creation of the cult of the agentic genius, to Eduard Hanslick’s formalization, to the modernist mania for abstraction (Brett 1994; Biddle and Gibson 2009), a considerable amount of panicked energy has been invested in constructing music as a support for masculine identity, rather than an ‘emasculated art’ with the power to bring shame upon any boy who would dare desire it (according to Charles Ives).Footnote 3 But if musicology has invested heavily in the stock of masculinity (as saviour from perceived dissolution), then ethnomusicologists—rebels against the ‘philistines’ of ‘art music’ (Nettl 2002: 208)—in the grand tradition of by-any-other-name pissing contests, were poised to go one better. And as both products and producers of these wider, masculinist power structures—understanding that ‘all musicians…are faggots in the parlance of the male locker room’ (Brett 1994: 17–18)—they embraced a methodology (ethnographic fieldwork) overwhelmingly rich with significance, due in part to its centrality to a discipline (cultural anthropology) likewise rife with a perceived virility.
In her 1970 essay, although not explicitly unpacking or elaborating upon her rationale, Sontag is incisive in her equation of anthropology (and anthropologists) with masculinity. The discipline exists, in her estimation, as ‘one of the rare intellectual vocations that do not demand a sacrifice of one’s manhood’ (189), an assessment gesturing towards those actions and alliances which produce the titular ‘Anthropologist as Hero’. With attention to Claude Lévi-Strauss,Footnote 4 Sontag highlights not only how the work of the anthropologist bears the imprimatur of a (heroic) paternalism—involved in nothing less than saving the ‘primitives’ of the worldFootnote 5—but also (recalling some of the gendered binaries noted previously in relation to music) the extent to which the anthropologist is defined by his embrace of a scientific rationality. According to Sontag, the heroic Lévi-Strauss was the archetypal ‘modern’ subject caught between conflicting poles of experience (rational/visceral), a subject who sought—through textual and theoretical actions redolent of colonialism—‘the domestication of the exotic, chiefly through science’ (185). In her estimation, ‘for Lévi-Strauss there is no doubt that anthropology must be a science, rather than a humanistic study’ (192), an enterprise that ‘[vanquishes the] subject by translating it into a purely formal code’ (192). Indeed, the anthropologist himself (most often, at the time of Sontag’s writing, himself) saves not only the Other, but his own soul ‘by a curious and ambitious act of intellectual catharsis’ (emphasis added; 190).Footnote 6 The anthropologist—and, as I will soon argue, the scion ethnomusicologist—gains masculine power not only via a subject position requiring objectification of others, but also recourse to science (or theory) which, by implication, obliterates the corporeal, sensing, sensual (read: that coded as ‘feminine’) realms of experience. I will return to this gendering of the so-called ‘scientific’ throughout, including the ways in which it aligns with an effacement of the body, and ethnocentric (colonialist) claims of (evolutionary) superiority. For now, however, I turn to another matter briefly referenced by Sontag, but central to this discussion: the ‘puberty ordeal’ (186) known as fieldwork.
To highlight the ritual characteristics of fieldwork (as anthropologists themselves have done)Footnote 7 is to once again underscore the fact that what ethnomusicologists embraced (for putatively rational purposes) was not simply a methodology, but a symbolic apparatus enabling their transition from boys (or sissy-boys) to men, in the service of their disciplinary patricide and the resistance of music’s feminizing connotations—a type of masculine cultural capital. Part and parcel of the enactment of said capital is the reliance on well-worn tropes of masculine, indeed colonialist, exploration and adventure—continually reenacted, from David Livingstone to Anthony Bourdain (or Gordon Ramsay)—which figure the intrepid voyager flirting with, and outmanoeuvring, danger. A number of contemporary anthropological texts, some with didactic aims, have highlighted the potential perils inherent in fieldwork,Footnote 8 and while it is indisputable that fieldwork may have risks (about which young students, especially, should be informed), it often appears that such risks function more as badges of honour, whipped out in order to out-Chagnon Chagnon.Footnote 9 While there are inherent problems in basing argument upon anecdote, the frequency with which I (and other colleagues) have been regaled in social and professional settings with (often, but not always, male) ethnomusicologists’ ‘war stories’ of ‘dangerous’ fieldwork is difficult to ignore—repeated tales, often delivered with an air of masculine ersatz nonchalance, relating how they faced, navigated, and triumphed over everything from war zones to machine-gun-wielding police officers to dysentery.Footnote 10 Such frequent accounts, coupled with the aforementioned prominence in the anthropological literature so central to ethnomusicological practice, would seem to be exactly the