Abstract
The dialogic—a perpetual process of non-hierarchical interaction—is contrasted with both ethnomusicology’s and queerness’s monologic relationship to non-Western sites and people, a colonialist-masculinist stance founded on oppressive language and an implicit positing of the West’s knowledge production as singular, universal, and superior. Understanding communication as more than semiotic/linguistic, and the role of the sonic in relationality, it is argued that attention to the conceptual/material possibilities of echoes and reverberations—contrasting the monologic echo chamber with the expanse of ‘wild’ epistemic possibility—offers a way of conceiving of and working toward postdisciplinary, undisciplined explorations of sound, music, sex/uality, and the social. Silence is revealed as double-sided, a pharmokon—the poison of the silencing monologic, willingly withdrawn, becoming the remedy of self-silencing, a condition of pluriversality.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Mikhail Bakhtin’s explorations of language and/as speech are among the most widely known and productive emanating from the realm of twentieth-century literary studies. It is, however, somewhat of a misnomer to refer to Bakhtin as only or even primarily a literary theorist, as his work concerns not only language as that which is written (in the context of a work of ‘art’), but also that which is spoken, voiced, the means of communication with a co-present or imagined/intended interlocutor. Owing to his cognizance and highlighting of the relationship of language to sociocultural dynamics and structures, and the limitless manners and contexts in which such theoretical insights might be productively engaged, his remarkable analyses have arguably achieved a status of ‘unmarked’ (or ‘universally applicable’—one of few Russians to have been granted this dubious status in the Western academic humanities canon). Yet I imagine that most, if not all those familiar with Bakhtin’s work are aware that its genesis clearly cannot be separated from his lived experiences in the Soviet Union. Attempts at linguistic standardization—orthographic, semantic, inclusive of musical notation—were hallmarks of the Soviet mania for control,Footnote 1 a powerful constituent of the monologic context in which Bakhtin worked. Yet uniformity was not limited to the linguistic alone; Soviet Russia was also marked by a standardization of gender and sexuality that was no less restrictive,Footnote 2 and indeed ‘socialism in one gender’ was hardly the mark of the transcendence of a male/female binary, but rather the signalling of the imposition of male/masculine as the privileged and fetishized term—often in startlingly homoerotic manifestations.
Bakhtin’s work has little explicit engagement of gender, sex, or sexuality.Footnote 3 Yet as I have shown, drawing on the work of scholars from numerous disciplines, writing from geocultural and temporal locations other than Bakhtin’s, gendered and sexed variables are consistently related to dynamics of erasure, power, and control—including a textual and linguistic control of discourse—in profound and problematic ways. The recent, relatively widespread comprehensibility, resonance, and adoption of the neologism ‘mansplaining’, far from signalling a trivialization of such dynamics, instead highlights the extent to which masculinity’s functioning through linguistic domination—what Dular analyses as a silencing equating to epistemic injustice (2021)—is enacted within and constituent of quotidian experience. Rather than an everyday occurrence one learns to live with as a petty nuisance, or ‘merely’ a type of ‘symbolic’ inequity, the masculine control of language, discourse, textual representation is one of the many circuits through which ‘epistemology creates ontological domains’ (Mignolo 2018a: 169), and which allows ontologies to be materialized as sites of (colonial, misogynistic, racist, homophobic) depredation. Reading Bakhtin’s analyses with the understanding of the fetishized masculinity underpinning the Soviet system—this engendering the gulag, man-made famine (the Holodomor [Голодомор]), and show trials with ultimate, preordained death sentences—reveals on a profoundly disturbing level the horrific outcomes of a monologic annihilation of the dialogic and heteroglossic. As with colonial encounters, at levels discursive, textual, and material: Silence(ing); and/then death.Footnote 4
Ethnomusicology, via its textual artefacts and performances, invents (represents, describes) its colonies, speaking for the populations inhabiting them, explaining their thoughts, motivations, comprehensions, cosmologies (in a ‘scientific’ [= real man’s] language). That the more contemporary texts are frequently notable for their quotations from actual ‘natives’, that the word ‘informant’ has generally been replaced by terms such as ‘consultant’, does little to disguise the monologic characteristics of an enterprise devoted to the perpetual re-creation of the masculinity of its practitioners, and the obvious, stifling masculinity of the space, operating via the tools—the weapons—of this masculinity. And while queerness might be imagined as diametrically opposed to and tasked with the unmasking of just such practices and productions, it is clear—as evidenced by the somewhat effortless, comfortable, ‘interdisciplinary’ fit of ethno+queer—that the sites of overlap are not inconsequential, owing in part to the operation of both in relation to the same epistemic limitations and compulsions. An avoidance (due to a fear or suspicion) of the complexities of corporeal, sexual, sensual, material existence and experience that queerness shares with ethnomusicology might be explained as queer’s counteractions to and contestation of a history of reductive and pathologizing scientific apparatuses that erroneously and destructively posited biological explanations as paramount. Yet this one example of a distrust of ‘science’—a realm valorized, as I have noted, in relation to ethnomusicology’s bid for masculine validation—has not resulted in queerness’s unambiguous disavowal of the very apparatuses that govern an adherence to many of those things that science, in its Western, capitalist incarnation, deems valuable and essential. Queerness has willingly embraced, and is marked by, work most often disseminated as citation-based literature, based on a de facto canon of essential, foundational (Anglophone, Western) theory and theorists; the imperative for publication of one’s artefacts in or by (highly ranked) academic journals and presses (with ‘unbiased’ peer-review as the final arbiter of ‘quality’);Footnote 5 the use of ‘objective’, ‘dispassionate’ language; the formulation of research agendas based on the guidelines of funding organizations, structured in a way to maximize ‘scalability’ (and with language that domesticates queer, rendering it less ‘confrontational’); among others. Numerous foundational aspects of the manner in which academic queerness operates (perhaps as distinct from what it ‘says’) appear indeed to be far from confrontational or subversive.
Could this same queerness, via occupying confrontations, and a furious highlighting of the unspeakable, transcend its current limitations, garnering greater self-reflexivity, with a resulting necessary and profound critique of its ‘exclusionary operations’? Can it destroy, slash and burn ‘ethno-’ (or ‘anthro-’) everything, generating fertile ground for future growth, itself emerging purified by the flames? Although anger and rage are often necessary motivations, bringing about profound changes, I am not sure that in this specific case—where the occupier itself requires occupation—that rage alone can promise enduring transformation. Surveying queer in the contemporary moment, it often appears that the ‘exclusions’ it has lamented and attempted to address are centred around the need for geographic/ethnic/national/racial ‘diversity’ (the parallels with ethnomusicology are apparent), and not the manners in which queer, as uninterrogated master signifier (exhibiting a ‘lack of reflection on the foundation of [its] own theorizing and on the role of the West/US America in shaping academic discourse’) (Kulpa, Mizielińska, and Stasińska 2012: 125) valorizes entire analytical registers which it unilaterally sets as foundational, dismissing (by ignoring, thus silencing) all others. Rather than a drive towards perpetual modification spurred by necessary, constant reminders of its own poststructuralist/postmodernist (= late capitalist, in Jameson’s 1991 analysis) genesis, and its status as a regionally, temporally, ideologically situated discourse, the ubiquitous, taken-for-granted cornerstones of much of its epistemology—the ‘fluidity’ of identity; the tyranny of norms; the commitment to subversion—are presented as metaphysical (and ethical) truths, and rarely as the situated, vested, interested, partial knowledges they represent. Is subversion, like negativity, the luxury of the Global North? Does wholesale fluidity erase, disenfranchise, mark as ‘backward’ those who consider their specific (sexual) subjectivity as constitutional of the self? Does the blanket vilification of ‘norms’ signal a failure to engage with epistemologies, discourses, and lived experiences (geographical, cultural, socioeconomic, corporeal, sexual, inter alia) that highlight customs and structures as necessary for physical, psychological, social wellbeing? Each base concept often appears as fundamentally transparent and universally intelligible, not only in queer theoretical texts, but perhaps most vividly in texts from myriad disciplines (like ethnomusicology—and musicology) where ‘X’ is (miraculously, alchemically) ‘queered’. And while there are indeed examples of scrutinization of these often-assumed universals,Footnote 6 they often give the impression of existing as exceptions to the rules. It appears that after thirty-plus years, the ‘epistemological humility’ wished for by Eng, Halberstam, and Muñoz (emphasis added; 2005: 15) has not obtained, and that the ‘subjectless/objectless critique’ vaunted by them (and again by Eng and Puar) (2020), while it has perhaps persuaded scholars to disassemble the barriers between domains once judged either ‘proper’ or ‘improper’ (in relation to discipline, geography, cultural practice, etc.), has not dislodged the one ‘subject’ most responsible for the monologue: the subject (the literal subject; the subject position) that is the source, the creator, the moderator, the convenor, the perpetuator of the always marked (cultural, theoretical) position of queer, the Western/Northern academic and their monologic, textual ‘splaining.
In hirFootnote 7 call for an academic sphere free from colonial structures and practices, la paperson distinguishes a first, second, and third university: the first founded on accumulation via dispossession, ‘commissioned to actualize imperialist dreams of a settled world’ (2017: xiv–xv); the second, motivated by a ‘desire to humanize the world…a more genteel way to colonize a world that is so much more than human’, to ‘liberate’ through liberalism (xv); and the third, the ultimately decolonized, dismantled from within. The agent of this internal demolition is figured as manifesting in/as the ‘scyborg’:Footnote 8 an Othered subject who, via the magnanimity of the first and/or second university (thus proving itself as ethical), becomes ‘the perfect masculine expression of education: an autonomous individual who will reproduce the logics of the university without being told’ (emphasis added: 56). However, released within the institutional machinery, the scyborg—with hir own agentic desires, and similar to the ‘queer desiring machines’ (55) suggested by FergusonFootnote 9 (which come into being via ‘associations of rubbings, frictions, and greasing of gears’ [emphasis added: 54])—becomes a reorganizer of that same machinery, ‘[subverting it]…against the master code of its makers…[rewiring it] to its own intentions’ (55). Looking past the references to an arguably sensual corporeality suggested by the author’s language, I imagine many ethnomusicologists or queer theorists would view this ‘decolonizing ghost in the colonizing machine’ (xxiv) as a reflection, an incarnation of their (idealized, desired, public) selves, committed as they are to ‘diversity’ and ‘representation’. Yet in the view of la paperson, such scholars, and others like them—‘the Marxist scholars, the ethnic studies formations, women’s studies, gender studies, American studies’—are deeply ensconced in the second university, in ‘the house of the hegemonic radical, the postcolonial ghetto neighbourhood within the university metropolis…mistaking its personalized pedagogy of self-actualization for decolonial transformation’ (emphasis added; 42).
