Abstract
Foregrounding the fetishization of textually represented ‘of-color Others’, the indissoluble links among sex, gender, sexuality, and race are exposed as responsible for the injunction against same-sex desire within the discipline. Surveying the history of whites’ fantastic constructions of these Others’ imagined inherent masculinity and heterosexuality, as well as the exploitation of their cultural production (including music) for the construction of the ethnomusicologist’s own gendered identity, homophobia is shown as concomitant with an unspeakable homoerotic/homophilic desire. Moreover, recent calls within anthropological research to abandon theory-driven distancing between researcher and subject—to instead share in experiential/sensual space—render any acknowledgment of same-sex desire highly dangerous, capable of exposing the precarity of gendered identities as well as the asymmetrical power relationships structuring ethnographic research.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
The donning of the intrepid explorer’s drag, concurrent with that of the ‘rational’, scientist-subject who in fact textually objectifies (speaks for, monologically controls) an Other is certainly part of the masquerade of masculinity that is foundational to the discipline of ethnomusicology, a discipline that has in large part consistently hypervalued men’s words, works, and practices (on both sides of the subject/object divide)—and, concomitantly, eradicated by silence same-sex desire, indeed any type of desire that might problematize a hierarchical sexual binary. This eradication may also be related to the need of those in power to keep structural or ‘practical’ control of the discipline: specifically, motivations engendered by heterosexual, white, privileged men’s discomfort with the establishment of a site of inquiry (‘LGBT+ communities’—of all hues, in geographically diverse locations) to which they might not have the unimpeded access they have always enjoyed. By dint of the racial, social, and pecuniary registers which have been in many ways taken by ethnomusicologists (and the cultural construct in which they operate) to confer an unproblematic, God-given right to intrude anywhere—and in these far-flung anywheres remain as the self-constructed vertically superior subjectFootnote 1—the possibility of perceived exclusion may still provoke apprehension.Footnote 2
But if gay/queer/homosexual/(+) men have been constructed as passive, feminine (discursively figured in a patriarchally defined realm in manifestly negative terms), and inferiority incarnate in regards to tumescent heterosexuality, it could be expected that ethnomusicologists—accustomed to the role of powerful interloper, speaking for any number of Others—would simply keep masculine constructions and prerogatives intact by exploring music makers/consumers of non-normative sexual identities in ‘dangerous’ locations (thus, intrepid), ultimately taking textual control of their subjects’ voices and practices (thus, superior). The fact that this most certainly has not been the case (as attested to by the paucity of work over the course of more than half a century) makes it clear that the roots of this homophobia are both complex and deep-rooted, not simply the result of ‘practical’ matters such as the canard of ‘access’. If bloodless, sanitized rationality coupled with the enactment of pitiable caricatures were to be the means towards the avoidance of the feminized sensuality of music(ology) and at the same time the saviours of masculinity, it is important to remember that all human action, including that of ‘rational’, ‘scientific’ ethnomusicologists, is in significant ways motivated by affects and desires, often of a sensual/sexual/erotic nature—and perhaps nowhere is this more important to remember than in relation to music. In this regard it is essential to highlight the ways in which the body of the racialized, ‘of-color-Other’ (or ‘other-than-white-Other’) has been exploited as perhaps the deepest and most intricate locus for the construction of one group’s always already irrational conception of masculinity—and how the incoherence of these constructions relate, moreover, to a homophobia undergirded by fears of contamination or taint, and abdication of ultimate control. That the colony has often been figured by the colonizer as the site of sexual access and excess (to and of the colonized)—an anxiety-producing site of ‘degeneracy’ wherein ‘unconventional sex’ was figured as a ‘danger to the body politic’ (Rao 2020: 8)Footnote 3—highlights the volatility of the very ‘laboratory’ that the ethnomusicologist has constructed, as well as the extraordinary tactics (including obliteration via silence) necessary to prevent devastation of the inextricably linked constructs of identity and discipline.
While ethnomusicology is in theory defined by approach, not study object, in actual practice—as attested to by even a cursory glance at the artefacts that make up the discipline’s collected research—it is a field that finds its sine qua non in the exploration/exploitation/excavation of ‘non-Western’, ‘non-white’ Others (largely, throughout a majority of the discipline’s existence, by privileged, Western whites) (Amico 2020).Footnote 4 The extent to which those of the Global North have used subjects of colour symbolically, materially, and financially—for example, the exploitation of black cultural (including musical) production in the United States—has not been confined solely to the realm of ethnomusicology, of course, as numerous studies from diverse disciplines demonstrate.Footnote 5 Baraka, in his provocatively and aptly titled essay describes the ‘great music robbery’ as ‘an attempt by the bourgeoisie to claim and coopt, in a growingly more obvious way, black music as the creation of whites’ (1987: 331).Footnote 6 White highlights much the same dynamic in a contemporary cultural landscape, lamenting this continued exploitation of blackness, founded and dependent on decontextualization, and perpetuated by upper classes that have systematically exploited the cultural production of ‘blacks existing at the margins of society, which since the 1960s have been privileged sites of authenticity by social researchers’ (2011: 28) (including, I suggest, anthropologists and ethnomusicologists). Labelling the appropriation and exportation of blackness a ‘global pandemic’ (29), with the centrality of hip-hop in transnational youth cultures based not on empathy but on ‘racial information that is…likely to be reductive or problematic’ (30), cultural production becomes ‘a tool to sell everything from sheet music…to sneakers’ (27).Footnote 7 Additionally, highlighting the wide cultural terrain over which such dynamics occur, Hughey argues that the exploitation of black masculinity (in relation to the construction of white masculinity) occurs among groups often assumed to be ideologically, culturally, and often geographically distinct—specifically, in his study, white nationalists and white antiracists (2012). But while ethnomusicologists have striven—at least on a superficial level—to combat just such decontextualization as White notes, despite their self-presentation as the (‘woke’) ‘good guys’, it is clear that the discipline owes its very existence in large part to selling products (and making careers) through the mining of the cultural production of ethnically marked Others, via asymmetrical power relations.