type of data one would consider were one an ethnographer studying (and speaking for) ethnomusicologists—but nowhere is this engaged in ethnomusicological texts. Instead, the ethnomusicologist becomes the self-constructed, structural opposite of the musicologist: the former appears as the active pioneer, valiant explorer, and risk-taker, while the latter is the effete, passive aesthete, seduced by the ‘beauty’ of bourgeois music, comfortably ensconced in the (one might infer ‘feminine’) safety of the library, office, or study.Footnote 11 (That any fieldworker of a marked category—female, trans*, queer, gay, lesbian, BIPOC, BAME—could be said to face much greater risk of harm in many ‘fields’, simply by virtue of their body or identity, is apparently left out of the equation.) Although the time has certainly been ripe to repudiate such easy targets as Chagnon (for professional practices, as much as gendered performance), it is arguable that his function as public whipping boy or embodied cautionary tale is a smoke screen used to camouflage the fact that such masculinist figures and tropes, and the desires for these, still function tacitly (including as a form of habitus, embodied yet not articulated) in Western academic cultures.Footnote 12
But neither fieldwork nor fearless bravado in and of themselves are enough to ensure the attainment of masculinity for this Western, humanist, academic subject. Although ‘anthropology [and ethnomusicology; author] [make] heroes of men…insisting that they exploit their alienation, their intrepid homelessness’ (emphasis added; Behar and Gordon 1995: 16), as Dubois argues, the idea that travel-running-seeking-exploring is the Kerouackian route to knowledge and an authentic manhood that escapes the structures/strictures of repressive (bourgeois, ‘feminine’) society is a blind loop, inasmuch as the very narrative of this path is already deeply established as a (banal cultural) narrative. Speaking of his own experience, Dubois notes ‘At the heart of what I wanted to run from were texts about that very act of running; I couldn’t escape, because the ways of escaping were already defined, from right in the heart of what I thought I was escaping’ (1995: 314). Moreover, for all the talk of freedom from stricture, both anthropologists and ethnomusicologists are still ‘at home in an institution that, even if it centres itself on a process of alienation from institutions, still functions as an institution’ (317). Additionally, as both Straw and Garlick suggest, certain figures of supposedly unadulterated, raw masculinity are problematic for myriad groups of Western, often white, and upper- or upper-middle-class men. The ‘brute’, for example—all action, no thought, a figure of ‘uncultivated instinctuality’, ‘independent of knowledges which originate and find value within the social and the symbolic’ generally ‘has not been a principal source of heroic or appealing imageries of the [Western] male’ (Straw 1997: 8);Footnote 13 similarly, the ‘caveman’ identity posited in part by sociobiologists,Footnote 14 with its ‘valorization of an animalistic, emotional, or primal-driven concept of male nature’ (Garlick 2010: 609) is ‘tamed’ (yet definitely not castrated) in contemporary culture, in part, by the union of sexuality and science-as-technology—specifically in the realm of ubiquitous online pornography that functions to ‘[allow] nature to be brought under control and channeled toward ends that serve the project of hegemonic masculinity’ (609.). Taken together, the implication is that bravado, fortitude, and testosterone-driven rebelliousness alone cannot a man make; rather, to be a man—a masculine, ‘modern’, ‘evolved’ man—the civilizing and interrelated ingredients of rationality and intellect are essential.Footnote 15
Masculinity, of course, can never be thought of as singular, transcultural, or transhistorical; from the entire gamut of possible masculinities, individual instances relate to historical, geographical, and discursive/epistemic specificities. Moreover, as Boise suggests, there is a danger in positing various ‘types’ of masculinity, actions that may ‘pathologize a cluster of behaviors under a decontextualized, ahistorical label….individualize social problems and….ignore the contextual nature of various performances, presuming a certain essence to these constructs’ (2019: 149). Wishing to avoid such pitfalls, I highlight that in the specific context of the institutional/academic/(upper)-middle-class culture in which ethnomusicological identities are formed (in conjunction with discourses from the cultural context as a whole, as well as the foundations of colonialist epistemology), it is the intellectual/rational that is integral to the construction of this situated masculinity, performatively enacted via the use (at least) and/or production of (better still) Theory. While ‘intellectualism’ may, in certain contexts, be an epithet, in conjunction with a certain type of elite, privileged, and ultimately non-masculine subject and position, in the realm of the modern, Western university structure, it is the intellectual—the producer of Theory (the capital ‘T’ essential)—that accrues inestimable cultural capital and power.