It is impossible to ignore the fact that both ethnomusicological and queer scholarship are overwhelmingly marked by their adherence to the very methodologies, epistemologies, sensorial hierarchies, rhetorical strategies and fetishized artefacts that are the constructions of centuries of closed doors, dispossessions, and exploitations; the rules structuring the academic game as it is still played are those which have been reproduced over the course of centuries within locations that allowed for the existence of only one species of speaking subject, self-appointed/anointed as superior (the apotheosis of human-ness) by dint of the concomitance of his sex, gender, and ‘race’. Such rules, such practices are today still redolent of ‘the different aromas [of] five hundred years of Western epistemic racism’ (Mignolo 2018a: 161).Footnote 10 This adherence is supported by what must certainly be an unacknowledged but profound/foundational belief in the West’s own self-construction as ‘the center of legitimate knowledge, the arbiter of what counts as knowledge, and the source of “civilized” knowledge’ (Smith 1999: 63); it is a knowledge implicitly and explicitly presented as seminal, original, and generative (as opposed to derivative), each ‘new’ ‘discovery’ the first of its kind (denying and/or obscuring indigenous contributions or foundations), a knowledge that is universal yet owned, ‘as much [a commodity] of colonial exploitation as other natural resources’ (Smith: 59).Footnote 11 From this location, what masquerades as moves towards ‘equity’ more often appear to be motivated by an implicit desire to bring a constructed (backward) ‘them’ into ‘our’ (forward) intellectual/economic institutions, educating ‘them’ on the (‘unmarked’, ‘universal’) ‘proper’ rules of knowledge production (the methods, the canons, the very subjects), rather than moving towards an ‘us’ that can only obtain via the arduous, always ongoing work of dialogic, heteroglossic interaction and transformation. Although the Western academic subject has widened the visual scope to embrace new objects/subjects, the manner of speaking, writing, and representing—via the ‘proud but calcified language of the academy’ or ‘the commodity driven language of science’, both manifestations of oppressive language (Morrison 1993)—belies a loyalty to long-standing structures of inequity. The resulting stifling, monologic stream ‘does more than represent violence; it is violence; does more than represent the limits of knowledge; it limits knowledge’.Footnote 12 And this limitation has had and continues to have profound consequences.Footnote 13
Can oppressive monologia be combatted; is its undoing to be found in a facet of its sonorous (rather than linguistic) ontology, as it meets a fecundating yet dissipating force? ‘Each utterance’, according to Bakhtin, ‘is filled with echoes (otgolosokov/отголосоков) and reverberations (otzvukov/отзвуков) of other utterances to which it is related by the communality of the sphere of speech communication’ (1975a/1986: 91).Footnote 14 And although Bakhtin does not engage the two Russian terms I have highlighted in a sustained manner, using them more as metaphors than sites of or catalysts for analysis, I want to suggest that staying with these terms, embracing them as both metaphoric and as reminders of the audibility and materiality of speech—it’s vibrating sonicity—may lead to a way to conceptualize (and actualize [?]) the future of queer, a future without ethnomusicology, without monologic suzerainty, without interdisciplinarity, because without discipline; a future imagined through affect, as echo. In many ways, queerness does operate as echo in the current marketplace of ideas—indeed a marketplace, where prominence and preeminence is guaranteed by the capital-backed circuits of the West, granting greater access to the institutions, corporations, and media that advertise and disseminate. But the echoing is that of an echo-chamber into which queer has pulled all Others, its blaring loudspeakers violently drowning out all other concepts, subjects, interlocutors; sound ricochets and eradicates, overwhelms as (colonialist) weapon.Footnote 15That queer has remained the (only) master signifier (‘Unmarked. Unmarked!’) for decades—the only term constructed, advertised as capable of the theoretical capacity to subsume all other ‘local examples’—and that from no other source outside the West has another concept emerged that might displace this dominance has, as I have noted, everything to do with ‘worth’ based on monetary considerations, not epistemological/theoretical/experiential perspicacity. Or equity.
There are, however, ways out of the chamber, other echoing possibilities for queer—possibilities engendered by the metaphoric, conceptual, and experiential meeting of the affective, the auditory, and the wild which exhibit strikingly similar characteristics. Understanding this last term in the sense engaged and explored by Halberstam (‘the absence of order, the entropic force of a chaos that constantly spins away from biopolitical attempts to manage life and bodies and desires’) (2020: 7), and recalling both affect’s confounding of linguistic and subjective control, as well as queerness’s professed resistance to its trajectories being ‘decided on in advance’ or ‘depended upon in the future’ (2005: 3), the possibilities of a dialogic resonance, a mutually constitutive echoing, confound the assault of the monologic. With further reference to Halberstam’s wildness—a site for the exploration of sex’s/sexuality’s multiplicity—the contrasting of the closet with the ferox (implying the ferocious, the feral, the free, and relating, in his text, to falconry) is notable; here, we ‘swap out the image of an interior room representing a secret self for a wide-open space across which an unknowable self is dispersed’ (10). While conceiving of a dispersal into the open, in general terms, might appear to highlight both queerness’s and ethnomusicology’s colonial ambitions, a return to the auditory offers different possibilities: the openness of an exterior, expansive, unconstrained space, in which sound cannot be fully controlled, cannot but dissipate and animate, must meet with other motile, vibrating (human/non-human) forces, contrasts starkly with the echo chamber, the indoor, finite space that contains, restrains, and deadens vibrational potentials. Released into the wild of epistemological possibility, the disciplinary instruments of control (assuring a visual/textual monologic centrality) withdrawn, queerness might echo in any number of ways that cannot (must not) be counted upon in advance: This truly provincial, once-all-encompassing concept will be but one voice in what must become a pluriversal soundscape, no longer the lone, droning, deafening fundamental tone.Footnote 16 Neimanis highlights the importance of our corporeal understanding and experience (an embodied concept) of ourselves as open, porous, liquid—bodies of water—that connect us to other porous, liquid materialities, human and non-human, flowing and becoming together (2017). In much the same way, feeling/thinking the self as a mutually constituting/constitutive component of a (literally) vibrating, sonorous/silent expanse that encompasses the immediate and the horizonal; abjuring claims to self-sufficiency, finitude, essence, and primacy; opening to the multimodal comprehending/experiencing of complex sonic relationships that reveal the limits and insufficiencies of a narrow (disembodied, ideal) understanding of language begetting disembodied, monologic, colonizing concepts disseminated via an artificial, stifling system of discipline/disciplines; allowing for the possibility that a textual obliteration of the materialities, sensualities, and aesthetics of sex, body, sound, music is not the apogee of ‘human’ intellectual possibility, but yet another effect of disciplining power/knowledge; all are vital contributions to movement towards the fecundity of multiplicity. If, as Sontag notes in her contemplations of silence, language might, in specific contexts, be ‘experienced not merely as something shared but as something corrupted, weighed down by historical accumulation’ (1967/1969: 15), the willingness to explore sonic interaction exceeding words or symbolic/semiotic systems may do much to cleanse such accumulated corruptions.Footnote 17
Understanding the pluriversal as the outcome of the ‘process of knowledge production…[that] does not abandon the notion of universal knowledge for humanity, but which embraces it via a horizontal strategy of openness to dialogue among different epistemic positions’ (Mbembe 2016: 37) allows for the imagining of a differently sounding queerness irrevocably changed by its new status as only one of many.Footnote 18 Queerness must relinquish both its status and intentions (its role as central, omniscient administrator), must accept that the decolonial project—which it has been complicit in necessitating—cannot operate as a ‘master plan led by a privileged elite, avant-garde intellectuals, or ego-identity politics (Mignolo 2018b: 125). The peddlers of queerness must understand relations, bodies, epistemologies, always in states of becoming, and never reducible to either materiality or cognition; must exchange their product’s de facto current status as an ontological certainty marked by epistemological and economic arrogance (a transmutation via a quiescence with administration and discipline) for that which can only exist in non-hierarchical relation.Footnote 19 Queer may reverberate rather than incorporate, animate, be re-animated through the various resonances; it may remain, faintly, as a sonic trace, a cautionary reminder of the monologic destruction in what can become a colonial past (that must not be repeated); or it may dissipate fully into silence, irrelevant, unable to maintain any vibrating, animating energy once the cheat of capital, wedded to language, is withdrawn.
Queerness is not willed into silence by its erstwhile monologic practitioners (wishing to lead the path to progress), but willingly accepts the silencing; not as a quasi-spiritual path to the practitioner’s own enlightenment, or as a means of drawing, paradoxically, more attention to itself as silence in an increasingly cacophonous world—placing itself, its agents, again, as the hub of all possible spokes—but from a commitment to the necessarily ethical foundations of intersubjective relation, self to others.Footnote 20 The purveyors of hegemonic, academic queerness must commit to this ‘deep selfsilencing’, moreover, as the ‘condition for listening to the voice of the inaudible’ a silence that is, in fact, a ‘sound not audible or intelligible to extractivist ears’, those ears accustomed not to ‘deep listening’ but ‘active listening’ as the means towards continued extraction (emphasis added; Sousa Santos 2018: 177). Understanding, additionally, that silence has often been a weapon of the subaltern—whose meanings are ‘traceable only in shared sequences and rhythms’ (via varied corporeal senses) (178), this dialogic, pluriversal intercourse reveals even more about the complexity of silence itself: Silence is revealed as a pharmakon, sometimes poison, sometimes remedy.Footnote 21 Jones suggests that a ‘queer utopia’, rather than marked by a push towards perfection, is simply a space in which oppressed subjects can ‘breathe’ (2013: 3). We all might dream of a post-queer/post-ethnomusicological, pluriversal utopia, one in which silenced voices can vibrate on multiple frequencies; like music unleashed from the constraints of arid, textual representation, such voices can sound, reverberate in what continually strives to become a necessarily open expanse, one previously stuffed, congested, deadened with and by but one homogeneous, inert, stolid mass.