It is essential to understand that this attraction to the ‘of-color-Other’ and his (most often, his) cultural production rests upon very specific attributes implied and inferred from the position of the exploiter, including—in the context of this discussion—the variable of the Other’s assumed masculinity. Europeans (and later, those from the United States and other Anglophone countries) have long created essentialist and racist myths about the sexuality of ‘dark primitives’, whereby this ‘primitive’ (including the black African),Footnote 8 ‘close to nature, ruled by instinct…had to be heterosexual, his sexual energies and outlets devoted exclusively to their “natural” purpose: biological reproduction’ (Cole and Guy-Sheftall 2003: 165; in Collins 2004: 105).Footnote 9 The possibility of the taint of feminizing homosexuality removed, the constructed (enunciated) ‘primitive’ thus stands as a pinnacle of heteronormative masculinity.Footnote 10 Such constructions inevitably reveal more about the self than the Other, and with minstrelsy we may see, according to Lott, how white men have historically mediated their relationships with one another via the currency of exchange based on black masculinity (1993). This construction of/obsession with black masculinity was, unsurprisingly, quite visible in the middle of the twentieth century—the moment of ethnomusicology’s birth—often connected to the world of jazz and the jazz musician. Monson, in her examination of ‘white hipness’ finds that for whites ‘the “subcultural” image of bebop was nourished by a conflation of the music with a style of black masculinity’ (1995: 402), and indeed voices of the era (from Jack Kerouac to Mezz Mezzrow to Norman Mailer) highlight the ways white men have conflated blackness with a particularly potent type of manliness.Footnote 11 Gabbard, with a focus on music in U.S. filmmaking, explores the ways in which black musicians, audible yet perpetually invisible, have often been used by white actors and audiences as a means of bolstering constructions of masculinity (2004). Indeed, in contradistinction to classical music, jazz and blues could be exploited for both their ‘anti-institutional cachet’ as well as their connection to ‘the phallic power of black masculinity’ (Gabbard: 204). Such practices are, of course, not limited to the sphere of expressive culture; Gabbard also suggests that ‘Virtually every syllable of body language with which white athletes and white rock musicians exhibit their masculinity is rooted in African American culture’ (210), while according to Lott, ‘this dynamic, persisting into adulthood, is so much a part of most American white men’s equipment for living that they remain entirely unaware of their participation in it’ (1993: 54).Footnote 12
Monson finds that ‘the symbolic intersection of masculinity, music, and race perhaps explains the persistence of jazz as a fraternity of predominantly male musicians’ (1995: 405n36); and according to Reeser, on the one hand ‘certain cultural constructs often linked to black masculinity…can be employed to assuage white men’s anxiety of their own lacking masculinity’ (2010: 154), while on the other ‘identification with another racial masculinity may suggest a desire to subvert white masculinity by including non-white aspects within it’ (155). Taken together, these observations gesture towards the complex relationship between ethnomusicologists, their preferred objects of study, their disciplinary ancestors, and the gendered and sexed make-up of the academic field. The ethnomusicologist, already masculinized via the symbolics of fieldwork, enhanced theoretical mettle vis-à-vis what is constructed as an intellectually flaccid musicology, and the gendered position of the colonizer, gains further manly capital via disciplinary, textual, and literal propinquity to the possessor of untrammelled, unmediated, undiluted masculinity. Rather than seen as subordinated, however, the privileged, Western subject maintains power over these paragons of virility once again via Theory and text: while the object Other may risk the feminizing influences of music—rendering him too emotional, expressive, uninhibitedFootnote 13—the ethnomusicologist maintains a specifically Western, (upper-)middle-class figuration of alpha-male superiority via the production of rational, analytical texts that serve as the ultimate (structural) voice, the ‘word(s) of the father’ (to bastardize Jacques Lacan).
That textuality is closely related to visuality highlights the extent to which the constructed, hierarchical, and gendered positions of viewer/viewed (far different both theoretically and experientially than relationships sonic in nature) has figured so prominently in Western ‘science’ in general, and anthropology in particular. Of the former, Haraway notes that the specifically disembodied (‘scientific’, ‘objective’) gaze ‘signifies the unmarked positions of Man and White’, related to the ‘god trick of seeing everything from nowhere’ (1988: 581). And Agamben, focusing on Carl Linneaus’s System Naturae, highlights the botanist’s implicit definition of homo sapiens as ‘a machine or device for producing the recognition of the human’ (2004: 26)—an ‘anthropological’ ‘optical machine’, in Agamben’s words, whose very essence rests upon the ability to confer human/non-human status to self and Other (in line with the colonialist move explored by Mbembe [2013/2017], Mignolo [2018], and Wynter [2003], to which I have earlier referred—and to which I will return). Such optical/textual relationships are also explored by Wallace in his analysis of representations of black masculinity, including whites’ (mis-) perceptions of the same (2002). Wallace notes the simultaneity of black bodies’ subjection to both hyper- and invisibility, surveillance versus obliteration—a simultaneity that mirrors the status of the non-white ‘subject’ in ethnomusicology (serving as research ‘object’; under-represented or invisible in the discipline’s positions of power).Footnote 14 With this foregrounding-effacing dynamic in mind, he enlists the neologism ‘spectragraphia’ to describe the manner in which the black male is visually represented, a ‘chronic syndrome of inscripted misrepresentation’, an ‘imperfect—indeed illusory—cultural vision’ distorted yet devoutly trusted at the level of ‘blind faith’ (30–31).Footnote 15 Understanding the extent to which ethnomusicological research does indeed rely upon the visual—texts, in which the musical/sensual/sonic are often obliterated (thus the jesting/critical ‘eth-no-music-ology’)—Wallace’s highlighting of the ‘spectragraphic impulse…as willful blindness [that] protects the bemused from ever having to know’ (in contrast to Derrida’s assessment of the ‘European idea’ which ‘relates seeing to knowing’) (31) resonates with Lott’s findings in relation to his exploration of Elvis impersonators. Viewed as bound up with questions of both race and masculinity, such performances ‘[suggest] that the assumption of white working-class codes of masculinity in the United States is partly negotiated through an imaginary black interlocutor but that the latter must remain only dimly acknowledged’ (emphasis added; 2017: 175). Both explorations are instructive not only in foregrounding the racialized construction of viewing, but also the limits of so-called ‘representation’.
4.1 The Terror of Touching
The concurrent and contradictory relationships between the surveilled and the effaced, of putative ‘representation’ and actual invisibilization in relation to racialized bodies highlights again the extent to which these edifices of academic masculinity inevitably lie upon supremely unstable foundations—and indeed, hierarchicalized raced and gendered constructions are invariably inherently internally logically incoherent. For example, while Stoler suggests that ‘the demasculinization of colonized men and the hypermasculinity of European males represent principal assertions of white supremacy’ (1991:56; in Guttman 1997: 389), both Kimmel (1994) and Reeser (2010) highlight the fact that the hierarchical relationships between white and non-white masculinities may be represented and experienced in ways that seem contradictory; the Other may be seen as demasculinized by the (self-constructed as) structurally superior writing/speaking (enunciating) subject, yet the perceived desire (or need) of colonizer to control indicates an Othered masculinity that is feared to be essentially superior. One does not need to control the powerless.