In addition to (and in consort with) use and production, the very instruments of intellectual engagement themselves—as Lutz has persuasively argued—have profoundly gendered characteristics. In Lutz’s view, the type of theory most valued in contemporary academia is itself marked as male; conversely, ‘women’s words, work, and selves in U.S. society have been undervalued, judged less competent, less rational, and more emotional’ (1995: 250), often dismissed as mere ‘description (or complaint)’ (259).Footnote 16 Ultimately, it is that type of writing with pretentions to universality, depth, or timelessness, ‘denuded of…origin…stripped of…reference to a concrete phenomenal world’ (253),Footnote 17 which is coded as male/masculine and thus valuable.Footnote 18 Writing more than two decades later, Davidov states unequivocally, ‘everything Lutz described is still true’, arguing that ‘what gets recognized as theory is likely contingent on it announcing itself as theory—which, as Lutz notes, is a claim rooted in the entitlement and confidence that has historically been the provenance of men in academia’ (2018). The extent to which these gendered dynamics play out in high-profile, public, academic forums—in the ‘enlightened present’—is highlighted by Halme-Tuomisaari who notes the near-total eradication of any female scholars’ work from the keynote delivered by Didier Fassin at a major anthropological conference, and the speaker’s definition (whether implicit or explicit) of ‘critical theory as something that is entirely “male”’ (2016). Such an act ‘forms a textbook example of how the male dominance of […] academia is not only being actively reproduced, but even emphasized’, and is part of a larger dynamic with profoundly deleterious consequences for younger, female scholars who may question the purpose of devoting their lives to an exploration of human culture (contributing ‘the kind of data that it would simply [be] impossible for male scholars to produce’ emanating as they are from gender-specific contexts) only to have their work ‘ignored and erased from the debate’.Footnote 19 These divisions of labour, in true (gendered) colonialist fashion, play out at the level of geocultural location, as well. As Moosavi notes—in relation to decolonial theory itself—although ‘sophisticated [decolonial] theory has been produced in the Global South since the 1970s’, it was ‘only popularized in the Global North since 2014/2015’ (2020: 341), this in line with ‘the prevailing tendency to believe that events, developments, and questions only matter when they manifest [in the latter location]’ (334). As I will later discuss, hierarchicalizations of T/theory also play out in relation to queerness, itself related to coloniality; as Macharia highlights, reading through U.S.-produced work circulating as ‘queer African studies’, one is confronted by its ‘[indifference] to many of the conceptual frames in African studies’, so that it is ‘difficult to imagine that African philosophers…have ever written anything that conceptualizes personhood, individuality, or community’ (2016: 185).Footnote 20
Returning to music studies, Brett suggests that the penchant in modern ethnomusicology to rely upon theory—where ‘jargon’ affords the same sort of abstraction and mystification the modernists adored—indicates a desire to masculinize the discipline (1994: 15). While ethnomusicologists do not always aspire to produce ‘grand theory’ themselves, it is rare to find work that does not in some essential way rely on the work of one or another ‘major’ Theorist. And here it is essential to note—as did Halme-Tuomisaari, in the case of anthropology—that in the vast majority of cases, these theorists are men (overwhelmingly, white men of the Global North).Footnote 21 Certainly, owing to inequality, the percentage of (Western) men allowed into this self-constructed/self-perpetuating pantheon of excellence far exceeds that of women, so that one might (inconceivably) excuse the omission as a purely statistical matter. But it is implausible to argue that it is only statistics contributing to the absence of the work of female scholars as theoretical supports for ethnomusicological research. As only one example: while researchers of globalization such as Arjun Appadurai, Zygmunt Bauman, and David Harvey appear in literally hundreds of articles in the journal Ethnomusicology, searching for Saskia Sassen produces—as of mid-2020—zero hits.Footnote 22 To argue that the complete invisibility of a prominent theorist (of one of the central concerns of ethnomusicology for the past two-plus decades) is simply a matter of numbers would be both unfathomable and disturbing. Further to this, I would suggest that, to the extent that ‘amateurism’ has been conflated with the feminine (Biddle and Gibson 2009), ethnomusicologists, flaunting their conversance with Theory from Heidegger to Habermas (and scores of other white, European/U.S. male theorists), peppering their monographs with neologisms and supposedly paradigm-shifting (indeed, world-shifting) theoretical concepts, construct themselves and their discipline in superior contradistinction to what they mistakenly view as the antiquated, provincial, ‘feminized’ activities (collecting, describing, poring over minutiae—like needlework or lace tatting) of (strawperson constructions of) musicologists.
What both disciplines share—musicology with attention to the composer, ethnomusicology with reference to the theorist—is a continuation of the veneration of the cult of (male) power: The sophisticated manipulator of sonic-intellectual material on the one hand, sunburned and dust-covered explorer-theorist on the other.Footnote 23 But there is a significant difference here: if the voice of the musicologist is in some ways aligned horizontally with the voice of the composer/composition about whom/which he speaks (although not a ‘genius’, perhaps, the scholar is a doctor/scientist, speaking for or with another white, Western, male [product] of similar class background), the ethnomusicologist once again enjoys the vertical position of authority and power.Footnote 24 This scholar, working with the centuries-old tools of the colonist (including the attribute of a ‘civilizing’ rationality), constructs, speaks for, views, represents, and theorizes an Other—‘enunciating’ an ‘enunciated’, inventing an epistemology that becomes ontology (in and as the very materiality of the ‘object of study’) (Mignolo 2018)—who is textually subordinated and objectified by the subject/author/daredevil/scholar. Wynter’s ‘deciphering practice’ (1992) is relevant in this context, highlighting as it does the trap of claiming and identifying a specific ethic-ness (in the name of ‘culture-inclusiveness’) in the (transcultural) object of study without the necessary attention to those structural forces that allow for the very construction of both the object and its specific form of visibility. If ethnomusicologists have clung to Theory as an alleged tool for ‘interpreting’ their study objects-made-text with the necessary sophistication or complexity—a focus on what the texts mean—they have completely ignored the ‘“illocutionary force” and procedures with which [their texts] do what they do’ (Wynter: 267). That which Theories do—as rhetorical-textual devices supporting and fusing with the secondary rhetorical-textual aims of the ethnomusicological text—is obscured, including their functioning as means to perpetuate gendered identities and power structures.