I am aware that by suggesting a nullification of queer, my arguments might (ironically) seem to align with those calling for an embrace of ‘queer negativity’. And I understand the critiques of such theories—often emanating from outside the West—that highlight the inherent ethnocentricities of a turn to ‘no future’ (Edelman 2004) as ‘[having] some raison d’etre only in cultures that have “future”, are “future-oriented”, and in the privileged position of being able to “waste” it’ (Mizielińska and Kulpa 2011: 18). However, I am not advocating a universal embrace of the ‘negative’ as global panacea, but a local remedy from and against its own provincial ideology that, via its silencing, opens a fertile space for a proliferation of new voices, ‘brought to life through cultural permeability, exchange, influence, or simple coexistence’ (Kulpa, Mizielińska, and Stasińska 2012: 116).Footnote 22 Likewise, I am cognizant of the similarities between the previously noted ‘wild’ and the queer; Halberstam himself notes that while the terms are not synonymous, ‘wildness takes the anti-identitarian refusal embedded in queer theory and connects it to other sites of productive confusion, taxonomic, limits, and boundary collapse’ (2020: 30). As such, it is arguable that a utilization of ‘wild’ indicates that queerness has not been displaced, but remains central as yet another ‘unmarked’ container (queerness de-centred, but now located within a by-any-other-name queer space). But as with ‘negativity’, I am not arguing for ‘wild’ (or any other concept) to ascend to primary status, from the Anglosphere to ‘everywhere else’. Rather, I offer these concepts as possibilities, options, a way for a self-constructed ‘us’ to think about our/themselves, our/their positions, our/their history; they animate my Eurocentric critique of Eurocentricity, of Western disciplinarity, with the goal of ultimately decentring that dangerous ‘we’/‘us’ and, ultimately, any exploitive concept or construct of a ‘we’/‘us’ that owes its existence to that which is constructed as an always-inferior, perpetually catching-up ‘them’. Finally, it is essential to note that I do not envision dialogic, pluriversal intercourse as occurring and reverberating among subjects and groups marked by any sort of essential or irreducible identity (e.g., geographically defined: the West/the rest; the Global South; Eastern Europe; etc.) Rather, although geographic location has certainly been connected to questions of inequity (epistemological; material), and understanding the ideologies and mechanisms through which such inequities have been allowed to obtain is an important step in combatting their continued perpetuation, a true pluriversal space will only exist when variables such as ethnicity or nationality or any sort of geo-sociocultural location (to say nothing of sex, sexuality, class, age, corporeal abilities…) does not mark its bearer as hierarchically defined. Pluriversality will not allow for the distinction enunciator vs. enunciated, for the classification of a work of scholarship such as Ntarangwi’s (2010)—an ethnography of U.S.-based anthropology by a Kenyan scholar—as reversing the usual relationships. In a pluriversal space of meeting, marked by resonance, reverberation, echoing, subjects and subject positions are effectuated through interaction as much as through unique, situated location, histories, experiences, and knowledges.
An awareness of the productiveness of reverberation, the makings of echoes may draw us not only to sound in general, but to music, rich with vibrations that incite and excite a desiring exploration. The theoretical, symbolic, and experiential understanding of phenomena such as overtones or sympathetic resonance, essential components of music’s sonicity, expand to broader (geographical; temporal; philosophical; material) concepts—from the Music of the SpheresFootnote 23 to Confucian ganying—and then back to the most microscopic; for example, the mirror neuron. Music’s very ontology, moreover, gives the lie to the various dualisms that have served as building blocks for any number of exploitative, epistemologically backed structures and actions; with music, it is an utter distortion to posit grouped pairs of supposedly discrete, opposing, foundational terms such as corporeal vs. ideal/cognitive; material vs. intangible/ephemeral; emotional/affective vs. rational; functional vs. aesthetic; or countless others. The sounding musical—distinct from the disciplined musical, in which dualisms such as masculine/feminine indeed still obtain—serves as an extraordinary tool in dethroning the default to the (god trick; surveilling; rational-scientific) visual in Western theory, resulting in alternative, productive possibilities for conceiving of subjectivity and intersubjectivity (e.g., a polyphonic self, in which the multifarious components that contribute to the making of that self, echo, ping, vibrate, transmute with one another).Footnote 24 Even the concept of a uniform, universal temporality—so central to the colonialist enterprise, and rearing its hideous head in both ethnomusicology and queerness, as I have shown—cannot be sustained in relation to the experience and the theoretical affordances offered by music. Rao’s exploration of the postcolonial South, marked by attention to the ‘heterotemporality of the global queer political present’, with time itself approached as ‘temporal states [past, present, and future] that inflect and infect one another, rather than following in chronological succession’ (2020: 21), has a resonance with Capitain’s previously noted call for ‘heterophonic reading’ (2022) and is, moreover, an example of the ways in which the sexual-ideological echoes the sonic-affective.Footnote 25 Indeed, they arguably cannot be thought apart from one another, cannot in fact be thought of as parts; they are, rather, mutually resonating nodes that affect and are affected, their (temporally evanescent) ontologies brought about in the moments of mutual fertilization and frisson, the ontologies and relationships both productive of new ontologies and relationships (temporally, spatially) that cannot be known, controlled, decided upon in advance. Instead of two exploitive and disciplined structures coming together ‘interdisciplinarily’, perpetuating exploitations, the ever-changing study of the ever-changing, mutually inflecting—theoretically, practically; to expand intellectual horizons, to foster the ability of all people to thrive on numerous levels—is the space in which epistemological hubris can have no place, where methodological dogmatism and ethnocentric hierarchicalization can find no purpose or sustenance, can only wither away.
The fostering space in which the multidimensional interaction of sexual/sensual/sensate subjectivity with sound/music—engaging registers experiential, discursive, sensuous, aesthetic, ideological, erotic, social, (inter)subjective, as well as those not yet divined, conceived, or sensed—might counteract the types of erasures and co-optation seen as, in part, the unavoidable outcome of our current university system in which knowledge as commodity is parcelled and segregated, the better to be managed and administered. Such a potential space is not, of course, a wholly new conception—Moran notes that ‘the critique of the academic disciplines as limited and confining is as long-standing as the disciplines themselves’ (2002: 14)—but one with a legacy of starts and stops. Menand (2001), for example, in line with Ferguson’s (2012) exploration of interdisciplinarity, finds the roots of antidisciplinary sentiment and action in the United States as inextricably linked to the changing demographics of the postwar (and post-Cold War) University—combating the exclusions and actions of traditional disciplinary structure, and opening up both ‘studies’ (women’s, Latin, Black, LGBT+, e.g.) and centres devoted to various previously obliterated groups. He also highlights, however, the extent to which such interventions eventually became ensconced within and wedded to extant disciplinary locations, adding that ‘merely adding new areas of study’ (such as ethnoqueer?) ‘doesn’t threaten the integrity of a discipline’ (2001: 54).
What is needed, according to Menand, is a postdisiplinaryFootnote 26 stance, one that is animated by an ‘imaginative and dynamic eclecticism’ that stands in direct opposition to, for example, the conferral of discipline-bound doctoral degrees as ‘a fetish of academic culture’ (59). The postdisciplinary ‘allows ideas and connections to be followed to their logical conclusions, not to some contrived preordained end point determined by artificial disciplinary structures’ or ‘disciplinary policing’ (Coles, Hall, and Duval 2009: 87). Additionally, Ings highlights how postdisciplinarity is essentially radical, drawing on the etymological sense of this word—radical—‘proceeding from a root’ (2020). This root, he explains, is a ‘need to know’, a need that brings the seeker into contact with that which is unfamiliar, and which functions as ‘a form of institutional disobedience not only because it refuses to acknowledge foundational structures of division and demarcation but, more importantly, because it rethinks how we might “know” things’ (52). Recalling, to my mind, Tomkins’s work on affect theory, with interest-excitement posited as a central (yet most theoretically neglected) primary positive affect pair—as that which moves the subject-organism to interact with the world, to explore, ‘to “interest” the human being in what is necessary and in what is possible for him [sic] to be interested in’ (1962/2008: 188)—Ings’s highlighting of the radical needing to know (a desire, as I see it, not predicated on lack) suggests an affective valance to the postdisciplinary.Footnote 27 This affective motivation might or must, I believe, additionally allow for illogical points that refute ‘endings’ at all, repudiating a hollow, narrow scientism more completely than does any sort of ‘interdisciplinarity’ that capitulates to the extant epistemological and methodological boundaries of enterprises that have, at their heart, a perpetuation of inequity. To be moved to know, and to interrogate the very ontology of knowing—spurred on by the reverberations among the sonic, the sexual, the social, the intersubjective—is to embrace a relationship to inquiry that proceeds from a courage, an audacity to venture into territories that offer the exhilarating potentials of the unidentified, the strange, the unimaginable. The courage, the audacity to repudiate a system of masculinity that is, despite its self-construction, not courageous at all, but terrified of the Other-than-itself.