The sense of insecurity engendered by unacknowledged understandings of the tenuousness of one’s own constructed sense of self has almost certainly been further intensified via a different set of voices emerging in anthropology (ethnomusicology’s real-man-crush) over the past two decades, calling for a reassessment of some of the field’s most foundational tenets and methodologies (methodologies shared with and foundational to ethnomusicology’s man-building remit). Harrison, for example, suggests the utility of embracing fiction as a source of anthropological information, enabling the ‘[encoding of] truth claims—and alternative modes of theorizing—in a rhetoric of imagination that accommodates and entertains the imaginable’ (2008: 121). Such a move implicitly and explicitly questions the (gendered) supremacy of ‘objective’ ‘scientific’ ‘data’, and ‘resists, protests, and works against the grain of those constructs of validity and reliability that…privilege elitist, white male representations and explanations of the world’ (121). Additionally, her call to dismantle supposed barriers between theory and practice resonates with numerous scholars’ reconceptualizations of the field’s methods, with far-reaching implications (Harrison 2016). For example, Fluehr-Lobban’s focus on the importance of participatory and/or collaborative work between the researcher and the native population—a mode of interacting derived, in part, from feminist research—calls into question not only issues of shared epistemological but also material space, implicating dynamics of embodiment and experience (2012). Indeed, the necessity of envisioning ethnographic fieldwork as contingent upon a sharing of experiential space is argued by many as central to the production of anthropological knowledge: Laplantine proposes a fieldwork based upon ‘an experience of sharing in the sensible’ (Laplantine 2005/2015: 2), and Pink, one that is ‘embodied, emplaced, sensorial, empathic, rather than occurring simply through a mix of participation and observation’ (2009: 63).Footnote 16 Goulet and Miller, moreover—with reference to the work of both Amanda Coffey (1999) and Johannes Fabian (2001)—call for an ethnography wherein the hierarchy (and the very separability) of self/Other-researcher/subject is interrogated via a shared experiential, even ‘ecstatic’ space (2007), while Fabian himself entreats the researcher to crack open the ‘hardened little nut that “theory” has become’ and expose one’s self to ‘a world of interest and amazement, of desire and pleasure, of involvement and performance’ (2001: 6).Footnote 17 And it is exactly desire and attendant pleasure—lying at the heart of the exclusionary phobia that has structured ethnomusicology for decades—to which I now turn.
If the layers of naturalization and/or essentialism (‘this is what is [not] studied in the discipline of ethnomusicology’) are peeled away, if the lie of ‘righting the wrongs of musicology’ as proffered ethical catalyst is exposed, what is ultimately revealed as lying at the heart of this obsessive, indeed fetishistic, interest in the racialized male Other that has so typified much of what has stood for the quintessential ethnomusicological, the brand sold to students, publishers, and colleagues? Although biology is not guarantor of gender, to gender a subject is, in significant ways, to sex and sexualize—and in this regard, myriad racialized-gendered Others (in the constructed sites of access/excess) have served as repositories for sexual fears and wishes. Both Baldwin and Fanon call attention to the ways black men have historically been, via the white gaze, reduced to a synecdochic sexual organ. Fanon writes that the Black man as subject is eclipsed, becoming only a penis (1952/2008: 130), while Baldwin—referencing both cause and effect—finds that ‘to be an American Negro male is […] to be a kind of walking phallic symbol: which means that one pays, in one’s own personality, for the sexual insecurity of others’ (emphasis added; Baldwin 1961/1998: 269–270). It is troubling to note how observations from decades past continue to resonate in the present—in relation to popular cultural production, political discourse, and academic practice and product, this last realm the home to production of a long-running, colonialist ‘ethnopornography’ (Sigal, Tortorici, and Whitehead 2020). As the editors to the volume highlight—suggesting that eroticization and control are not limited to analyses of practices that are manifestly sexual, but inherent in the very acts of anthropological fieldwork and artefact production—‘both ethnography and pornography are constituted by a particular individual or group’s desire to authenticate and render legible and knowable the “true” bodies and desires of the Other’ (6), with ethnography a type of ‘consumption [related] to the fantasy of penetrating both bodies and desires of human subjects’ for a Western subject (9).Footnote 18 Furthermore, Kitossa argues that the Eurocentric, middle-class-preoccupied fields of masculinity, feminist, and gender studies exist upon a ‘bad faith’, tacit, and dehumanizing ‘epistemic dependence on sexualized tropes of Black men’ as a ‘protective shield that prohibits deconstruction’ (2021b: xxvii). Complex human beings are ‘abstractified’, ultimately transformed to mere ‘theoretical objects for (unaccountable) scopophilic, dependent ontology…brought into being as spectacularized objects of sexual desire and revulsion’ (xxviii). Ethnomusicology’s doubly unacknowledged role in such continuing projects (operating clandestinely as scientific research) that claims no relation to sex, sexuality, or gender—neither that of the researcher nor the favoured study object—is emblematic of that which lies at ‘the heart of academia and White supremacist popular culture’: an ‘eroticized desire for the Black man as a problem upon whom, and through whom, others work out their sense of themselves and their place in the world’ (xxviii).
This unacknowledged, foundational underlying eroticism-cum-desire, the very source of a repressed and inexpressible insecurity, is in fact the motivation, the truer catalyst, for the fanatical investment in (manifest as creation ➔ exploitation of) a specific gendered-sexed-racial-ethnic Other, and the tacit exclusionary tactics ethnomusicologists have employed to preclude the very existence of examinations of same-sex desire within the field. It is—within the specific milieu in which ethnomusicology has developed and sedimented—a socially inexpressible homoerotic urge, a disciplinarily proscribed longing (partially sexual, certainly sensual) for that masculine, exotic Other, the possessor of the self’s imagined lack. In many ways, such dynamics are similar to those explored by Woodard in his nuanced and disquieting analysis of the institution of slavery and its aftermaths, and the relationships between whites and blacks in these contexts (2014). Highlighting the discursive and material practices and symbolics of consumption (including cannibalism), he argues that this urge to consume—one certainly conjuring associations to lack and/as capitalism/colonialism—is undergirded by strong yet unutterable homoerotic desires.