Gendering may be clearly seen as operative in the realm of globalization theory, which I have referenced previously. Here, Freeman makes an important observation that it is not only the epistemological posits emanating from the canonical voices defining the area of inquiry that have been gendered as male/masculine, but ‘the very processes defining globalization itself’ (which include ‘the spatial reorganization of production across national borders and a vast acceleration in the global circulation of capital, goods, labor, and ideas’) (2001: 1008), leading to the dichotomization global:masculine :: local:feminine (see also Freeman 2014a; Massey 1994).Footnote 25 It is not difficult here to map these gendered contours onto the very enterprise of ethnomusicology, where the mobile, networked, and economically privileged researcher, making use of ‘universally applicable’ grand Theories, occupies an asymmetrically advantageous power position to those various ‘local’ music-makers whose representation is determined within the various artefacts (texts, lectures) also globally, digitally sold and disseminated via the circuits of capital-backed university systems—much the same as we will see with queer theory. It should come as no surprise that a masculinist enterprise—tasked primarily with constructing the identity of the practitioner, as well as the subordinate positions of those relegated to appearing as little more than objects of study—makes near-exclusive use of the very theoretical constructions that are themselves seen to uphold a gendered stereotype and the hierarchies it reproduces.
It is vital that the disciplinary posturings I have been discussing not be dismissed as mere instances of intellectual arm wrestling, cordoned off in a rarified academic realm, impacting only upon those whose primary aim is the production of their specific gendered identities and structures. It is true that Theory plays a prominent role in these productions; as Harrison, with reference to the work of Lutz (1995), Mafeje (1998), and Haraway (1988) argues, ‘theory-making practices are integral to the formation and workings of situated knowledges…which are grounded in matrices of interlocking hierarchies of inequality and power, and materialized through historically-specific divisions of intellectual labor’ (2016: 162). But the creation and implementation of Theory—far from what may often appear to be primarily a self-aggrandizing exercise, the goal of which is personal gain (of capitals both financial and cultural)—has important applications and implications. Harrison concludes her discussion with the critical reminder that ‘to those for whom theory/theorizing is a tool for struggle against imperial forms of globalization, white supremacy, poverty, gender and sexual oppressions, environmental injustices, militarism, and the merciless negation of human rights and dignity, the crafting of convincing conceptual frames and useful theoretical tools emanates from the interlocking imperatives of intellectual efficacy and social responsibility’ (172). Theory is, as Lutz maintains, intimately involved in the ‘historical struggles over the authority of women and of minorities of both sexes to speak’ (1995: 253)—and not only within discrete, bounded, privileged realms.
While the ethnomusicologist may claim to be motivated by the ethical imperatives suggested by Harrison, it is clear that, as an unfairly advantaged, powerful participant in the struggles Lutz describes, other motivations are operative. The assumption of specific theoretical voices and positions may be undertaken to give the illusion (and delusion) of a representational space of agency for those denied any presence in music scholarship for centuries. However, understanding this specific academic/intellectual realm as primarily a site of the practitioner’s own self-gendering, the representation via gendering and gendered theory serves primarily as proof of the ability to control the Other, to upstage the father (the musicologist), and to construct the study of music as something real men (are allowed to) do. And it is essential to highlight that for the ethnomusicologist this theorized other, approached through the exhilarating danger of fieldwork, is, as I will argue—and as is inevitably the case in colonial contact—a racialized and desired Other.
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Note, however, Gibson’s argument that femininity was something thought to be inherent in all human beings; it was, for example, necessary for male children to overcome their innate femininity in order to become men (2009).
- 3.
For a discussion of Ives’s assessments, see Solomon (1987). The conflation of music, emotion, and femininity—and the ways in which this impacts upon men’s and boys’ relationships to music—is investigated by Boise (2015), Harrison (2009), and Harrison, Welch, and Adler (2012), inter alia. An explicit relationship between music and homosexuality is noted by both Brett (1994: 11) and Farmer, the latter of whom notes that ‘the affinity between gay men and the musical is so intense as to have produced at times marked metaphoric associations. In gay subcultural argot, the term musical has long been used as a coded reference to homosexuality’ (2000: 74). Such linguistic and/or symbolic relationships are highly culturally specific of course, and in other locations musicality and masculinity may be aligned (see, e.g., Faulkner 2013; Russell 2012).
- 4.
The collected volume in which the essay appears is devoted to the work of Claude Lévi-Strauss. It is notable that this specific essay’s title is taken as the title for the entire volume.