A ‘post-’, of course, may be questionable insofar as it suggests a unidirectional, evolutionary/melioristic movement. But there appears to be agreement that the various modifying prefixes do not, in fact, translate with uniformity of meaning across wide geographic, cultural, or academic terrains; what is a ‘post-’ in one context may be termed an ‘anti-’ in another. I obviously find the term ‘interdisciplinary’ particularly problematic and odious; it reeks of administrators, controlled by a belief that the value of knowledge is equal to its ability to create financial profit, and clinging frantically to disciplinary structure out of a self-preserving avarice and utter fear of the unknown. But what is most important, in my estimation, is indeed a commitment to explorations—whether post-, anti-, non-, trans-, or other—that have salubrious social, ethical, and epistemological aims and consequences, that resist a stultifying and limiting disciplining, that remain elastic and open (to sounding/vibrational potentials) in their needing to know.Footnote 28 And understanding the various elisions that continue to shape the academic landscapes I have been discussing, I believe it is vitally important at this moment in time to foster work that embraces (as method; as process-object of exploration) what might be broadly understood as the creative-expressive, that which is marked in significant ways by affective, sensual-somatic, and aesthetic variables and/as a refusal of the dictates of a bland scientism that is anything but ‘objective’.Footnote 29
I have attempted throughout the chapters of this book, as well as in much of my past writing, to highlight the significance of the affective and the corporeal in relation to the countless registers of lived experience, as well as the dangers of occluding such variables in scholarly work; an unquestioning obeisance to what is supposedly an unimpeachable method of ‘fact-based’ inquiry appears to have rendered some unwilling to consider the posits of countless scholars, artists, and practitioners who have found inextricable links among the corporeal and the ideal, the ‘emotional’ and the ‘rational’, and the indispensable nature of affect in driving towards a ‘need to know’, academic or otherwise. Now, however, I would like now to foreground the importance of aesthetics, wedded to both of the aforementioned registers, and often summoning attention to the ethical. Taken in its broadest sense as referring to the study of the subject’s multivalent sensory perception of and relation to environment (and not, as is sometimes inferred, as marking a field of inquiry positing universal, ideal, and/or metaphysical theories, these in relation to ‘the arts’ and/or an antiquated, simplistic conception of ‘beauty’),Footnote 30 a focus on aesthetic registers offers numerous possibilities for approaching the complexity of experience that, like sound/music/sexuality, can never be reduced to either/or propositions.
In addition to those authors whose work I have previously noted (Panagia 2009; Rancière 2000/2004; Lefebvre 1992/2004; Florensky 1914/2004) (see Chap. 6),Footnote 31 there are numerous others whose findings demonstrate the rich possibilities of attention to aesthetics and corporeal aesthesis. Highlighting both sense and sociality, I first draw attention to Sousa Santos’s observation that the entire sensorium is implicated in relationships between the extractivist and the subaltern subject—the former may not hear the latter, or perhaps the latter ‘[communicates] by other senses, which in turn may provide significant reinterpretations’ (2018: 177)—as a necessary reminder of the embodied nature of all sociocultural, ideological, political relationships.Footnote 32 And the aesthetic has an important role to play in exploring just such corporeal-social-relational dynamics. Relationality is a central concern in the phenomenological theories of Dufrenne (1953/1973), which highlight the extent to which affective, aesthetic experience can be understood as breaking down supposed self/other divisions.Footnote 33 Likewise, as Beltrán’s (2014) and Chuh’s (2019) work illustrate, in line with both of the foregoing scholars, aesthetics may be enlisted in understanding sociocultural dynamics that reveal a complexity refusing binary simplification. Beltrán, with attention to the relationship between ‘racial presence’ and ‘racial justice’—one marked by paradox—argues that an engagement with aesthetics affords theorists the possibility of ‘[attending] to the distinction between values and feelings’ in order to become aware of ‘the dissonance between our sensory pleasures and our ethical values’ (140), thus highlighting the importance of making informed and intuitive judgments in situations marked by indeterminacy. And Chuh, defining the aesthetic as ‘the relationships among the senses and the processes and structures of value by which certain sensibilities become common sense and others are disavowed’ [xii]’, draws attention to its ‘double-voiced’ quality, exploring how it may either support and subtend the status quo or, alternatively, those that dissent from a disempowering, normalizing ‘sensus communis’. As her work makes clear, attention to aesthetics contributes to our understanding not of discrete ‘aesthetic objects’ qua artefacts, but of the possiblities for ‘unconcealing’ subjugated voices and knowledges that can interrupt the monologue of the Western European tradition of liberal humanism that has ‘come to have the effect of truth through the powerful machine of modernity’ (5). Arguing for an ‘illiberal humanities’ as a necessary counter to the current ‘liberal humanities’ constellations that ‘racialize and hierarchize people’ (24), Chuh’s aesthetic analyses of illiberal knowledges contribute to the work of ‘mis-taking’ the university ‘as a means of unsettling the very grounds upon which it stands’ (121).
The influence of Wynter on Chuh’s analyses is expressly noted (by her) and abundantly clear; Chuh’s ‘illiberal humanities’, for example, is alternately termed a ‘humanities after Man’, referencing Wynter’s anti-humanist, anti-exclusionary, decolonial arguments in her 2003 article (subtitled, in part, ‘Towards the Human, After Man’). And although Chuh does not explicitly engage Wynter’s discussion of ‘deciphering practice’ (1992) in the text cited here, it is just such a practice that can illuminate what may be accomplished by prying off the various diversionary veneers covering such prominent examples of the ‘liberal’ as ethnomusicology and queerness. Reading these disciplinarily defined humanities texts themselves, the tens of hundreds of thousands taken individually and collectively, with attention to aesthetic registers—how they are constructed to work upon interrelated ethical and affective registers, on values and feelings, this often effectuated according to what is highlighted and what is eradicated—the illocutionary force must be understood as having explicit (professed, conscious) and implicit (unacknowledged/unacknowledgeable, subconscious; beyond the plans or wishes of any one writing/reading subject) aims. While the former conforms to the dictates of these ‘liberal humanities’ (contributing new understandings of culture-process-object X; giving representational space to same, thus supporting ‘diversity’), it is the latter, the doing rather than the meaning, that allows for the perpetual replication of the alienating, exploitive epistemic system, immune to scrutiny, the highly polished veneers reflecting the idealized self back at the reader.
And it is the armature of masculinity that supports the doing, the coding of this one version of academic discourse (an economic discourse, after all) as superior, represented as the knowledge of (but not understood as the very creator of) Man. Here, the bases for the elisions and exclusions, all gendered, all mapped upon a masculine:feminine :: superior:inferior binary, become clear: body inferior to mind; affect/emotion inferior to rationality; auditory inferior to visual/textual. The individual manifestations—the palpable anti-eroticism; the homophobic invisibilization; the racism masked by ‘diverse representations’; the continuing primary reliance upon written texts, in inviolable formats, despite a cultural-technological landscape that facilitates the ability to communicate with sound and motion, colour and timbre, differences in velocity and tempo; the Eurocentric denigration of orality as inferior to the (visual/material) artefacts of textuality;Footnote 34 the maintenance of raced/racist/gendered/misogynist/homophobic geoculturally based roles of speaking subject/represented object; and numerous others—expose what dares represent itself as a universally valid, preeminent system of knowledge production as, in fact, a system of exploitation, bolstered by a ‘policing language of mastery [that] cannot, [does] not permit new knowledge or encourage the mutual exchange of ideas’ (Morrison 1993). The limiting structure of the (meta)episteme prohibits any admission or reciprocity that might change process or product, both of which are essential to its (covert) replication—a replication that is all but insured so long as ‘meaning’ is sought, in line with current academic demands, in the ‘what ‘rather than the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of production.
Akin in some aspects to Bakhtin’s conception of truth not as an essence, but as a perpetual process of dialogic interaction,Footnote 35 Chuh argues that ‘an illiberal university must remain a question, a marker of a striving for the realization of a radically different world’ (121). And my sonically motivated thought experiments are marked by just such indeterminateness, as questioning rather than answering. If they appear as wistful/wishful thinking, formless, impractical fantasies lacking clearly defined goals, plans, instructions—this is obviously the point. Only unfettered imagination, a willingness to meet and conceive of phenomena in novel, even impertinent ways, a commitment to the process (rather than the artefacts) of mutually constituted knowledges (the outcome of a ‘distributed creativity’)Footnote 36 can foil the neoliberal-colonial disciplinary machine, the dismantling of which is dependent not upon ‘alternatives’, but ‘an alternative thinking of alternatives’ (2020: 118). What passes as the pinnacle of research emanates now from a soul-sucking apparatus that operates exclusively with an eye to profitability, implementability, patentability, assessability, scalability; that values only standardization and replication; that speaks the administrative language devoid of risk, inspiration, and movement, a language of stasis and entrenchment.Footnote 37 One wonders how, in fact, in such an overarching structure—especially considering the exploitation and precariousness of the labour within itFootnote 38—the study of music or sexuality (or anything else) could resist disciplining, ultimately becoming mere one-dimensional, grotesque caricatures of the experiential and conceptual complexity they now wrongly profess to elucidate (as with, e.g., the stultifying transmutation of the multimodal richness of musical experience into a ‘figure of sound’) (Eidsheim 2015).Footnote 39 It is the fallow space in which financial and institutional benevolence is bestowed upon those who have learned that the most valuable knowledge is not any sort of ‘content’ ‘within’ a ‘discipline’ (or, better still, ‘interdisciplinary content’), but a crass, rote-like learning of and adherence to the language and machinations of the system, in order to utilize it for personal gain (oblivious to the fact that, rather than having mastered the system, they are mastered by it, transformed from seekers and makers to babbitts).Footnote 40 By setting up a cacophony of ‘disciplinary’ voices—each driven by a panicked desire to obtain a piece of the ever-shrinking pie, competing (as opposed to cooperating) with all others—the university, in fact, silences the possibility of true resonance. If Foucault (1975/1995) is correct, if a ubiquitous power/knowledge is at the root of such disciplining dynamics, it is imperative to remember that neither half of the dyad is universal, metaphysical; the dyad is marked by specific types of power engendered by/engendering specific types of knowledge, emanating from, and creating specific sociocultural spaces. It is a type of knowledge marked as much by the mechanisms of its dissemination, by its gendered/raced/classed lineage, as the contents and posits with which it manifests in any one era. And this specificity must be undone by refusing both mechanisms and posits, by vibrating on new frequencies, refusing ancillary, facilitating relations to the droning (disciplining) fundamental tones.
