Challenge Questions

1. The crisis of representation brought around major shifts in how ethnographers textualized their research. Modern ethnography is reflexive, based on the ethnographers own subjective experience, far removed from the positivist approach of the past. In this class, we have been exposed mostly to work done after this theoretical upheaval. As students, how does reflexivity affect how we relate to ethnographic work? In comparison to the the few examples of older ethnographies we have read, in what ways are these modern works more and/or less easy to understand and learn from? How might other groups of people potentially interested in this work, such as hobbyists and ethnomusicologists, be affected by reading these newer works?

2. The ethnographer's relationship with the people who are his or her subjects is both highly essential and complex. Titon describes forming friendships with subjects as both a goal and a consequent of fieldwork in his "friendship model" (in Barz and Cooley 2008: 37-40). On the other hand, Wong asserts that "the ethnographer is always an outsider" (in Barz and Cooley 2008: 82). And Shelemay becomes somehow both an outsider and more of an insider than her subjects when she is asked by them to mediate tradition to the community she studies itself in the role of "expert" (in Barz and Cooley 2008: 151). How is it possible for the ethnographer to assume these many roles at once? How can these roles be seen as beneficial, harmful, or incidental to the processes of fieldwork and ethnography?

Critical Review #6: Kaminsky

In this article Kaminsky explores the role of gender in Swedish Polska dancing. Like many folk dance traditions, the genre typically reinforces a gender binary, prescribing different roles to men and women encouraging flirtation between the sexes. However, in modern Sweden, Kaminsky notes, gender roles are less strict and gender equality is actively sought out, leading to a number of changes in the dance tradition. Same sex dancing partnerships, regardless of the participants' sexual orientations, grow more common, and dancers are beginning to take on certain roles in the dance characteristic of the opposite gender. The element of flirtation, however, remains largely heterosexual (or homosexual interactions are underreported), or heteronormative in the few cases of overt homosexual flirtation. Women usually take on weak, submissive roles and men chivalrous, dominant roles in flirtations. A number of factors also discourage flirtation, such as the danger of assault or of appearing loose, and even the choreography of the dance itself.

Discussion question: Why are the sexual undertones of Polska not so openly discussed if they are generally present? What does this tell us about the nature of sex in this culture?

Field Research Interview

Below are some excerpts from my interview with Simon, a sophomore and Brown, who has been involved in BUGS in a various capacities since his first semester.

Alex: What is the history of your involvement with BUGS?

Simon: I read the website of the organization the summer before I joined Brown...and I though, “Oh, I should totally audition for this,” and having never auditioned for any opera, music theater, anything before, I just ended up in the chorus....And then in the spring semester I auditioned a bit more seriously and I got cast is Wilfred in Yeomen of the Guard.

...

Alex: Do you think a lot of people that join BUGS haven't had a lot acting experience, like yI ou?

Simon: ...Perhaps maybe a fifty/fifty split of the new recruits between those who have theater experience and those who don't. Although, those who do have theater experience going into BUGS, perhaps that theater experience is more likely to be like operatic experience rather than regular theater.

Alex: Do you think that there's any kind of divide between people who are theater veterans and people who are sort of new to the craft...?

Simon: I do feel that sometimes people who end up in BUGS, end up in the choruses of BUGS sometimes kind of realize that there's no real hope of progressing for them because they're not really good enough...to actually have a lead role and so are destined to be stuck in the choruses, so maybe there's a divide there.

Alex: Do those people tend to stick around?

Simon: Actually those do tend to people the people who sometimes stick around in BUGS, although obviously they sometimes leave because of that. But what I'm saying is that the kind of people who would more reliably get proper acting roles in BUGS shows kind of then, despite the fact that they can get it, don't have much interest having done it a couple of times. They want to go on to bigger and better theater things.

Alex: So are you saying that BUGS sort of occupies a lower rung on the ladder in terms of theater at Brown?

Simon: Yes. For example, BUGS, I've noticed always makes sure to mention other theater productions going on just before they start each performance, but I went to the Musical Forum review on Saturday evening, and they had a similar segment just before their show began, but they specifically omitted BUGS's show. BUGS's show is going up not for a while, however they mentioned a show that was going up in December, so I found that curious.

Alex: How about the social life of BUGS? Do you feel like it tends to a close knit group?

Simon: I get the impression that in the past it was a quite close knit group. I don't know if you know anything about BUGS parties, but there's been a kind of tradition in BUGS that there are these parties, both around the show and at random points in the year in which lots of Gilbert and Sullivan will be sung, not the current show, just Gilbert and Sullivan for the pleasure of it. And then there were people who got involved in BUGS who like to go to parties that aren't really like that. So there's a little sort of divide, that's one rift within BUGS.

Alex: So you're saying there's kind of a hard-core group...defined by their interest in Gilbert and Sullivan?