- 5.
According to Sontag, the anthropologist, understanding the ‘calamity’ of the modern devastation of the ‘primitive’ is ‘not only the mourner of [their] cold world…but its custodian as well’ (1970: 196).
- 6.
Sontag was not alone in her highlighting of Lévi-Strauss’s impassivity. According to Beauvoir, for example, as a young philosophy student-teacher, the future anthropologist would expound ‘in his detached voice, and with a deadpan expression…the folly of the passions’ (in Sontag 1970: 187).
- 7.
Johnson, in an essay exploring the dynamics of fieldwork, notes that ‘In the Boasian tradition, becoming a cultural anthropologist requires successfully “passing” a ritual sequence of research experiences as a precondition of professional status and role’; upon successful completion, ‘the novitiate is transformed into a new being—a cultural anthropologist’ (1984/2007: 77). Additionally, he calls attention to the unremarked-upon implied colour and sex of the fieldworker (white, male) in anthropological practice and literature, suggesting that ‘the kind and degree of transition out of the liminal phase of ethnographic research […] vary with respect to the color and sex of the stranger and associated expectations within host groups’ (77). See also n1, Chap. 4.
- 8.
The dangers of fieldwork are highlighted in both anthropology and sociology. See, for example, Glazer (1970); Jacobs (2006); Lee (1995); Nordstrom and Robben (1995); and Lee-Treweek and Linkogle (2000). An entire section of Robben and Sluka’s edited volume (2007) is likewise devoted to the subject. For examples of references to the possible dangers of fieldwork found in undergraduate texts, see Nanda and Warms (2014: 62–64). There are also implicit and/or explicit invocations of danger in anthropological texts such as Goffman’s work on the ‘6th Street Boys’ in Philadelphia (2014), Jacobs’s on crack dealers (1999), and Wacquant’s on boxers (2004). Goffman’s work has drawn critiques pertaining to questions of both ethics and veracity. See Lewis-Kraus for an overview of the various charges, controversies, and responses (2016).
- 9.
I am referring of course to Napoleon Chagnon, often cited as an example of the alignment of anthropology, fieldwork, and masculinity (Johnson 1984/2007: 90; Lutz 1995: 258). The title of Chagnon’s most recent book (Noble Savages: My Life Among Two Dangerous Tribes—The Yaṃnomamö and the Anthropologists) (2014)—although partially ironic, it seems—highlights this alignment as well, with a focus on the word ‘dangerous’.
- 10.
I cannot claim to have undertaken a rigorous, scientific, ethnographic study regarding the frequency of ‘laddish’ posturing and commentary from ethnomusicologists (most often males but, significantly, not exclusively) in professional or social settings. However, several colleagues have remarked upon the same ubiquitous dynamics I am describing. And although this may be considered anecdotal evidence, having experienced such self-presentations and behaviours for decades, I am quite confident that my observations are based upon a quality and quantity of ‘participant observation’ mandated by the general professional standards governing academic fieldwork.
- 11.
Kimmel has discussed just such a split in his work on the formation of a distinctly American form of nineteenth-century masculinity (1996).
- 12.
An overview of the controversies surrounding Chagnon’s work—regarding both charges of ethical lapses in his dealings with the indigenous populations about whom he has written, as well as ‘incompetence’ in his methodology and analyses—can be found in King (2013). It is interesting to note that King, referencing the ongoing intense and public clash between Chagnon and Marshall Sahlins—both among the most well-known anthropologists of the era—characterizes it as an ‘ego contest between two alpha-male primates of academic anthropology’. Although she states that this assessment does not (fully) capture the tenor of the dispute, her choice of words nonetheless suggests (correctly) that gendering is a component of such putatively ‘intellectual’ conflicts.
- 13.
Straw’s discussion comes in the context of his examination of male record collectors, a practice that might in significant ways be connected to that of the ethnomusicologist. In this regard, it is interesting to note that the trope of intrepid, heroic explorer is likewise found in relation to collectors of music from ‘trash culture’. Drawing upon an example of print media connected to the style, Straw notes ‘Here, as in trash fandoms more generally, collecting is refigured as anthropology, an expedition into the natural wilderness of discarded styles and eccentric musical deformations … [which] may be seen as part of a broader history of moves which cast the spaces of popular music consumption as primitive and adventurous’ (1997: 13).
- 14.
An analysis of the ‘caveman’ is found in McCaughey (2008).
- 15.
See also Seidler who maintains that with the advent of modernity, ‘we learn as men to “rise above” our “animal natures”, for within the framework prepared by Kant…it is only as rational selves that we can be moral beings. This is part of the identification of a dominant white heterosexual masculinity with a vision of reason that is separated from emotions that has characterized modernity’ (1997: 119).
- 16.