The modern, Western university’s ultimate goal of financial enrichment for a few (institutions, and privileged elite within those institutions, whose largesse ‘trickles down’ just enough to assure the allegiance of the many) is ultimately accomplished via a reliance upon the structures and perpetual instantiations of masculinity,Footnote 41 these inextricably linked to, and symbiotically working with and through those of the racist, the colonialist, the misogynist, the homophobic. Mignolo notes the necessity of epistemic, emotional, and aesthetic decolonizing ‘delinking’ from such structures (used to structure knowledge) in order to create ‘institutional organizations that are at the service of life and do not—as in the current state of affairs—put people at the service of institutions’ (2018b: 126). In addition to Chuh, both la paperson (2017) and Escobar (2020) imagine possibilities of universities that do not yet exist, with the last—specifically referencing pluriversality—contrasting the productivity of the possible with the restrictions of the pragmatically attainable.Footnote 42 Yet Moosavi draws attention to the many voices suggesting that, owing to their complicity in ethnocentrism, elitism, and exclusion, ‘universities should be abandoned altogether, even if nobody is willing to take the first step in doing this’ (2020: 342). And perhaps gesturing towards a violence necessary to do the demolition work that can engender an inversion of the current hierarchy institution/[over]/people, Bacchetta—aware of the academic’s ‘[participating] in bolstering the institution and thus enabling (even if unwillingly) its dominant ideological work’ (Bacchetta, Jivraj, and Bakshi 2020: 578)—envisions a ‘critical mass’ of ‘radically critical subjects’ brought inside the university, in order to ‘implode [it] and recreate it differently’ (580).Footnote 43
If amassing to implode requires a catalyst, perhaps polemics such as this text are useful—not in order to incite anger for anger’s sake, but as a textual intervention (working against a system founded in numerous ways upon textuality) that aligns with the affective motivations moving beyond discipline, ‘threaten[ing] the regularizing bound of rhetoric’, thus ‘put[ting] into question the notion of boundaries or limits’ (Flannery 2001: 117). Certainly, my envisioning of the role of the affective may appear quite different from than that of Muñoz, whose ‘call for an “affective reanimation” of queer theory—a blending of critique with hope, passion, aesthetic pleasure, and utopian longing’ (Felski 2015: 30)—is deemed necessary to displace a ‘disabling political pessimism’ (Muñoz 2009: 9). Felski engages with Muñoz’s texts, among others, in order to explore alternative relationships of researcher/analyst to their ‘object of study’ beyond that of critique—a methodology, a stance that has come to be, for the past several decades, the assumed ‘gold standard’ of analysis, granting purchase on a text’s hidden meanings and, concurrently, its subversive/resistant potentials. Operating as a sort of ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ (Ricoeur’s [1965] term),Footnote 44 however, critique, according to Felski—owing to its wholesale, almost requisite embrace as the method par excellence (‘not just one good thing but the only conceivable thing’) (118), a method/stance moreover marking the expositor with the imprimatur of both perspicacity and objectivity (to say nothing of ethical superiority and/or gendered attributes)—has had negative consequences. Resulting in the ‘confusing [of] a part of thought with the whole of thought’, the de facto, often unreflective, habitual, and automatic recourse to critique ‘[scants] a range of intellectual and expressive possibilities’ (5). (The resonance with Morrison’s [1993] assessment of oppressive language that limits knowledge is notable.) Felski notes Sedgwick’s (1997) influential essay on paranoid and reparative reading as expressing this dynamic as well, whereby the mandate of suspicion has become ‘increasingly prescriptive as well as excruciatingly predictable…pushing thought down predetermined paths and closing our minds to the play of detail, nuance, quirkiness, contradiction, happenstance’ (Felski: 34).Footnote 45
Felski’s highlighting of both Muñoz and Sedgwick (noting specifically the latter’s conception of reparative reading as allowing for a relationship to the work of art based upon a desire ‘for solace and replenishment rather than viewing it as something to be interrogated and indicted’) (Felski 2015: 151) alerts us to the various ways that texts may be productively approached without falling back upon what might be seen as the ‘negativity’ of (suspicious) critique. Deposing the stranglehold of critique may enable us to perceive dimly glowing roads, barely visible through the fog of habit or indoctrination, and we may be curious enough to follow them, to approach research in radically reimagined, post/anti-disciplinary manners, in myriad post-university settings (where even the categories of ‘art’ or ‘science’ are understood as nowhere near as discrete as imagined). Yet I do not want to think of my polemic as a critique motivated by suspicion, at least not in the ways Felski and Sedgwick (or Ricoeur) appear to understand this. My critique is, rather, a type of peri-archaeological reading that takes the absolutely undeniable signifying absences in both ethnomusicology and queerness as starting points, not in an attempt to ‘uncover what cannot be seen’, but to highlight the disorienting, dizzying refractions/reflections that manifest as an infuriating invisibilization of a stunningly visible invisibility, perpetuating and perpetuated with utter impunity. An affectively resonant and motivated refusal to ignore this present absence is an essential component of the processes that may ultimately expose the limits of knowing and knowledge within and through the underlying epistemic boundaries that must be perpetually actively/consciously as well as performatively/subconsciously (owing to differing threats and rewards) invisibilized themselves. Moreover, while scholars/researchers may indeed find a certain seduction in suggestions that ‘we’ might approach ‘our’ ‘texts’ with affection rather than antagonism (suspicion, anger, rage as ‘negative’), it is a mistake to construct such relations as bipartite in nature (analyst/text); rather, our anger at these disciplines and their various texts (and their privileged creators) should stem from a care and concern for, from relationships with those silenced and/or exploited by their violations: most significantly, the ‘research subjects’ who—contra the posits of Lévi-Strauss—exist as material, feeling people, not data, those other interlocutors often ignored, obliterated, or misrepresented. At what price does ‘our’ ‘solace’ or ‘replenishment’ come?
All assessments of emotions’ ‘values’ are, of course, situated and contextual; and anger cannot be universally constructed as the opposite of hope or optimism. Indeed, insisting upon anger’s ‘crucial’ nature in battling disenfranchisement of and violence against women of colour (including highlighting the ways that race inflects relationships and power differential among women), Lorde cautions, ‘when we turn from anger we turn from insight, saying we will accept only the designs already known’ (1981/1984: 131)—an assessment underscoring the value of embracing a so-called ‘negativity’ intimately linked to an affective horizon of unknowable possibilities. Affect’s indissoluble link to movement also implicates its utility in combating a disabling acquiescence to status quo. With reference to the title of the collected volume in which his essay appears—The Fire Now—Yancy equates the imperative ‘wait’ with cowardice, but the titular ‘now’ (a command to act with immediacy) with ‘a transnational, multicultural, multi-gendered, multi-disciplinary clarion call’, ‘a demand, a scream, that operates according to diametrically opposed temporal logics…[speaking] to a temporality of refusal to go on as usual’ (2018: 272). Further dismantling what is certainly one hierarchically privileged group’s attempt to value/devalue specific motivations, emotions, and actions (those that benefit ‘us’/those that threaten ‘us’, respectively), Yancy—following the editors’ assessment of the title’s Fire as something ‘cleansing, that comes from speaking up and out against the violence that surrounds us’ (Kamunge, Joseph-Salisbury, and Johnson 2018: 3)—refuses to equate burning with hate, with negativity, with destruction. Much to the contrary, it is ‘a deep stirring in the soul’, a burning that is ‘socially, politically, psychologically, spiritually, and existentially cathartic’ (Yancy: 273). To burn the inequitable, so that another burning can illuminate and perpetuate a temporality of possibility, can crackle, and vibrate the air as a reminder of the power of the sonic. To silence that which silences.
Notes
- 1.
A discussion of Soviet linguistic and musical control may be found in Amico (2014).
- 2.
The earliest years of post-Revolutionary Soviet Russia were remarkable for the overhaul of the penal code, resulting in one of the most liberal political/juridical spheres in the world (and certainly in comparison to Europe or the United States); homosexuality, for example, was removed from the list of criminal offences. This liberalness, however, was relatively short-lived, and with the ascension of Stalin, an authoritarian, repressive regime was installed (and homosexuality recriminalized). For a discussion of the changing juridical landscape in relation to sexuality, see Healey (2001).
- 3.
Other authors have enlisted Bakhtin’s work for analyses of gender and/or sexuality. As only one example, see Francis (2012)
- 4.
In a 2017 interview with Canadian television’s The Fifth Estate, Masha Gessen—offering a typically incisive and accurate analysis of Putin-era Russia (including the autocrat’s similarities to Donald Trump)—highlights the extent to which both men exert power via the exploitation of language. Noting their predilection to lie, and highlighting the linguistic dimensions of social control, Gessen elaborates: ‘They don’t lie in order to avoid telling the truth. They lie in order to assert their power over reality…it’s not “I can do this because I want to do this”, it’s “I can say it because I want to say it. Too bad for the facts”’. Gessen’s assessments—four years in advance of Trump’s baseless charges of widespread voter fraud (culminating, in part, in the 6 January 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol), and five years before Putin’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine—may be seen as comporting with Mignolo and Walsh’s causal linking of epistemology and ontology (and/or the generative power of enunciation) (2018), a making through speaking. Putin’s linguistic denial of an entire (Ukrainian) cultural sphere’s very existence, his spurious claims of Ukraine’s ‘Nazification’, his definition of armed action as a ‘special military operation’ (not a war; not an invasion of a sovereign nation)—all promulgated via a (media) apparatus in which the monologic operates at levels conceptual and systemic—are yet further examples of the relationship between monologic control and material destruction and devastation. Gessen’s interview may be accessed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GAw6dvh8v4; last accessed 1 November 2022.