Such urges have been explored specifically in relation to musical practice. Gabbard, again with a focus on jazz, notes that the desire of the invested white male fan must be rationalized by him as dependent on artistic and aesthetic variables, so that he ‘need not concern himself with the homoerotic and voyeuristic elements of his fascination with black men as they enact their masculinity with saxophones, trumpets, guitars, and other phallic instruments’ (2004: 212). Lott likewise finds similar investments in relation to the black male body in minstrelsy, suggesting a ‘white male attraction to and repulsion from the black penis’ (1993: 59), arguing that both ‘performers and audiences also found in blackface something closer to a homoerotic charge’ (55) (which is ‘deflected by identifying with potent male heterosexuality’) (56).Footnote 19 That Woodard views the linked dynamics of cannibalism and homoeroticism as ‘transhistorical phenomena’ (linking slave narratives and experiences to the political insurgences of the 1960s) (27), and that his use of the word ‘consumption’ is in some ways motivated by its ‘rootedness in modern notions of market economies, commodities, consumer appetite, and so forth’ (18) signals the extent to which ethnomusicology (a consuming practice undergirded by racialized and ineffable homophobic/homoerotic urges, perpetuated in part via the commodities engendered via consumption) does not stand outside or in privileged relation to those sites labelled as ‘exploitive’. Indeed, the extractivist logics that are the hallmarks of capitalist-colonialist depredations could not be any more fundamental to ethnomusicological research: not only is the colony mined for the practices and artefacts ultimately reconfigured and re-marketed for the profit of the researcher, but what is misperceived to be an ‘essence’ of the native himself is extracted and internalized (cannibalized) for the fundamental formation of the researcher (who then produces and markets the research, in an endless loop).Footnote 20
Obsessions with masculinity are, to a significant extent, obsessions with the men seen as its possessors, indicative of a desire to be and be intimate with these constructed paragons. To obsessively attempt to enact masculinity is to reveal one’s desire to internalize (consume, cannibalize)—and thus to be open to the allowing into the self that which has been phantasmatically constructed as a ‘real man’, that most valuable and desired object. The ethnomusicologist, hiding behind the myriad masks of science, objectivity, textual control, race, capital, and disciplinary/intellectual superiority, ultimately longs to fill his lack, to have a ‘real man’ inside himself. The danger of this homoerotic impulse, in the context of a relationship that is itself based on a potentially (supposedly) emasculating practice such as music, is intensified by the aforementioned movement in ethnographic research in which both asymmetrical power differentials and scientific rationalization are called into question. To lose one’s structural vertically superior position is, for those who benefit from such a location, cause for terrified alarm. And to be called upon to ‘merge’ with an Other, the relationship to whom is based upon an unspeakable desire, more terrifying still; here, there is the possibility of provoking a closeness with a homoerotically invested co-subject on a level of true intimacy (engendered, in part, by what Nietzsche [1872/1999] views as the very ontology of music itself),Footnote 21 rather than mediated via the academic’s version of the closed-fist body-bump male hug that is (male/masculine) Theory. Such prohibitions on naming or even private acknowledgment might, as Lott (1993) suggests, conceivably be maintained by an even stricter adherence to the masculine symbolics discussed throughout this text—even in the context of calls for parity in the field. But the acceptance and embracing of non-normative sexualities within ethnomusicology risks too much. An ethnomusicology that looks unflinchingly at desire—and specifically same-sex desireFootnote 22—that accepts it as a valid site of inquiry, that understands it as a foundational motivation for ‘scientific analysis’, plays with fire, insofar as such an optics brings scrutiny upon every asymmetrical power differential and mode of exploitation inherent in the field. As some anthropologists, often operating from a feminist standpoint have argued, ‘the disciplinary silence about desire in the field is a way for anthropologists to avoid confronting issues of positionality, hierarchy, exploitation, and racism’ (Kulick 1995: 19). It is also a way of hiding and denying what are consciously and/or subconsciously understood as one’s own shameful, non-heteronormative sexual/sensual desires.
It indeed seems as if what has been constructed is what Deborah Wong has termed an ‘ethnomusicology without erotics’ (2015). This move is fueled in part, in her estimation, by a ‘deep commitment to cultural relativism’ which then becomes ‘a firewall that often prevents any engagement with work on sexuality from other disciplines’ (180). But it is also perpetuated by the implicit imperative that work within the discipline revolves primarily around what have been constructed as the Big, Important Issues, an imperative-cum-defence against the field’s ‘double feminization’ (178)—a feminization, I have argued, that is held at bay, in large part, by the fetishization and reification of methodology. Wong is, I believe, entirely correct in her assertion that enabling and supporting critiques of heteronormativity within ethnomusicology would ‘queer’ the field ‘in critically useful ways’ (181). But such a critique must relate not only to the practices and products studied by ethnomusicologists, but to the very enterprise of ethnomusicology, ultimately shining light upon the extent to which such enterprises are indissolubly linked to production of the masculine subject. Felski suggests that the valuation and exploitation of specific academic/intellectual methods and/or stances on putatively objective/scientific grounds are actually instrumental in the construction of a discipline’s and practitioner’s identity, an observation that, in my estimation, appears to implicate the gendered component of such constructions; ‘critical detachment’, for example, ‘is not an absence of mood but one manifestation of it…a way of making one’s argument matter…tied to the cultivation of an intellectual persona that is highly prized’ (2015: 6). Highly prized, by some, because gendered in specific ways.
With this in mind, we may understand the intertwined erasures and reifications (of, e.g., exploitative methodologies claiming access to ‘truth’ via technologies of the collection and analysis of ‘objective’ data) and their consequences in mediating the sensual and vaunting the techno-scientific (including acts of taxonimization). Garlick analyses just such mediations in his explorations of sexuality, masculinity, and pornography (bringing to mind the previously noted ‘ethnopornography’), making a compelling argument that masculinity ‘is a symbolic or imagined position of ontological security from which nature and the world can once again be viewed as ordered and under control’ (2016: 39);Footnote 23 in relation to the sexual, the lure of which threatens a relinquishment of subjective power, it is pornography that ‘stages a confrontation between man and nature’, (2010: 608) both women’s and men’s bodies mediated and submitting to the control of technology. Noting both the reduction of multifarious desire to discrete ‘categories’ one might find on any number of adult websites, as well as the tendency to present the male body as ‘a machine that functions with an almost emotionless, technical efficiency’, (608) Garlick (with reference to Heidegger’s concept of ‘enframing’ [Gestell]) argues that via the technological/pornographic, ‘complexities of desire, emotion, and bodily response are swept up into…categories of standing reserve’ (610).Footnote 24 Ethnomusicologists’ attempts to ‘tame’ (to obliterate; to ‘turn into formal code’) the erotic, (homo)sexual, sensual power of the people, processes, and products they study, their approaching music and music-making, as I have been arguing, via myriad manners of (assumed) technological restraining (from Levi-Strauss’s ‘scientific’ heroism, to arid textual representation, to the colonialist discursive productions of nature and the [non-]human) is exemplary of masculinity’s fear of the (power of the) sensual, the sexual, the erotic, the specifically homoerotic.