Quoting Goldstein (1990), Lutz notes that feminist theory is a special case, neither high enough to be respected as ‘real’ theory, nor low enough to have the cachet of authenticity. As Goldstein explains, ‘It is a middle theory, lacking the virile authenticity of the low and the aristocratic cachet of the high…It is, therefore, unforgivably middlebrow, a theory associated with women, and (often) with the practical concerns of political engagement’ (Goldstein 1990; in Lutz: 259).
- 17.
Lutz here draws on Smith (1974). The relationship to Sontag’s assessment of Lévi-Strauss—the ‘primitive’ turned into pure code—is obvious.
- 18.
Bourdieu also suggests that this type of ‘abstract’ theory is often coded as male and constructed as more valuable. He notes: ‘I cannot avoid seeing an effect of submission to the dominant models in the fact that, both in France and in the United States, attention and discussion focus on a few female theorists, capable of excelling in what one of their critics has called “the race for theory”, rather than on magnificent studies…which are infinitely richer and more fertile, even from a theoretical point of view, but are less in conformity with the—typically masculine—idea of “grand theory”’ (2001: 98, n31).
- 19.
Highlighting the fact that anthropology is a discipline rich with the intellectual work of women, Halme-Tuomisaari notes that Fassin’s exclusions were hardly a one-off; a keynote lecture and accompanying paper by Mark Goodale on the Allegra Laboratory site, entitled ‘The World As It Is, and the World As It Wants To Be’—focusing on the contemporary human rights phenomenon—were, like Fassin’s keynote, ‘rather startlingly…a virtual “all male panel”’. (Goodale’s paper may be accessed via the link at https://allegralaboratory.net/the-world-as-it-is-and-as-and-the-world-as-it-wants-to-be/; last accessed 1 November 2022.) It is perhaps significant to note that her essay appears not as an extended critique in a peer-reviewed journal, but on her own internet space (co-created with Julie Billaud), suggesting not only that such critiques might fail to successfully pass through the gatekeepers of journals’ editorial staffs, but also that unwavering critique in highly visible professional locations might place already relatively disempowered scholars in a precarious position. Indeed, Halme-Tuomisaari notes that she does not believe Goodale would be ‘petty enough to turn against me on academic grounds for sharing such, still relatively mild critique’ (emphasis added), she explicitly states that she was ‘hesitant in sharing [the] story’ even in a relatively ‘low stakes’ forum, as ‘being on good terms with him might, perhaps, prove advantageous for my future career’. It is indeed likely that her assessment—‘I trust that the reader will understand my hesitation’—would resonate with and be comprehensible to many researchers in the current academic landscape of the Global North.
- 20.
Macharia notes specifically John Mbiti, Kwasi Wiredu, and Nkiru Nzegwu.
- 21.
Ewell—whose work I have referenced, and to which I will later turn—has noted the overwhelming, obliterating prominence of white males in what is accepted as ‘the canon’ in Music Theory. Understanding that the preeminent theorist of this canon—Heinrich Schenker—was also undeniably racist, is contributory to the perpetuation of this discipline’s ‘white racial frame’ (2020).
- 22.
See also Conkey who explores a similar sidelining (or ‘ghettoization’) of women’s theoretical contributions to anthropological archaeology (2007). Conkey notes that when women’s theoretical contributions are encountered, it is most often in relation to issues constructed as feminine (or ‘female issues’)—specifically, gender (which, as I have noted, is often collapsed into ‘woman’ in ethnomusicological scholarship). This dynamic of transforming variables such as race or gender into ‘special’ (rather than ‘universal’) issues will be engaged in later chapters.
- 23.
- 24.
The characterization of musicologists’ research as focusing primarily upon ‘the’ ‘great’ composers, while it may have had some currency in decades past, is belied by more contemporary scholarship. Aligning, in part, with the advent of the ‘new’ musicology in the nineteen eighties and continuing to the present day, the discipline has become notable for a wide array of foci and (often interdisciplinary) approaches. Even in instances where composers from the European canon serve as research subjects, these figures (and their works) are almost inevitably situated in complex cultural contexts, with their works analysed not (only) as textual artefacts, but in relation to performance, ideology, discourse, embodiment, and numerous other registers. See, for example, André’s work on gender, sexuality, and race in opera (André 2006, 2018), and Cook on performance (2014).
- 25.
In her chapter, Freeman dismantles this supposed gendered local/global split with attention to the specific complex actions of Caribbean ‘pink-collar’ ‘higglers’ (marketers) operating in the late twentieth/early twenty-first century (2014a) (see also Freeman 2002, 2014b). See also Massey, who makes a similar argument regarding the binary of place/space, and its gendered connotations. According to her, the former represents ‘Being, and to it are attached a range of epithets and connotations: local, specific, concrete, descriptive’, while the latter has suggestions of the ‘general, universal, theoretical/abstract/conceptual’, and is ‘in current western ways of thinking, coded masculine’ (1994: 9).