- 5.
Terms such as ‘quality’ and the related, now ubiquitous term ‘excellence’ are indicative of what Mbembe argues is the current ‘mania’ for assessment within the university system. Far from a concern with fostering original, intellectually-culturally-socially productive, and/or challenging scholarly work, this overarching ‘system of business principles and statistical accountancy has resulted in an obsessive concern with the periodic and quantitative assessment of every facet of university functioning’ (2016: 31) within which and whereby ‘excellence itself has been reduced to statistical accountancy’ (2015). As noted in Chap. 5 (p. 102) Ferguson also highlights the use of the term ‘excellence’ by the administrative, disciplining university (2012).
- 6.
Queer theory’s problematic obsession with an uninterrogated ‘antinormativity’ is productively engaged and critiqued by Wiegman and Wilson (2015).
- 7.
la paperson uses the genderless pronoun ‘hir’ to refer to the figure of the ‘scyborg’ (discussed infra). As such, I use the same construction to refer to them.
- 8.
la paperson notes that the scyborg is ‘a being who is in no way discretely individual. A scyborg is a being in assemblage. Your agential capacity extends beyond your being, into the system’s capacity. Your agency is system. This is why I put the s in front of cyborg’ (2017: 61).
- 9.
la paperson makes reference here to Ferguson’s 2012 book, The Reorder of Things: The University and Its Pedagogies of Minority Difference (upon which I have likewise drawn), as well as an unidentified 2013 lecture (55n1).
- 10.
Grosfoguel, extrapolating from the observations of Sousa Santos, highlights the fact that the vast majority of social theory encountered in the Western university is the product of white men from five Western countries (Italy, France, Germany, England, and the United States) (2012, 2013). Noting that the intellectual production emanating from just 12% of the world is taken as ‘valid and universal…throws away the social experience of most of humanity’ (2012: 84).
- 11.
With allusions to concepts of intellectual property, Smith notes that the globally disseminated type of knowledge produced in the West ‘is generally referred to as “universal” knowledge, available to all and not really “owned” by anyone, that is, until non-Western scholars make claims to it. When claims like that are made history is revised (again) so that the story of civilization remains the story of the West’ (1999: 63). She further notes, ‘when discussing the scientific foundations of Western research, the indigenous contribution to these foundations is rarely mentioned. To have acknowledged their contribution would, in terms of the rules of research practice, be as legitimate as acknowledging the contribution of a variety of plant, a shard of pottery or a “preserved head of a native” to research’ (60). Both Paul Gilroy and Toni Morrison express suspicion regarding the ‘universal’ (white, Western) narratives of history, inevitably placing the hegemonic subject in the centre, and seeing ‘minority’ cultural contribution as fundamentally derivative or belated. See, for example Gilroy’s (1993a) and Gilroy and Morrison’s (Gilroy 1993b) discussions regarding the necessity of reassessing the periodization of the modern and the postmodern in relation to nineteenth-century black diasporic cultural production. Both authors find that attention to such cultural production reveals characteristics of the postmodern a century in advance of where the hegemonic narrative places modernism.
- 12.
Morrison’s observations appear in her Nobel Lecture delivered 7 December 1993. The lecture addresses ‘oppressive language’: a ‘systematic looting…[that] can be recognized by the tendency of its users to forgo its nuanced, complex, mid-wifery properties for menace and subjugation of language’.
- 13.
Morrison’s exposing of the ubiquity of oppressive language highlights its cunning use of camouflage (able to ‘[tuck] its fascist boots under crinolines of respectability and patriotism as it moves relentlessly toward the bottom line and the bottomed-out mind’), allowing for its proliferation and devastation in numerous social realms. Including even those areas self-constructed as bastions of equity—among them the academic—she notes, ‘there will be more of the language of surveillance disguised as research; of politics and history calculated to render the suffering of millions mute; language glamorized to thrill the dissatisfied and bereft into assaulting their neighbors; arrogant pseudo-empirical language crafted to lock creative people into cages of inferiority and hopelessness. Underneath the eloquence, the glamor, the scholarly associations, however stirring or seductive, the heart of such language is languishing, or perhaps not beating at all’ (1993).
- 14.
The translation reverses the terms as they appear in the original Russian; for the original, see Bakhtin (1975b/1996: 195).
- 15.
- 16.
The term pluriversal is frequently encountered in the scholarship on decolonization, often contrasted with ‘universal’ (which is related to an ethnocentric, totalizing, Euro-American position). It appears, for example, throughout Mignolo and Walsh’s dual-authored volume (2018). See also Mbembe (2016).
- 17.
It is important to note that Sontag’s arguments and observations are made in the context of her approaching the concept of silence almost exclusively as wedded to language. As such, they do not take into consideration the sonic-material attributes of sound and resonance, or absence; the essay functions more as a de facto exploration of language (spoken/unspoken) as a symbolic system for the conveying of information, rather than an inquiry into the myriad valances of silence.
- 18.
We may also note Mbembe’s contention, in relation to the refusal of continuing capitalist violence, that the ‘collective resurgence of humanity’ will be accompanied by ‘a thinking through of life, of the reserves of life, of what must escape sacrifice…a thinking in circulation, a thinking of crossings, a world-thinking’ (2013/2017: 179).
- 19.
As only one of numerous examples, I am thinking of Thrift’s writing on non-representational theory. Thrift highlights the animating dynamics of what I might term a becoming together (rather than a ‘co-evolution’, which holds, for me, negative connotations). Noting the co-creative dynamics obtaining among humans, environments, and non-human things (from the organic to the technological), and motivations other than cognitive, intentional, or volitional, the body (including the ‘roiling mass of nerve volleys’ that move the body in non-conscious manners) (2007: 7) is neither obliterated nor presented as fixed, essential, a pre-existing entity that enters into relationship. Rather, ‘the human body is what it is because of its unparalleled ability to co-evolve with things’ (10). Thrift’s ideas exhibit obvious connections to Barad’s ‘agential realism’ which understands phenomena as ‘the ontological inseparability of intra-acting agencies’ (2007: 206) resulting from material-discursive interactions. It is also notable that the very dynamics Barad (and others) highlight—ontology understood as engendered via interaction, rather than a pre-existing essence—are already present in Bakhtin’s work. Implicit in much of his discussion of polyphony and dialogism (see n35, infra), the contextual, co-constituting dynamics of emplaced/embodied interaction are evident in some of his earliest writing; see, for example, an early manuscript (from 1919 to 1921) ultimately published in 1993 (in English translation) as Toward a Philosophy of the Act.
In the context of queer as concept (but not only) and my sonic framework, I also note Vannini’s understanding of non-representational approaches as ‘not [concerning] themselves so much with representing lifeworlds as with issuing forth novel reverberations’ (emphasis added; 2015: 12), offering further that ‘non-representationalists are much less interested in representing an empirical reality that has taken place before the act of representation than they are in enacting multiple and diverse potentials of what knowledge can become afterwards’ (12).
- 20.
Sontag’s essay regarding the function of silence in relation to the artist suggests—intentionally or otherwise—that a refusal of language in relation to one’s artistic practice and production, although it has social effects, is largely a means towards an individual spiritual-psychological-artistic evolution. Sontag also notes that ‘traditional art invites a look. Art that is silent engenders a stare. Silent art allows—at least in principle—no release from attention, because there has never, in principle, been any soliciting of it’ (16). Understanding a stare as having ‘essentially, the character of a compulsion; it is steady, unmodulated, “fixed”’ (16), silence has the possibility of attracting more attention rather than less. The concept of the ethical relation to the Other—particularly as engendered by face-to-face contact—has been explored extensively by Levinas (1961/1991).
- 21.
As a concept enlisted in the interrogation of the foundations of Western metaphysics, Derrida’s pharmakon (1981) may be particularly apt in this context.
- 22.
See also Prosser who argues that an ‘end’ to queer might be figured not temporally but spatially, with its relinquishment of the drive towards perpetual expansion (or its very disappearance) a necessary precondition for the opening of institutional space ‘for the beginnings of other methodologies, for reading other narratives from other perspectives’ (1998: 58).
- 23.
On the relationship between the sonic and the cosmos, see Hicks (2017).
- 24.
I explore the concept of polyphonic embodiment in Amico (in press).
- 25.
Bakhtin’s concepts of the polyphonic novel/polyphonic language and the chronotope are also notable for their utility in exploring the complexities of time. I also note Sousa Santos’s idea of the ‘polyphonic university’ (2018); see n42, infra.
- 26.
Understanding the problematic nature of the prefix ‘post-‘—as evidenced throughout this text in relation to suggestions of evolutionary, hierarchical temporality—its use in relation to disciplinarity is likewise not without difficulties. Whether post-, anti-, counter-, or perhaps another prefix might be the most useful in discussing the future of discipline, however, is a discussion that I will not begin here.
- 27.
In their discussion of Spinoza and Deleuze, and the transindividual working of affects, Meiborg and Tuinen note ‘rather than being a philosophy of passions, we should therefore say that Deleuze’s philosophy puts passion at the core of thought. It is through passion that we acquire our power of action and thus a power to produce concepts or what Spinoza calls common notions, which are adequate expressions of our communal being’ (2016: 12).
- 28.
The essential quality of openness is noted by both Moran (2002) and Pernecky (2020), in relation to two taxonomically different reactions against our current disciplinary structuring. Moran finds that ‘the value of the term, “interdisciplinary”, lies in its flexibility and indeterminacy, and that there are potentially as many forms of interdisciplinarity as there are disciplines’ (15), while Pernecky states ‘there can never be an accurate, exact or complete primer to postdisciplinarity. The proposition being made here is to resist the urge to rely on any single one definition and to continue with a sense of openness’ (1). For a taxonomical overview of ‘interdisciplinary’ and related terms, see Klein (2010).
- 29.