Simon: Yeah, I feel like there was that hard-core group and they've kind of disappeared...Those people have kind of vanished. They've mostly graduated, to be honest. And most of the new people they recruited while they were at Brown enjoy Gilbert and Sullivan, but not in that way. And that may be one reason why BUGS is kind of, in my view, declining.

….

Alex: So what is your current involvement with BUGS?

Simon: I sit on the board of BUGS....I offered my services for accompanying their rehearsals because I play piano, and then I kind of backed out of that arrangement because of my frustration with how I think their show is going to turn out this semester...I've become involved in other theater groups on campus, specifically Production Workshop and Musical Forum, and I've been accompanying. I haven't transitioned to acting for any of those groups yet...but I think it's a possible thing for the future.

Alex: And how has your experience with those other theater groups compared with your experience with BUGS?

Simon: I mean, it's just when it comes to auditioning and calling back people, it's just the complete reverse. Rather than BUGS which has a dearth of people, and particularly a dearth of talented people, who want to be involved with the show, things like PW and MF have many, many people....They could pick and choose for every part, and they can pick and choose for their choruses as well. Unlike BUGS, I guess...you can question the cause and effect here, BUGS actually has, I believe, something in their policies so that anyone who wants to be in the chorus for show can be. It's not like they turn down people....We've had a couple of kind of difficult people in the past, one still now, who wanted to be on the board but weren't elected to the board but then wanted to turn up to meetings and were essentially told that they could not do so. But that's a consequence of having this policy where you're kind of open to anyone being involved.

Alex: So are there sometimes people who the rest of the group would rather that they weren't sticking around and singing and acting and being involved in politics?

Simon: I think you could say that...I don't know what it is, but Gilbert and Sullivan is certainly a niche appreciated piece of culture in the twenty-first century, and for whatever reason the people who do appreciate it perhaps tend to not be your people who are most easy to get on with.

Critical Review #5 -- "Confronting the Field(note)" (Barz)

In his article "Confronting the Field(note) In and Out of the Field" Gregory Barz discusses the fieldnote from an epistemological viewpoint, and argues that its role in the process of learning in the field and textualizing experience in an ethnography outside of the filed is an active, not a passive, one. He uses his own research on Tanzanian kwayas as a case study throughout the article. In practice, he explains, a fieldnote is the intermediate step between experience and textualization, but it is not a simple memory device or lifeless artifact from the field. He explains that writing notes is not the only way to learn, especially in light of the fact that members of the kwaya are expected to learn by ear. He goes on to explain that a dialogue between experience and interpretation occurs during the process of writing and reading field notes. One's "original experience" is altered by the very fact of writing and organizing one's thoughts in note, and the ethnographer may have very different views after writing a note than before. Similarly, interpreting field notes outside of the field makes the ethnographer aware of new points of view that he or she may not have understood while writing the note. In fact, writing and reading themselves are experiences distinct from the "original experience." Rather than a linear progression from field research to fieldnote to ethnography, Barz proposes a model in which the fieldnote is a movable fulcrum whose position affects the balance between experience and interpretation. Barz's article challenges ethnographers to think about the nature of the notes that they write and view them as more than simply texts.

Discussion question: In Barz's view, a fieldnote is a trigger for experience rather than a memory. The point of ethnography is to relate experience. But can an experience that must be translated and transfigured through writing, reading, and finally writing again into an ethnography really accomplish this goal?

Fieldnotes excerpt

I observed a rehearsal for Brown University Gilbert and Sullivan on 10/8/12 from 9:30-11:10. All names are changed for privacy.

9:25 -- I arrive 5 minutes early. I am a little put off by how empty the building is. Where is everyone? Am I in the wrong place, or are the directors so disorganized that they don't even show up on time?

9:30 -- Emma, the music director [who I know previously from music classes and work and with whom I previously corresponded], arrives. She is on the phone talking to the director (?) and seems as confused as I do. Apparently rehearsal starts at 10...

9:35 -- Emma I and sita chat waiting for rehearsal to start. She mentions that the singers are going to start rehearsing with the pit soon, something she is pleased about. Apparently in the past, singers didn't rehearse with the pit until tech week. Is there a big divide between cast members and pit members? Do the two groups get to know each other/make friends by the time of the show?

I mention some of my own experience as a singer in musicals not getting enough time to rehearse, particularly egregious when I was in Sweeney Todd. Emma is excited that I was in Sweeney and starts talking to me about Sondheim's music, which she seems to know well. What is here theater experience outside of BUGS?

Emma also mentions offhand that they like to rehearse the leads separately from the chorus because the chorus members are usually slower to learn music and don't all read staff notation. Is there a major divide in skill level between members?

9:45 -- Two men arrive. One is middle aged, does not appear to be a current Brown student. He expresses dismay that rehearsals are so late at night recently, especially in light of the fact that he is working. What is his history with BUGS?