Bibliography
André, Naomi. 2006. Voicing Gender: Castrati, Travesti, and the Second Woman in Early Nineteenth-Century Italian Opera. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
André, Naomi. 2018. Black Opera: History, Power, Engagement. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Behar, Ruth and Deborah A. Gordon. 1995. ‘Introduction: Out of Exile’. Women Writing Culture (ed. Ruth Behar and Deborah A. Gordon). Berkeley: University of California Press. 1–29.
Biddle, Ian D. and Kristen Gibson. 2009. ‘Introduction’. Masculinity and Western Musical Practice (ed. Ian D. Biddle and Kristen Gibson). Farnham: Ashgate. 1–12.
Boise, Sam de. 2015. Men, Masculinity, Music, and Emotions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Boise, Sam de. 2019. ‘Editorial: Is Masculinity Toxic?’ NORMA 14(3): 147–151.
Bolton, Richard. 1989. ‘In the American East: Richard Avedon Incorporated’. The Contest of Meaning: Critical Histories of Photography (ed. Richard Bolton). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (trans. Richard Nice). 2001. Masculine Domination. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
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.
Chagnon, Napoleon. 2014. Noble Savages: My Life Among Two Dangerous Tribes – the Yanamamö and the Anthropologists. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Conkey, Margaret W. 2007. ‘Questioning Theory: Is There a Gender of Theory in Archaeology?’ Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14(3): 285–310.
Cook, Nicholas. 2014. Beyond the Score: Music as Performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davidov, Veronica. 2018. ‘Theory Isn’t What It Used to Be’. Fieldsights/Hot Spots, 26 September 2018. Accessed at https://culanth.org/fieldsights/theory-isnt-what-it-used-to-be; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Dubois, Laurent. 1995. ‘“Man’s Darkest Hours”: Maleness, Travel, and Anthropology’. Women Writing Culture (ed. Ruth Behar and Deborah A. Gordon). Berkeley: University of California Press. 306–321.
Ewell, Philip. 2020. ‘Music Theory and the White Racial Frame’. Music Theory Online 26(2). Accessed at https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.20.26.2/mto.20.26.2.ewell.html; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Farmer, Brett. 2000. Spectacular Passions: Cinema, Fantasy, Gay Male Spectatorship. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Faulkner, Robert. 2013. Icelandic Men and Me: Sagas of Singing, Self, and Everyday Life. Farnham: Ashgate.
Freeman, Carla. 2001. ‘Is Local: Global as Feminine: Masculine?: Rethinking the Gender of Globalization’. Signs 26(4): 1007–1037.
Freeman, Carla. 2002. ‘Mobility, Rootedness, and the Caribbean Higgler: Production, Consumption, and Transnational Livelihoods’. Work and Migration: Life and Livelihoods in a Globalizing World (ed. Ninna Sorenson and Karen Fog Olwig). London: Routledge. 61–81.
Freeman, Carla. 2014a. ‘Globalization’. Critical Terms for the Study of Gender (ed. Catharine R. Stimpson and Gilbert Herdt). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 115–138.
Freeman, Carla. 2014b. Entrepreneurial Selves: Neoliberal Respectability and the Making of a Caribbean Middle Class. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Garlick, Steve. 2010. ‘Taking Control of Sex?: Hegemonic Masculinity, Technology, and Internet Pornography’. Men and Masculinities 12(5): 597–614.
Gibson, Kristen. 2009. ‘Music, Melancholy, and Masculinity in Early Modern England’. Masculinity and Western Musical Practice (ed. Ian D. Biddle and Kristen Gibson). Farnham: Ashgate. 41–66.
Glazer, Myron. 1970. ‘Fieldwork in a Hostile Environment: A Chapter in the Sociology of Social Research in Chile’. Student Politics in Chile (ed. Frank Bonilla and Myron Glazer). New York: Basic Books. 313–333.
Goffman, Alice. 2014. On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldstein, Judith. 1990. ‘Sex, Makeup, and Videotape’. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, New Orleans, LA.
Halme-Tuomisaari, Miia. 2016. ‘Where Are the Ladies, Didier Fassin? #EASA2016 Keynote’. Allegra Lab, 21 July. Accessed at https://allegralaboratory.net/where-are-the-ladies-didier-fassin-easa2016-keynote/; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Haraway, Donna. 1988. ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’. Feminist Studies 14(3): 575–599
Harrison, Scott D. 2009. ‘Aussie Blokes and Music’. Male Voices: Stories of Boys Learning Through Making Music (ed. Scott D. Harrison). Camberwell: ACER Press. 4–15.
Harrison, Faye V. 2016. ‘Theorizing in Ex-Centric Sites’. Anthropological Theory 16(2–3): 160–176.
Harrison, Scott D., Graham Welch, and Adam Adler, eds. 2012. Perspectives on Males and Singing. Dordrecht: Springer.
Holsinger, Bruce. 2001. Music, Body, and Desire in Medieval Culture: Hildegard of Bingen to Chaucer. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Jacobs, Bruce A. 1999. Dealing Crack: The Social World of Streetcorner Selling. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Jacobs, Bruce A. 2006. ‘The Case for Dangerous Fieldwork’. The SAGE Handbook of Fieldwork (ed. Dick Hobbs and Richard Wright). Thousand Oaks: SAGE. 157–169.