I am quite reluctant to term this type of work as—in part or whole—‘artistic research’, owing to the ways in which the very centrality of a narrow concept of ‘research’ has negatively inflected many such undertakings. Although they do not wish to jettison the term, Henke et al. have argued in their Manifesto that artistic research in its current form, rather than contributing to an expansion of methodologies, activities, and artefacts through which new types of knowledge might be explored and produced, has become increasingly beholden to the dictates of, and sought its legitimation via its adherence to, a very narrow, conservative, and prevalent conception of ‘scientific’-academic research (2020). That much artistic research announces its ‘meaning’ to the spectator/participant in advance is itself problematic, not least in relation to the concept of ‘authorial intent’ which suggests, in part, a hierarchical, unidirectional relationship between meaning’s production/reception and artist/audience, respectively.
- 30.
Henke et al. highlight aesthetic thought as a ‘continual praxis of self-critique…founded on “freedom”’ (2020: 60). Moreover, they find in the aesthetic great potential, related to the term’s resistance to closure—its ‘precariousness’ (62).
- 31.
As noted previously (n19, Chap. 6), the author’s name is often encountered transliterated as Florenskii—in line with the widely used Library of Congress system. I have here, however, maintained the spelling that was used by the volume’s translator.
- 32.
Sousa Santos argues for the importance of artists in the overcoming of abyssal thinking/theorizing, and the cognitive empire of the Global North. In his estimation, the ‘postabyssal artist’ is ‘an expert in imagining third values or entities that stand outside…binaries [such as] society/nature, individual/community, and immanent/transcendent’; she is, moreover—highlighting the importance of that which lies beyond the already-here, the imaginable—‘a consummate practitioner of the sociology of emergences’ (2020: 122).
- 33.
See also Panagia on the aesthetic’s role in the breaking down of sedimented, indexical relationships, thus engendering unprecedented experiential relationships to phenomena and, concomitantly, new understandings (2016). The aesthetic, marked by ‘disinterest’ (not to be taken as ‘a positivist aspiration of value neutrality’, but referring to ‘a temporal interval that suspends the binds of interest and initiates a state of abeyance when peoples, things, and other entities are no longer subject to conventional criteria of appraisal’) affords, according to Panagia, ‘the disarticulation of the constancies of correspondence that would or could afford value a representational structure. It is a pre-judgmental interstice’ (5).
- 34.
On the ocularcentricity of Western culture, and the concomitant denigration of the oral/aural (specifically in relation to the Islamic world), see Hirschkind (2006). See also the African Futures Institute’s project Speaking History, a ‘multi-faceted initiative that interrogates and overthrows [the] outdated, Eurocentric, and racist assumption’ that ‘writing is superior to speech; that written histories are more valuable than oral’ (accessed at https://www.africanfuturesinstitute.com/speaking-history; last accessed 1 November 2022). Finally, see Jay (1993) on the long history of ocularcentricity in the Western philosophical tradition, as well as a critique of visuality in twentieth-century French thought.
- 35.
- 36.
- 37.
I note here my previous discussion of Korsyn’s (2003) highlighting of the contemporary academic compulsion for ‘abstracting’ one’s work—‘meaning, in part, to reduce it to its most easily quotable, quantifiable form and to conform it to previously “successful” work, resulting in a…succession of replicas’ (Amico 2020: 27).
- 38.
As only one example, see Hall’s analysis of the ‘uberfication’ of the Western university (2016).
- 39.
Eidsheim’s term, engaged throughout her book, is meant to highlight the difference between sonic experience as complex and multidimensional, and the manner in which sound has been reduced—in musicological thought, and in Western epistemology more generally—to something one-dimensional (and apprehensible, most often, in a narrow, cognitive sense). For Eidsheim ‘the figure of sound’, as a concept, attempts ‘to capture the process of ossification, through which I argue that an ever-shifting, relationally dependent phenomenon comes to be perceived as a static object or incident’ (2).
- 40.
The increased use of external funding consultants in Norwegian Universities—termed ‘vulture activity’ (gribbevirksomhet) by Professor Bjørn Høyland—and the phenomenal costs associated with this practice have come under fire from several of the country’s academics (Vartdal and Arnesen 2021). That the system of funding itself is based upon largely arbitrary criteria has also been noted and critiqued (Vartdal and Skjæserth 2021).
- 41.
Connell suggests a relationship between capital and masculinity engendered by the growth of cities that functioned as the commercial centres of capitalism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. According to her, ‘the entrepreneurial culture and workplaces of commercial capitalism institutionalized a form of masculinity, creating and legitimating new forms of gendered work and power in the counting-house, the warehouse and the exchange’ (2005: 188).
- 42.
Additionally, Sousa Santos imagines a ‘polyphonic university’, one engendered by the envoicing of the epistemologies of the South, a reaction against the uni-versity (marked by the type of monologism I have been discussion) (2018: Chap. 12). The polyphonic would, in his conception, obtain in two forms: a pluri-versity and a sub-versity, the prefixes referencing the openness to dialogue and the battling against those structures that would seek to silence just such discussions. The sub-versity is also defined by its extra-institutional location, conceptually and materially.
- 43.
See n42, supra, on the concept of the ‘sub-versity’.
- 44.
Ricoeur’s original term, ‘école de suspicion’ was applied to Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche, the ‘maîtres du soupçon’.
- 45.
Bibliography
Amico, Stephen. in press. ‘Sexed Bodies / (Im)Possible Bodies / Polyphonic Bodies’. The Oxford Handbook of the Phenomenology of Music Cultures (ed. Harris M. Berger, Friedlind Riedel, and David VanderHamm). New York: Oxford University Press.
Amico, Stephen. 2014. ‘“The Most Martian of Martianesses”: Zhanna Aguzarova, (Post-) Soviet Rock ‘n’ Roll, and the Musico-Linguistic Creation of the Outside’. Popular Music 33(2): 243–267.
Amico, Stephen. 2020. ‘“We Are All Musicologists Now”; or, the End of Ethnomusicology’. The Journal of Musicology 37(1): 1–32.
Bacchetta, Paola, Suhraiya Jivraj, and Sandeep Bakshi. 2020. ‘Decolonial Sexualities: Paola Bacchetta in Conversation with Suhraiya Jivraj and Sandeep Bakshi’. Interventions 22(4): 574–585.
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich (trans. Vadim Liapunov). 1919–1921/1993. Toward a Philosophy of the Act (ed. Vadim Liapunov and Michael Holquist). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich (trans. Caryl Emerson). 1963/1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics (ed. Caryl Emerson). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich (trans. Vern McGee). 1975a. ‘The Problem of Speech Genres’. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (ed. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist). Austin: University of Texas Press. 60–102.
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich. 1975b. ‘Problema rechevykh zhanrov’. Sobranie sochinenii: T.5, Raboty 1940-x—nachala 1960-x godov (ed. Sergey Georgievich Bocharov and Liudmila Archirovna Gogotishvili). Moskva: Russkie Slovari. 159–206.
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich (trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist). 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M.M. Bakhtin (ed. Michael Holquist). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Barad, Karen. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Beltrán, Cristina. 2014. ‘Racial Presence Versus Racial Justice: The Affective Power of an Aesthetic Condition’. DuBois Review 11(1): 137–158.
Best, Stephen and Sharon Marcus. 2009. ‘Surface Reading: An Introduction’. Representations 108(1): 1–21.
Capitain, Wouter. 2022. ‘From Counterpoint to Heterophony and Back Again: Reading Edward Said’s Drafts for Culture and Imperialism’. Journal of Musicological Research 41(1): 1–22.
Chuh, Kandice. 2019. The Difference Aesthetics Makes: On the Humanities ‘After Man’. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Clarke, Eric F. and Mark Doffman, eds. 2017. Distributed Creativity: Collaboration and Improvisation in Contemporary Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coles, Tim, C. Michael Hall, and David Timothy Duval. 2009. ‘Post-disciplinary Tourism’. Philosophical Issues in Tourism (ed. John Tribe). Bristol: Channel View Publications. 80–100.
Connell, R.W. 2005. Masculinities (Second Edition). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cusick, Suzanne G. 2006. ‘Music as Torture/Music as Weapon’. Trans: Revista Transcultural de Música/Transcultural Music Review 10. Accessed at https://www.sibetrans.com/trans/article/152/music-as-torture-music-as-weapon; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Cusick, Suzanne G. 2008a. ‘Musicology, Torture, Repair’. Radical Musicology 3. Accessed at http://www.radical-musicology.org.uk/2008/Cusick.htm; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Cusick, Suzanne G. 2008b. ‘“Your Are in a Place That Is Out of the World…”: Music in the Detention Camps of the “Global War on Terror”’. Journal of the Society for American Music 2: 1–26.
Derrida, Jacques (trans. Barbara Johnson). 1981. ‘Plato’s Pharmacy’. Dissemination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 61–171.
Dufrenne, Mikel (trans. Edward Casey). 1953/1973. The Phenomenology of Aesthetic Experience. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Dular, Nicole. 2021. ‘Mainsplaining as Epistemic Injustice’. Feminist Philosophy Quarterly 7(1): Article 1. Accessed at https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/fpq/article/view/8482; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Edelman, Lee. 2004. No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. Durham, DC: Duke University Press.
Eidsheim, Nina Sun. 2015. Sensing Sound: Singing and Listening as Vibrational Practice. Durham, DC: Duke University Press.
Eng, David and Jasbir Puar. 2020. ‘Left of Queer’. Social Text 145, 38(4): 1–23.
Eng, David, Jack Halberstam, and José Esteban Muñoz. 2005. ‘Introduction: What’s Queer about Queer Studies Now?’ Social Text 84-85, 23(3-4): 1–17.
Escobar, Arturo (trans. David Frye). 2020. Pluriversal Politics: The Real and the Possible. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Felski, Rita. 2015. The Limits of Critique. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ferguson, Roderick A. 2012. The Reorder of Things: The University and Its Pedagogies of Minority Difference. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Flannery, Kathryn Thomas. 2001. ‘The Passion of Conviction: Reclaiming Polemic for a Reading of Second-Wave Feminism’. Rhetoric Review 20(1): 113–129.