This construction of a gendered armour, however, has had and continues to have devastating consequences for those roped into the game against their will. As Wynter has argued, the colonialist project rests in significant ways upon the transformation of an idealized vision of self—inextricably linked to the specific Western European cultural-historical context in which such a subjectivity arose—into a homogenized, singular, universal version of ‘Man’, the gendered/sexed term understood to confer the very status of that which was to be deemed human (2003). Two successive versions—‘Man1’ (homo politicus; the Christian secularized as the rational, political subject of the Renaissance) into ‘Man2’ (homo oeconomicus; the bio-economic subject of the late eighteenth century onwards)—rested upon claims of, respectively, physical and biological ‘scientific’ ‘proofs’. Understanding the entire figuration as structured on a bifurcation of a (Darwinian) ‘naturally selected’, ‘superior’ group in contradistinction to a ‘dysselected’, inferior group, it was the militarily expropriated and enslaved peoples (Indians; Black Africans) ‘that were made to reoccupy the matrix slot of Otherness—to be made into the physical referent of the idea of the irrational/subrational Human Other’ (266).Footnote 25 The wishful fiction that such centuries-long figurations, perpetually engendered in relation to the gendered metaepisteme within and through which they metastasize, might have been miraculously superseded within the course of a few recent decades—a refusal to face the ‘systemic ongoingness of Western colonial history’ (Thiele 2021: 23)Footnote 26—is gainsaid by an ethnomusicological practice that continues into the third decade of the twenty-first century. At the level of the construction of the qualitative attributes of both subject and object, as well as the apparatuses put in place to mediate the relationships between them, it is clear that ethnomusicology perpetuates a bifurcation (subject/object = enunciator/enunciated = rational/emotional-sensual) whereby the bestowal of a fully ‘human’ status, according to the logics of the colonist, is withheld; nowhere in the humanist-masculinist-ethnomusicological universe does a fully human ‘Man3’, a homo sensualis, exist. Indeed, ‘depth of feeling’ and ‘nonrational knowledge’—understood by Lorde (1978/1984: 54, 53)Footnote 27 and other feminist theorists to be powerful components of cultural production and the experience of being—are obscured in relation to both the (masculine/masculinizing) social-science enterprise and those who sustain and are sustained by it. Such powerful dynamics are, rather, cordoned off as belonging to those constructed as occupying ‘distant/inferior position[s]’, (53) and who are then, in true colonialist practice, ‘psychically milked, much the same way ants maintain colonies of aphids to provide a life-giving substance for their masters’ (54).Footnote 28 As dysselected, not-yet/quite-human, they are no more than commodity, casualties of ‘the profitable brutalities that attend the realization of Man-as-human’ (McKittrick 2015: 7)Footnote 29
But if this ‘non-Man’ is to have any place in the ethnomusicological canon, he must, of course, remain heterosexual (‘close to nature’, fulfilling his ‘natural’, reproductive purpose).Footnote 30 Because an ethnomusicology that allows for the examination of specifically same-sex desire and erotics—most dangerously among men—risks, for its practitioners, even more than a questioning of hierarchy and asymmetrical power. On a relatively apparent level, while many white, middle/upper-middle-class heterosexual men may indeed desire and take pride in their adjacency to the racialized and/or (‘lower’-)classed Other, it is likely that very few would revel in the chance to have their identities formed, primarily (through publishing, through research agendas, through fieldwork sites) or even tangentially (through teaching, through attendance at symposia), in relationship to any type of ‘queerness’ that has the unambiguous scent of gay male sex; self as constructed/instantiated in relation to a ‘going native’ marked by playing the djembe versus sex play with dildoes. I imagine this last comparison—conjuring images of actual (anal) sexual activity, as opposed to the generics of ‘sexuality’ or ‘non-normativity’—makes many uncomfortable. That is the intention. While the former, the ‘ethnic’, offers a type of subcultural capital and academic street cred, the latter, the homo-sexual, promises nothing but the (assumed, terrified) risk of contamination.Footnote 31 But even more profoundly, examinations that dared to engage this site of feared contamination would potentially reveal the very foundations of the enterprise—a concurrently homophobic and homoerotic construction of a chimerical masculinity that (recalling Brett’s assessment) whips the ‘faggot’ out of music,Footnote 32 and keeps masculinity-obsessed men in power at the expense of countless textually and materially disenfranchised humans. A true assessment of ethnomusicology’s motivations and asymmetries would lead to the threat of—rather, a demand for—a radical reorganization, indeed destruction, of the entire discipline, rather than its cosmetic interdisciplinary rehabilitation.
Notes
- 1.
As Johnson notes in relation to his fieldwork experiences in Bequia, the anthropologist/ethnographer of colour may often face dynamics not encountered by those structurally privileged by racial constructions. He finds, for example, that ‘my relationships with resident Bequia whites, especially white males, was strained because of what I felt was their reluctance to put themselves in the position of the one “studied”—especially by a male person of color’ (1984/2007: 91). See also n7, Chap. 3.
- 2.
We need not belabour the obvious point that such fears are likely implicated in the proportionately smaller role women’s musics and musical practices play in the ethnomusicological canon, to say nothing of the gender imbalance in academia.
- 3.
Rao makes reference here to the work of Stoler (1995).
- 4.
According to Rice, although ‘art’ and popular musics are not, despite Jaap Kunst’s assertion, excluded from ethnomusicological inquiry, ‘as a practical matter, the vast majority of ethnomusicological research and teaching today concerns what have been variously called…“traditional music”, “non-Western music”, or “world music”’ (2014: 7). Although such terms are deemed problematic by most practitioners, Rice admits that defining ‘ethnomusicology [as] the study of traditional forms of non-Western or world music’ has what he deems advantages, including rendering the discipline’s aims comprehensible to non-practitioners. While there do exist ethnomusicological studies in which the researcher trains the analytical eye upon their own culture (see, as two notable examples, Nooshin 2011, 2014), these are in the minority. Moreover, several studies not marked by national or racial/ethnic difference between researcher/researched nonetheless differentiate along lines of class and geographical location (e.g., Fox 2004; Miller 2008).
- 5.
- 6.
See also Amiri Baraka (1990).
- 7.
I agree with Morrison’s cautioning regarding the possible oversimplification inherent in the idea of appropriation—oversimplification that may suggest a type of essentialism via the assumption of a racialized ‘authenticity’ and concomitant primary focus on those attributes or manifestations that are foregrounded and/or most easily apprehended. As a corrective, Morrison’s concept of ‘blacksound’, ‘[considering] how quotidian and spectacular performance of self and community in contemporary popular culture are embedded within a racially audible past that resonates in low, less perceptible frequencies’ suggests a necessary attention to the no less important (and indeed essential) subtleties that contribute to the continued resonance of ‘sonic and material histories of race’ (2017: 22).
- 8.
It is not, of course, only the African whose masculinity is imagined, caricatured, and/or fetishized. Klopotek, for example, exploring the use of images and constructions of ‘the Indian’ (as opposed to the Native American) in film, finds that ‘for at least the last century, hypermasculinity has been one of the foremost attributes of the Indian world that whites have imagined’ (2001: 251). Additionally, Maloul highlights the extent to which, especially in the post-9/11 cultural landscape, Anglo-American representations of ‘Arab’ men have produced a generic stereotype in which ‘Islam, Arabness, and masculinity are indissolubly linked’ (2019: 186).
- 9.
The construction of the racialized Other as essentially and necessarily heterosexual is also highlighted by Rao (2020). He notes specifically the work of Epprecht (2008) who finds that ‘the association of homosexuality with “advanced” civilisations, exemplified in Edward Gibbon’s writing on the decadent sexual morality of a declining Roman empire, produced the…stereotype of an exclusively heterosexual Africa. In this symbolic economy, Africa was regarded as too primitive and its people too close to nature to be capable of exhibiting the unnatural sexualities that were thought to be characteristic of more advanced societies. Their problem was a lack of control over their heterosexual instincts, an excess of natural virility, and a heterosexual lasciviousness that the civilizing mission would have to tame’ (Rao 2020: 59).
- 10.
Not all racialized (or ‘ethnified’) Others gain the dubious honour of ‘masculine’ status. While indeed, as both Fanon (1952/2008) and Baldwin (1961/1998) have demonstrated, the black male is often presented as a paragon of phallic masculinity (see p. 78, infra), Said has shown that the Western construction of ‘the Orient’ is dependent in significant ways upon feminization of its male inhabitants—both constructions (masculine and feminine), of course, necessary for the Western subject’s sense of self (1978). Additionally, it is not only the modern and/or Western male who genders Others in such a manner; Kitossa (2021a, 2021b) and Russell (2021), for example, note the creation of a hypersexual, violent, and phallic masculinity in relation to blackness across a wide geocultural terrain (from the United States to ancient Rome to Japan). Kitossa argues, however, that the true violence lies in the various forms of dehumanizing representations through which whites perpetuated their skewed and damaging perceptions of persons of colour (2021a).