Emma introduces me, they introduce themselves as Kurt and Dave, after which Emma adds that Kurt, the older one, is "our duke." Kurt seems amused at my ethnography, and starts talking about BUGS, apparently trying to help out with my project. He explains that it is unusual that there is a director and an assistant director, as well as a music director and assistant music director (Emma corrects, "co-music director"), ironic in light of the fact they are short-casted.

9:50 -- We get into the rehearsal room. It has a big mirror along the long wall like a dance studio and no chairs or piano. It strikes me as rather a bad location.

9:57 -- Emma starts playing the keyboard and Kurt and Dave sing along informally.

10:00 -- Rehearsal starts. Only three singers are rehearsing, but all four directors are present. I start to see Kurt's point from before.

One of the warmups that Emma leads is just rhythmic. The singers say "ta" on the beats and she conducts them, speeding up, slowing down, and giving them expressive cues. She clearly has a musical vision that she intends to communicate to her musicians with her conducting.

10:10 -- They do a harmonic warmup singing a simple chord progression. Dave is having a lot of trouble holding his part. Emma halts the exercise to teach Dave his part alone. Aaron, the other music director, interrupts and starts explaining triadic harmony to Dave, which seems to be confusing him more than anything. Dave keeps trying to sing the part, but always stops himself and apologizes.

Kurt is quite a strong singer, and appears to be more "in character" than the other cast members at rehearsal.

10:15 -- The start rehearsing a trio. Dave continues to have trouble holding his part. Aaron sings with Dave to give him more confidence. Emma sometimes corrects Dave's intonation even when he sings the right contour. Aaron seems more concerned with Dave singing the right notes, poorly tuned or not, and gives him more encouragement than Emma, saying after Emma's criticism "but the notes were all right." Is there a little tension or power struggle? Emma certainly is taking the lead, and Aaron is struggling a little to get his voice heard. Is Emma more senior, a more experienced musician? Or do they have a good cop/bad cop thing going?

10:22 -- A loud band is rehearsing in a nearby room, and the door to the BUGS rehearsal room is open. Emma jokingly mentions something she calls the "shock therapy group" that was rehearsing last time. Annie (one of the directors) is confused and Emma explains that there were people wailing in another room at a previous rehearsal and she gave them that name.

10:35 -- Emma makes a mistake while giving Dave some more one-on-one help. She jokes, "I need to loop [i.e. sing over and over] this myself!" trying to relieve the awkwardness of Dave's relatively slow learning.

10:37 -- Emma tries to help Dave by suggesting that he think of the note C for the whole passage to help ground himself in the key. She then refers to the passage as "one big Shenkerian C," which I laugh. Clearly a joke not meant for Dave, so I wonder why she mentioned it.

10:40 -- I notice that the directors have hardly said anything and are just on their laptops. What is the point of their presence at music rehearsals?

10:45 -- Kurt gives Dave advice every once in a while, now about holding a single pitch. Is he some kind of de facto authority or paternal figure?

11 -- Dave gets frustrated, and Aaron takes the lead for the first time and proposes an exercise. Everyone must tell an embarrassing secret in order to feel more comfortable and not be embarrassed or feel vulnerable while singing in rehearsal. He turns to me and tells me that I need to also, and I very enthusiastically accept.

Aaron starts with a very intense and personal secret, and everyone is a little put off. No one quite knows how to follow him. The rest of the secrets are much lighter. It's a bit tense. I'm not convinced the exercise is helpful. Why did Aaron do this? Was he trying to assert his authority a little?

Critical Review #4: The Ethics of Representation (Agawu)

In his article "The Ethics of Representation," Agawu explores ethicals in ethnographic research by focusing on ethical issues in fieldwork done on African music. He begins by discussing ethics broadly, and raises a number of rhetorical questions about who determines what is ethical and whether anything can truly be ethical. Moving on to fieldwork in Africa, it is often difficult to determine what constitues ethical performance in African music. Is it ethical if sacred aspects of music are obscured with increasing commercialization or if traditional songs use a canonical form of insult? Since ethical though in Africa and Euro-America are quite different, it is often unclear to the ethnographer writing for a Western audience how to act ethically. Agawu himself has had to use deception in the field to preserve the integrity of his research or to protect his and his team's wellbeing, actions that he argues are not unethical. Turning to the question of ethics in representation, he proposes that fictional ethnography may be ethical if it is somehow more true than reality. In reflexive ethnography, he asks, is it ethical to excludes elements of one's own experience in the ethnography or to emphasize certain details excessively? Agawu's article raises a lot of important questions, and does not seem to answer them in many specific ways. The crux of his argument, it seems, is that ethics is highly subjective and context dependent. It is not specific rules regarding action, he concludes, but an attitude that defines ethics.

Discussion question: Agawu's reference to an "ethical attitude" is very brief and barely elaborated on. What might this attitude consist of? What examples that he provides earlier in the article might illustrate it?