Florensky, Pavel (trans. Boris Jakim). 1914/2004. The Pillar and Ground of the Truth: An Essay in Orthodox Theodicy in Twelve Letters. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Foucault, Michel (trans. Alan Sheridan). 1975/1995. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.
Francis, Becky. 2012. ‘Gender Monoglossia, Gender Heteroglossia: The Potential of Bakhtin’s Work for Re-Conceptualising Gender’. Journal of Gender Studies 21(1): 1–15.
Gilroy, Paul. 1993a. The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness. London: Verso.
Gilroy, Paul. 1993b. ‘Living Memory: A Meeting with Toni Morrison’. Small Acts: Thoughts on the Politics of Black Cultures. London: Serpent’s Tail. 175–182.
Glăveanu, Vlad Petre. 2014. Distributed Creativity: Thinking Outside the Box of the Creative Individual. New York: Springer.
Grosfoguel, Ramón. 2012. ‘The Dilemmas of Ethnic Studies in the United States: Between Liberal Multiculturalism, Identity, Politics, Disciplinary Colonization, and Decolonial Epistemologies’. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge X(1): 81–90.
Grosfoguel, Ramón. 2013. ‘The Structure of Knowledge in Westernized Universities: Epistemic Racism/Sexism and the Four Genocides/Epistemicides of the Long 16th Century’. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge XI(1): 73–90.
Halberstam, Jack. 2020. Wild Things: The Disorder of Desire. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Hall, Gary. 2016. The Uberfication of the University. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Healey, Dan. 2001. Homosexual Desire in Revolutionary Russia: The Regulation of Sexual and Gender Dissent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Henke, Silvia, Dieter Mersch, Thomas Strässle, Jörg Wiesel, and Nicolaj van der Meulen. 2020. Manifesto of Artistic Research: A Defense against Its Advocates. Zurich: Diaphanes.
Hicks, Andrew. 2017. Composing the World: Harmony in the Medieval Platonic Cosmos. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hirschkind, Charles. 2006. The Ethical Soundscape: Cassette Sermons and Islamic Counterpublics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Ings, Welby. 2020. ‘Undisciplined Thinking: Disobedience and the Nature of Design’. Postdisciplinary Knowledge (ed. Tomas Pernecky). New York: Routledge. 48–65.
Jameson, Frederic. 1991. Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Jay, Martin. 1993. Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth Century French Thought. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Jones, Angela. 2013. A Critical Inquiry into Queer Utopias. Baskingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kamunge, Beth, Remi Joseph-Salisbury, and Azeezat Johnson. 2018. ‘Changing Our Fate in The Fire Now’. The Fire Now: Anti-Racist Scholarship in Times of Explicit Racial Violence (ed. Azeezat Johnson, Remi Joseph-Salisbury, and Beth Kamunge). London: Zed Books. 1–9.
Klein, Julie Thompson. 2010. ‘A Taxonomy of Interdisciplinarity’. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (ed. Robert Frodeman; assoc. ed. Julie Thompson Klein and Carl Mitcham). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 15–30.
Korsyn, Kevin. 2003. Decentering Music: A Critique of Contemporary Musical Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kulpa, Robert, Joanna Mizielińska, and Agata Stasińska. 2012. ‘(Un)translatable Queer?, or What Is Lost and Can Be Found in Translation…’ Import-Export-Transport: Queer Theory, Queer Critique, and Activism in Motion (ed. Sushila Mesquita, Maraia Katharina Wiedlack, and Katrin Lasthofer). Zaglossus: Vienna. 115–145.
la paperson. 2017. A Third University Is Possible. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lefebvre, Henri (trans. Stuart Elden and Gerald Moore). 1992/2004. Rhythmanalysis: Space, Time, and Everyday Life. London: Continuum.
Levinas, Emmanuel (trans. Alphonso Lingis). 1961/1991. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lorde, Audre. 1981/1984. “The Uses of Anger.” Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches by Audre Lorde. Berkeley: Crossing Press. 124–133.
Love, Heather. 2010. ‘Close but Not Deep: Literary Ethics and the Descriptive Turn’. New Literary History 41(2): 371–391.
Love, Heather. 2013. ‘Close Reading and Thin Description’. Public Culture 25(3): 401–434.
Mbembe, Achille (trans. Laurent Dubois). 2013/2017. Critique of Black Reason. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Mbembe, Achille Joseph. 2016. ‘Decolonizing the University: New Directions’. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education 15(1): 29–45.
Mbembe, Achille. 2015. ‘Decolonizing Knowledge and the Question of the Archive’. Public Lectures at Wits Instituted for Social and Economic Research (WISER), 30 April 2015, Johannesburg, South Africa. Accessed at https://wiser.wits.ac.za/system/files/Achille%20Mbembe%20-%20Decolonizing%20Knowledge%20and%20the%20Question%20of%20the%20Archive.pdf; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Meiborg, Ceciel and Sjoerd van Tuinen. 2016. ‘Introduction’. Deleuze and the Passions (ed. Ceciel Meiborg and Sjoerd van Tuinen). Earth, Milky Way: Punctum Books. 9–20.
Menand, Louis. 2001. ‘Undisciplined’. The Wilson Quarterly 25(4): 51–59.
Mignolo, Walter D. 2018a. ‘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.
Mignolo, Walter D. 2018b. ‘What Does It Mean to Decolonize?’ On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis (Walter D. Mignolo and Catherine E. Walsh). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 105–134.
Mignolo, Walter D. and Catherine E. Walsh. 2018. On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis (Walter D. Mignolo and Catherine E. Walsh). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Mizielińska, Joanna and Robert Kulpa. 2011. ‘“Contemporary Peripheries”: Queer Studies, Circulation of Knowledge, and East/West Divide’. De-Centering Western Sexualities: Central and Eastern European Perspectives (ed. Robert Kulpa and Joanna Mizielińska). Farnham: Ashgate. 11–26.
Moosavi, Leon. 2020. ‘The Decolonial Bandwagon and the Dangers of Intellectual Decolonisation’. International Review of Sociology 30(2): 332–354.
Moran, Joe. 2002. Interdisciplinarity. London: Routledge.
Morrison, Toni. 1993. ‘Nobel Lecture’. Nobelprize.org, 7 December 1993. Accessed at https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/1993/morrison/lecture/; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Muñoz, José Esteban. 2009. Cruising Utopia: The Then and There of Queer Futurity. New York: New York University Press.
Neimanis, Astrida. 2017. Bodies of Water: Posthuman Feminist Phenomenology. London: Bloomsbury.
Ntarangwi, Mwenda. 2010. Reversed Gaze: An African Ethnography of American Anthropology. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Panagia, Davide. 2009. The Political Life of Sensation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Panagia, Davide. 2016. Ten Theses for an Aesthetics of Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Pernecky, Thomas. 2020. ‘An Unintroduction to Postdisciplinarity’. Postdisciplinary Knowledge (ed. Tomas Pernecky). New York: Routledge. 1–21.
Prosser, Jay. 1998. Second Skins: The Body Narratives of Transsexuality. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rancière, Jacques (trans. and ed. Gabriel Rockhill). 2000/2004. The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible. London: Bloomsbury.
Rao, Rahul. 2020. Out of Time: The Queer Politics of Postcoloniality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1965. De l’interprétation. Essai sur Sigmund Freud. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. 1997. ‘Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading; or, You’re So Paranoid, You Probably Think This Introduction Is About You’. Novel Gazing: Queer Readings in Fiction (ed. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 1–37.
Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books.
Sontag, Susan. 1967/1969. ‘The Aesthetics of Silence’. Styles of Radical Will. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. 3–34.
Sousa Santos, Boaventura de. 2018. The End of Cognitive Empire: The Coming of Age of Epistemologies of the South. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Sousa Santos, Boaventura de. 2020. ‘Toward an Aesthetics of the Epistemologies of the South: Manifesto in Twenty-Two Theses’. Knowledges Born in Struggle: Constructing the Epistemologies of the Global South (ed. Boaventura de Sousa Santos and Maria Paula Meneses). London: Routledge.
Thrift, Nigel. 2007. Non-Representational Theory: Space, Politics, Affect. New York: Routledge.
Tomkins, Silvan. 1962/2008. ‘Interest-Excitement’. Affect Imagery Consciousness: The Complete Edition. New York: Springer. 185–201.
Vannini, Phillip. 2015. ‘Non-Representational Research Methodologies: An Introduction’. Non-Representational Methodologies: Re-Envisioning Research (ed. Phillip Vannini). New York: Routledge. 1–18.
Vartdal, Ragnhild and Mats Arnesen. 2021. ‘Flere Spanderer Konsulenthjelp til Forskningssøknader’ (Many treat themselves to consulting assistance for research applications). Khrono.no, 3 June 2021. Accessed at https://khrono.no/flere-spanderer-konsulenthjelp-til-forskningssoknader/582884; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Vartdal, Ragnhild and Leikny Havik Skjæserth. 2021. ‘Fekk Botnkarakter av Forskingsrådet, men Prestisjestipend frå ERC’ (Received a bottom grade from the Research Council, but a prestigious scholarship from the ERC). Khrono.no, 12 January 2021. Accessed at https://khrono.no/fekk-botnkarakter-av-forskingsradet-men-prestisjestipend-fra-erc/544790; last accessed 1 November 2022.
Wiegman, Robyn and Elizabeth Wilson. 2015. ‘Introduction: Antinormativity’s Queer Conventions’. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 26(1): 1–25.
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.
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.
Yancy, George. 2018. ‘Afterword’. The Fire Now: Anti-Racist Scholarship in Times of Explicit Racial Violence (ed. Azeezat Johnson, Remi Joseph-Salisbury, and Beth Kamunge). London: Zed Books. 266–274.
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). Non-fundamental Tones, or, the Pharmakon of Silence. In: Ethnomusicology, Queerness, Masculinity. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15313-6_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15313-6_8
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)