While Indians were often feminized by Western colonial powers (Sinha 1995), Daechsel notes that ‘many, if not most, figures in Indian politics of the early twentieth century’ shared an obsessive fetishization of strength (2004: 281). Such men were, in part, adopting and/or internalizing colonial codes of masculinity, but also reacting to sociocultural dynamics within Indian and Pakistani society of the time (including the feminization of Muslim citizens, stereotyped as ‘weak’). But Daechsel also notes that, regardless of natives’ assessment of the complex and varied meanings of gendered characteristics within their societies, male British colonists still constructed their own identities ‘on an image of male strength—the long horse-rides, the tiger-hunts, the homoerotic fascination with the strong warriors of the North-west Frontier—and that some Indians were perceived as effeminate weaklings’ (282). On the concept of colonialist enunciation (Mignolo 2018) see also Chaps. 3, 6, 7, and 8 for additional discussion.
- 11.
Jazz musician Mezz Mezzrow, for example, finds that the black, hip jazz cat is ‘something mighty impressive, a real man’ (in Monson 1995: 403), and author Norman Podhoretz is quoted as saying that ‘in childhood I envied Negroes for what seemed to me their superior masculinity’ (in Ross 1989: 69). Mailer’s deeply problematic and largely offensive examination of the ‘white Negro’ (1957) likewise suggests a supposedly enviable black masculinity by trading in racist stereotypes of hypersexualized black men who follow the impulses of the (low) body rather than the (elevated) intellect—the latter seen to be exclusive to whiteness. Mailer’s contention that for the white hipster ‘the only life-giving answer is…to divorce oneself from society, to exist without roots, to set out on that uncharted journey into the rebellious imperatives of the self’ (277) is yet another example of the conflation of masculinity with trope of man as explorer (or anthropologist).
- 12.
Lott also argues that ‘these common white associations of black maleness with the onset of pubescent sexuality indicate that the assumption of dominant codes of masculinity in the United States was (and still is) partly negotiated through an imaginary black interlocutor’ (1993: 54). See also Ward, who finds that among men who have sex with men, the use of cultural signifiers relating to African Americans (e.g., argot) is often used by white men in an attempt to enact masculinity (2015: 140–144). Additionally, see Rao who notes Bleys (1996) speculation that ‘the demand for black slave labour aroused a European desire for black hypermasculinity, which seemed unable to contemplate the possibilities of black male effeminacy or same-sex desire’ (Rao 2020: 59).
- 13.
Hoad notes the common recourse to evolutionary explanations in Western imperial and neo-imperial theorizations of sexuality. Often conflating evolutionary backwardness, insufficient masculinity, and an exaggerated concern for one’s physical (decorated) appearance, such pseudoscientific analyses suggested that ‘in the evolutionary schema, men are only highly ornamented in primitive cultures’ (2000: 137). See also Wynter (2003).
- 14.
See also Kitossa, who notes ‘The tacit overdetermined sexualization of the Black man simultaneously visibilizes and invisibilizes him as a negated personhood for the ontological productivity of theorists for whom the social is gendered, masculine, and patriarchal’ (2021b: xxviii).
- 15.
Wallace’s neologism is formed with an understanding of the term’s manifold etymological roots, including not only ‘the iconic simultaneity of the spectral and the spectacular in racialist representations of black men, but a somewhat greater family of arrestive signifiers which share etymological roots in the Latin specere (to look or regard): specimen, speculum, specious, suspect—all signifiers of an optically inflected framing of black men within the rigid representations repertoire of each term’s disreputable and diminishing significations’ (30–31).
- 16.
See also Ingold, who argues against ‘an academic model of knowledge production, according to which observation is not so much a way of knowing what is going on in the world as a source of raw material for subsequent processing into authoritative accounts that claim to reveal the truth behind the illusion of appearances’ (2011: 15). The similarities to capitalist/colonist dynamics, whether intentional or unintentional, is apparent. But see also Jaji, who highlights the importance of trust in the field; noting that the refugee population with whom she undertook research (research she characterizes as ‘mutual’) were initially wary of her, she states ‘my physical access to Rwandan refugees did not automatically translate into access to information’ (2017: 50).
- 17.
On the call to break down the self/other dichotomy in anthropological practice, see also McLean and Leibing (2007).
- 18.
The editors make reference to the work of Hansen, Needham, and Nichols (1989). Additionally, one of the volume’s editors (Whitehead), highlighting academic practices notes ‘the positionality and cultural gaze of Western academics…is historically privileged and heavily inflected with a form of epistemological rectitude, an intellectual BDSM, through which the pleasures of classification and analysis become akin to the corporeal binding of the ethnological subject’ (2).
- 19.
See also Waksman for a brief discussion of the white male auditor/viewer’s homoerotic connection to Jimi Hendrix (1999).
- 20.
- 21.
According to Nietzsche, the spirit of music—a ‘Dionysian’ art that effectuates a participation in the communal—‘allows us to understand why we feel joy at the destruction of the individual. For individual instances of such destruction merely illustrate the eternal phenomenon of Dionysiac art, which expresses the omnipotent Will behind the principium individuationis, as it were, life going on eternally beyond all appearance and despite all destruction’ (80).
- 22.
Wong suggests that ‘most ethnomusicologists have still not engaged deeply with sexuality studies or queer theory despite the fact that music is often a key performative means for defining the terms for pleasure and desire’ (2006: 266). Although this observation was made well over a decade ago, it is arguable—judging from publications alone—that the field has not changed significantly in this regard.
- 23.
Mignolo argues that the creation ‘nature’ as a concept—its ‘fictional ontology’, positing it as something separate from the human—is one of the foundations of the CMP (Colonial Matrix of Power). With reference to the work of Descola (2013), he notes ‘nature and culture are two concepts that make no sense beyond Western civilization and, I would add, beyond Westernized anthropologists and educated persons outside of Europe and Anglo-United States tamed by Western education’ (2018: 160). On the relationship between constructions of nature and gender, see Seidler (1994), Merchant (1980, 2006), and Pesic (2008), n2, Chap. 7.
- 24.
Garlick takes the idea of ‘standing reserve’ (a translation of the original Bestand) directly from Heidegger (1977). According to Heidegger, ‘Everywhere everything is ordered to stand by, to be immediately at hand, indeed to stand there just so that it may be on call for a further ordering. Whatever is ordered about in this way has its own standing. We call it the standing-reserve’ (17).
- 25.
See also Curran’s (2011) discussion of naturalist George-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon who, in the third volume of his Histoire naturelle (1749), postulated a theory of ‘degeneration’—from a superior white race to the various darker peoples. Representative of but one of the various pseudoscientific and racist theories of the eighteenth century, many of which ostensibly sought explanations of ‘blackness’ via recourse to corporeality (yet were fundamentally ideologically motivated), it is notable as a product of an historical era ultimately designated by European historians themselves as the Age of Enlightenment.
- 26.
Thiele makes this assessment in her discussion of Wynter’s work.
- 27.