Johnson, Norris Brock. 1984/2007. ‘Sex, Color, and Rites of Passage in Ethnographic Research’. Ethnographic Fieldwork: An Anthropological Reader (ed. Antonius C.G.M. Robben and Jeffrey A. Sluka). Malden: Blackwell. 76–91.
Kimmel, Michael S. 1996. Manhood in America: A Cultural History. New York: The Free Press.
King, Barbara J. 2013. ‘The Napoleon Chagnon Wars Flare Up Again in Anthropology’. National Public Radio, 28 February 2013. Accessed at https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/02/26/172951757/the-napoleon-chagnon-wars-flare-up-again-in-anthropology?t=1650922970468; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Leach, Elizabeth Eva. 2009. ‘Music and Masculinity in the Middle Ages’. Masculinity and Western Musical Practice (ed. Ian D. Biddle and Kristen Gibson). Farnham: Ashgate. 21–39.
Leach, Elizabeth Eva. 2013. ‘The Sound of Beauty’. Beauty (ed. Laruen Arrington, Zöe Leinhardt, and Philip Dawid). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 72–98.
Lee, Raymond. 1995. Dangerous Fieldwork. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Lee-Treweek, Geraldine and Stephanie Linkogle, eds. 2000. Danger in the Field: Risk and Ethics in Social Research. London: Routledge.
Lewis-Kraus, Gideon. 2016. ‘The Trials of Alice Goffman’. The New York Times Magazine, 12 January 2016. Accessed at https://www.nytmes.com/2016/01/17/magazine/the-trials-of-alice-goffman.html; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Lutz, Catherine. 1995. ‘The Gender of Theory’. Women Writing Culture (ed. Ruth Behar and Deborah A. Gordon). Berkeley: University of California Press. 249–266.
Macharia, Keguro. 2016. ‘On Being Area-Studied: A Litany of Complaint’. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 22(2): 183–190.
Mafeje, Archie. 1998. ‘Anthropology and Independent Africans: Suicide or End of an Era?’ African Sociological Review 2(1): 1–43.
Massey, Doreen. 1994. Space, Place, and Gender. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
McCaughey, Martha. 2008. The Caveman Mystique: Pop-Darwinism and the Debates over Sex, Violence, and Science. New York: Routledge.
Mignolo, Walter D. 2018. ‘The Conceptual Triad: Modernity/Coloniality/Decoloniality’. On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis (Walter D. Mignolo and Catherine E. Walsh). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 135–152.
Moosavi, Leon. 2020. ‘The Decolonial Bandwagon and the Dangers of Intellectual Decolonisation’. International Review of Sociology 30(2): 332–354.
Nanda, Serena and Richard L. Warms. 2014. Cultural Anthropology (Eleventh Edition). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning-Wadsworth.
Nettl, Bruno. 2002. Encounters in Ethnomusicology: A Memoir. Warren, MI: Harmonie Park Press.
Nordstrom, Carolyn and Antonius C.G.M. Robben, eds. 1995. Fieldwork under Fire: Contemporary Studies of Violence and Survival. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Robben, Antonius C.G.M. and Jeffrey A. Sluka, eds. 2007. Ethnographic Fieldwork: An Anthropological Reader. Mladen: Blackwell.
Russell, Joan. 2012. ‘Communities of Singing Practice in the Fiji Islands’. Perspectives on Males and Singning (ed. Scott D. Harrison, Graham Welch, and Adam Adler). Dordrecht: Springer. 189–199.
Seidler, Victor. 1997. Man Enough: Embodying Masculinities. London: Sage.
Smith, Dorothy. 1974. ‘Theorizing as Ideology’. Ethnomethodology: Selected Readings (ed. Roy Turner). Harmondsworth: Penguin. 41–44.
Solomon, Maynard. 1987. ‘Charles Ives: Some Questions of Veracity’. Journal of the American Musicological Society 40(3): 443–470.
Sontag, Susan. 1970. ‘The Anthropologist as Hero’. Claude Lévi-Strauss: The Anthropologist as Hero (ed. E. Nelson Hayes and Tanya Hayes). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 184–196.
Straw, Will. 1997. ‘Sizing Up Record Collections: Gender and Connoisseurship in Rock Music Culture’. Sexing the Groove (ed. Sheila Whiteley). London: Routledge. 3–16.
Wacquant, Loïc J.D. 2004. Body & Soul: Notebooks of an Apprentice Boxer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wynter, Sylvia. 1992. ‘Rethinking “Aesthetics”: Notes Towards a Deciphering Practice’. Ex-Iles: Essays on Caribbean Cinema (ed. Mbye Cham). Trenton: Africa World Press. 237–279.
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). We Don’t Need Another He(te)ro. In: Ethnomusicology, Queerness, Masculinity. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15313-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15313-6_3
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)