The date refers to the first publication in the collection Sister Outsider. The paper was originally delivered at the Fourth Berkshire Conference on the History of Women, Mouth Holyoke College, 25 August 1978, and subsequently published as a pamphlet by Out & Out Books and Kore Press.
- 28.
Lorde here relates these modes of knowing specifically to women. However, to the extent that the ethnomusicological subject, despite his constructed/desired masculinity, is made subordinate to the researcher and, moreover, defined in part via his experiential-emotional-corporeal (as opposed to conceptual-theoretical) relationship to the musical, his position might likewise be seen as in some way feminized—or, at the very least, defined in relation to a modality of being/knowing that stands in contradistinction to the rational (the very marker of Man = human). The exploitation of what are often presented as the ‘natural’, ‘unmediated’ relationships of Others to their sonic environments and artefacts undergirds one of the central, implicit motivating concerns of ethnomusicological production—viz., the quest for authenticity (see Amico 2020).
- 29.
The gendered/sexed components of this human/non-human production is highlighted again by Mignolo who notes ‘managing and controlling the idea of human and humanity allowed those who define and are allowed to identify as such, to establish a hierarchy among humans: racism and sexism served that purpose’ (2018: 170).
- 30.
I note also Kitossa’s contention that ‘the sexualized, tropical Black man, always able-bodied and heterosexual, is a scapegoat object for the working out of the agency and moral innocence of various theorists’ (emphasis added; 2021b: xxviii–xxix).
- 31.
See Jacobs (2006) and Kirby and Corzine (1981) on the risk to the researcher of ‘contamination’ or ‘taint’ via propinquity to ‘deviant’ research subjects. Although Kirby and Corzine’s account was published over three decades ago, their contention that researching homosexuality may have negative consequences for job prospects is arguably still in effect for many humanities and/or social science researchers seeking positions outside of departments or programmes of gender studies (understanding the continuing construction of gender/sexuality within numerous disciplines as an area of ‘special interest[s]’).
- 32.
As noted in Chap. 3, Brett argues that ‘all musicians…are faggots in the parlance of the male locker room’ (1994: 17–18).
Bibliography
Agamben, Giorgio (trans. Kevin Attell). 2004. The Open: Man and Animal. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Amico, Stephen. 2020. ‘“We Are All Musicologists Now”; or, the End of Ethnomusicology’. The Journal of Musicology 37(1): 1–32.
Asante, Molefi K. 2008. It’s Bigger than Hip-Hop: The Rise of the Post-Hip-Hop Generation. New York: St. Martin’s.
Baldwin, James (ed. Toni Morrison). 1961/1998. ‘The Black Boy Looks at the White Boy’. Collected Essays. New York: Putnam Penguin. 269–285.
Baraka, Amiri. 1987. ‘The Great Music Robbery’. The Music: Reflections on Jazz and Blues (ed. Amiri Baraka and Amina Baraka). New York: Morrow. 328–332.
Baraka, Amiri. 1990. ‘Jazz Criticism and Its Effect on the Art Form’. New Perspectives on Jazz (ed. David Baker). Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press). 55–70.
Bleys, Rudi C. 1996. The Geography of Perversion: Male-to-Male Sexual Behavior Outside the West and the Ethnographic Imagination, 1750–1918. New York: New York University 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.
Coffey, Amanda. 1999. The Ethnographic Self: Fieldwork and the Representation of Identity. London: Sage.
Cole, Johnnetta Betsch and Beverly Guy-Sheftall. 2003. Gender Talk: The Struggle for Women’s Equality in African American Communities. New York: Ballantine.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 2004. Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism. New York: Routledge.
Curran, Andrew. 2011. The Anatomy of Blackness: Science and Slavery in an Age of Enlightenment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Daechsel, Markus. 2004. ‘The Civilizational Obsessions of Ghulam Jilani Barq’. Colonialism as Civilizing Mission: Cultural Ideology in British India (ed. Harald Fischer-Tiné and Michael Mann). London: Anthem Press. 270–290.
Descola, Philippe (trans. Janet Lloyd). 2013. Beyond Nature and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Epprecht, Marc. 2008. Heterosexual Africa?: The History of an Idea from the Age of Exploration to the Age of AIDS. Athens: Ohio University Press.
Fabian, Johannes. 2001. Anthropology with an Attitude: Critical Essays. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Fanon, Frantz (trans. Charles Lam Markmann). 1952/2008. Black Skin, White Masks. London: Pluto Press.
Felski, Rita. 2015. The Limits of Critique. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn. 2012. ‘Anthropology and Ethics’. A Companion to Moral Anthropology (ed. Didier Fassin). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 103–114.
Fox, Aaron. 2004. Real Country: Music and Language in Working-Class Culture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Gabbard, Krin. 2004. Black Magic: White Hollywood and African American Culture. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Garlick, Steve. 2010. ‘Taking Control of Sex?: Hegemonic Masculinity, Technology, and Internet Pornography’. Men and Masculinities 12(5): 597–614.
Garlick, Steve. 2016. The Nature of Masculinity: Critical Theory, New Materialisms, and Technologies of Embodiment. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Goulet, Jean-Guy A. and Bruce Granville Miller. 2007. ‘Embodied Knowledge: Steps toward a Radical Anthropology of Cross-cultural Encounters’. Extraordinary Anthropology: Transformations in the Field (ed. Jean-Guy A. Goulet and Bruce Granville Miller). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 1–13.
Guttman, Matthew C. 1997. ‘Trafficking in Men: The Anthropology of Masculinity’. Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 385–409.
Hansen, Christian, Catherine Needham, and Bill Nichols. 1989. ‘Skin Flicks: Pornography, Ethnography, and the Discourses of Power’. Discourse 11(2): 64–79.
Haraway, Donna. 1988. ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’. Feminist Studies 14(3): 575–599.
Harrison, Faye V. 2008. Outsider Within: Reworking Anthropology in the Global Age. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Harrison, Faye V. 2016. ‘Theorizing in Ex-Centric Sites’. Anthropological Theory 16(2–3): 160–176.
Heidegger, Martin (trans. William Lovitt). 1954/1977. ‘The Question Concerning Technology’. The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. New York: Garland Publishing. 3–35.
Hoad, Neville. 2000. ‘Arrested Development or the Queerness of Savages: Resisting Evolutionary Narratives of Difference’. Postcolonial Studies 3(2): 133–158.
Hughey, Matthew W. 2012. ‘Black Guys and White Guise: The Discursive Production of White Masculinity’. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 41(1): 95–124.
Ingold, Tim. 2011. Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge, and Description. London: Routledge.
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.
Jaji, Rose. 2017. ‘Under the Shadow of Genocide’. Ethnicities 17(1): 47–65.
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. 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.
Kirby, Richard and Jay Corzine. 1981. ‘The Contagion of Stigma: Fieldwork among Deviants’. Qualitative Sociology 4(1): 3–20.
Kitossa, Tamari. 2021a. ‘Can the Black Man Be Nude in a Culture That Imagines Him as Naked?: A Baldwinian and Fanonian Psychosexual Reading of Black Masculinity in “Western” Art and Cinema’. Appealing Because He Is Appalling: Black Masculinities, Colonialism, and Erotic Racism (ed. Tamari Kitossa). Edmonton: University of Alberta Press. 3–57.
Kitossa, Tamari. 2021b. ‘Preface’. Appealing Because He Is Appalling: Black Masculinities, Colonialism, and Erotic Racism (ed. Tamari Kitossa). Edmonton: University of Alberta Press. xxvii–xxxiii.
Klopotek, Brian. 2001. “‘I Guess Your Warrior Look Doesn’t Work Every Time’: Challenging Indian Masculinity in the Cinema”. Across the Great Divide: Cultures of Manhood in the American West (ed. Matthew Basso, Laura McCall, and Dee Garceau). New York: Routledge. 251–273.
Kulick, Don. 1995. ‘Introduction: The Sexual Life of Anthropologists: Erotic Subjectivity and Ethnographic Work’. Taboo: Sex, Identity, and Erotic Subjectivity in Anthropological Fieldwork (ed. Don Kulick and Margaret Wilson). 1–28.
Laplantine, François (trans. Jamie Furniss). 2005/2015. The Life of the Senses: Introduction to a Modal Anthropology. London: Bloomsbury.
Lorde, Audre. 1978/1984. ‘Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as Power’. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches by Audre Lorde. Berkeley: Crossing Press. 53–59.
Lott, Eric. 1993. Love and Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy and the American Working Class. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lott, Eric. 2017. Black Mirror: The Cultural Contradictions of American Racism. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.
Mailer, Norman. 1957. ‘The White Negro: Reflections on the Hipster’. Dissent 4: 276–293.
Maloul, Linda. 2019. ‘The Construction of Palestinian Muslim Masculinities in Two Novels by Laila Halaby and Randa Jarrar’. NORMA 14(3): 183–198.
Mbembe, Achille (trans. Laurent Dubois). 2013/2017. Critique of Black Reason. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
McKittrick, Katherine. 2015. ‘Yours in the Intellectual Struggle: Sylvia Wynter and the Realization of the Living’. Sylvia Wynter: On Being Human as Praxis (ed. Katherine McKittrick). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 1–8.
McLean, Athena and Annette Leibing, eds. 2007. The Shadow Side of Fieldwork: Exploring the Blurred Borders Between Ethnography and Life. Mladen: Blackwell.
Merchant, Carolyn. 1980. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. San Francisco: Harper and Row.
Merchant, Carolyn. 2006. ‘The Scientific Revolution and the Death of Nature’. Isis 97(3): 513–533.
Mignolo, Walter D. 2018. ‘The Invention of the Human and the Three Pillars of the Colonial Matrix of Power: Racism, Sexism, and Nature’. On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis (Walter D. Mignolo and Catherine E. Walsh). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 153–176.
Miller, Kiri. 2008. Traveling Home: Sacred Harp Singing and American Pluralism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Monson, Ingrid. 1995. ‘The Problem with White Hipness: Race, Gender, and Cultural Conceptions in Jazz Historical Discourse’. Journal of the American Musicological Society 48(3): 396–422.
Morrison, Matthew D. 2017. ‘The Sound(s) of Subjection: Constructing American Popular Music and Racial Identity Through Blacksound’. Women & Performance: A Journal of Feminist Theory 27(1): 13–24.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (trans. Ronald Speirs). 1872/1999. The Birth of Tragedy and Other Writings, ed. Raymond Guess and Ronald Speirs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Nooshin, Laudan, ed. 2011. Special Issue: ‘The Ethnomusicology of Western Art Music’. Ethnomusicology Forum 20(3).
Nooshin, Laudan, ed. 2014. The Ethnomusicology of Western Art Music. London: Routledge.
Pesic, Peter. 2008. ‘Proteus Rebound: Reconsidering the “Torture of Nature”’. Isis 99(2): 304–317.
Pink, Sarah. 2009. Doing Sensory Ethnography. London: Sage.
Rao, Rahul. 2020. Out of Time: The Queer Politics of Postcoloniality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Reeser, Todd W. 2010. Masculinities in Theory: An Introduction. Mladen, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Rice, Timothy. 2014. Ethnomusicology: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ross, Andrew. 1989. ‘Hip, and the Long Front of Color’. No Respect: Intellectuals and Popular Culture. New York: Routledge. 65–101.
Russell, John G. 2021. ‘Anaconda East: Fetishes, Phallacies, Chimbo Chauvinism, and the Displaced Discourse of Black Male Sexuality in Japan’. Appealing Because He Is Appalling: Black Masculinities, Colonialism, and Erotic Racism (ed. Tamari Kitossa). Edmonton: University of Alberta Press. 59–104.
Said, Edward. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Penguin.
Seidler, Victor. 1994. Unreasonable Men: Masculinity and Social Theory. New York: Routledge.
Sigal, Pete, Zeb Tortorici, and Neil L. Whitehead, eds. 2020. Ethnopornography: Sexuality, Colonialism, and Archival Knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Sinha, Mrinalini. 1995. Colonial Masculinity: The ‘Manly Englishman’ and the ‘Effeminate Bengali’ in the Late Nineteenth Century. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Stoler, Ann Laura. 1991. ‘Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power: Gender, Race, and Morality in Colonial Asia’. Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology in the Postmodern Era (ed. Micaela Di Leonardo). Berkeley: University of California Press. 51–101.
Stoler, Ann Laura. 1995. Race and the Education of Desire: Foucault’s History of Sexuality and the Colonial Order of Things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Thiele, Katrin. 2021. ‘“After Humanism?”: Time and Transformation in Critical Thinking’. The Ends of Critique: Methods, Institutions, Politics (ed. Kathrin Thiele, Birgit M. Kaiser, and Timothy O’Leary). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 19–39.
Waksman, Steve. 1999. ‘Black Sound, Black Body: Jimi Hendrix, the Electric Guitar, and the Meanings of Blackness’. Popular Music and Society 23(1): 75–113.
Wallace, Maurice O. 2002. Constructing the Black Masculine: Identity and Ideality in African American Men’s Literature and Culture, 1775–1995. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Walsh, Catherine E. 2018. ‘The Decolonial For: Resurgences, Shifts, and Movements’. On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis (Walter D. Mignolo and Catherine E. Walsh). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 15–32.
Ward, Jane. 2015. Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men. New York: New York University Press.
White, Miles. 2011. From Jim Crow to Jay-Z: Race, Rap, and the Performance of Masculinity. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Wong, Deborah. 2006. ‘Ethnomusicology and Difference’. Ethnomusicology 50(2): 259–279.
Wong, Deborah. 2015. ‘Ethnomusicology without Erotics’. Women and Music: A Journal of Gender and Culture 19: 178–185.
Woodard, Vincent. 2014. The Delectable Negro: Human Consumption and Homoeroticism within US Slave Culture (ed. Justin A. Joyce and Dwight A. McBride). New York: New York University Press.
Wynter, Sylvia. 2003. ‘Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation—an Argument’. CR: The New Centennial Review 3(3). 257–337.
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). Street Cred and Locker Room Glances. In: Ethnomusicology, Queerness, Masculinity. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15313-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15313-6_4
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)