The Clash of Definitions: A Critical Review of Field and Fieldwork - Ferhat Arslan

 

Ethnomusicology, like many other social sciences, makes use of theories and methods from other disciplines like anthropology, linguistics, archaeology or history. One of the most important methods used in all of them is what we know as “fieldwork” (Arslan, 2018, p. 2).

 

For an overview on the history of “fieldwork” in ethnomusicology we must travel back to the 19th century. Back to comparative musicology and a research method called “armchair ethnomusicology”, in which scholars waited for collected data from around the world to be brought to them. During these times, scientific information taken from any data was based on comparison. Scholars compared the freshly collected data with information they had in order to build theories without taking any part in the data collection process (Arslan, 2018, p. 3). 

 

Over time ethnomusicology matured, but during its early years it had to lean on the already established disciplines, adapting their theories and methods to develop its own and giving way to practices from other disciplines such as fieldwork. But what exactly does the word “field” in fieldwork mean? And how is ethnomusicological fieldwork understood and done today? An investigation of these questions can provide useful information on the discipline and its modern challenges (Arslan, 2018, pp. 3-4). 

 

Paradoxes of terminology

 

In its early years, ethnomusicologist’s practice and focus was on “non-Western” music

and its classification, analysis and comparison. Slowly thanks to the arrival of new generations, armchair approaches of comparative musicologists changed. Famous ethnomusicologists like Alan P. Merriam, Mantle Hood, or Bruno Nettl suggested new definitions and ways to approach study subjects (Arslan, 2018, p. 5).

 

From the 1960’s on, discussions in ethnomusicology grew to new areas. Scholars started questioning their own methodologies and definitions to the point of valuable self-criticism. As a result, the idea of identity was brought into the discipline (Arslan, 2018, p. 6).

 

Defining “The Field”

 

Fieldwork’s problems and history in ethnographic disciplines have been discussed so many times that today it’s still a very popular subject of debate. And even though the word “fieldwork” has been used for such a long time, ethnographers can’t deny that the term is loaded with certain meanings that evoke negative connotations (Arslan, 2018, p. 8).

 

According to the Oxford Online Dictionary, the word “field” originates from the old English feld, meaning “an area of open land”. A second meaning says that “field” is “a place where a subject of scientific study can be observed in its natural location or context”. The current understanding of the word in ethnomusicology is a combination of both explanations. But in short, the field still represents an exotic place, a kind of “wilderness away from home” (Arslan, 2018, p. 9).

 

As a result, the perception of “field” and its actors has become a main topic of discussions in ethnographic disciplines. From the 1960’s on, new questions related to the place of researchers and their self-designated role as “saviors of a cultural practice” came into debate (Arslan, 2018, p. 10).

 

Nowadays it is less acceptable to consider fieldwork as an adventure or an exploration. For example, even other problematic aspects of the terminology used during a long time in ethnographic studies, terms like “primitive” or “savage”, have been reviewed (Arslan, 2018, p. 10). That is why making an analysis of the origin of the terms and their connotations allows us to understand their problematic semantic load (Arslan, 2018, p. 10).

 

The Field and its Workers 

 

Following the growth of the discipline and today’s paradigm shifts, social sciences are offering new ideas and approaches. It’s now necessary to have an awareness of political, spiritual, and humanitarian aspects of ethnographic studies (Arslan, 2018, p. 12).

 

Throughout its development, fieldwork has been approached in different ways and faced radical changes, that is why it’s so important to understand how former works in ethnography or ethnomusicology have shaped today’s approaches (Arslan, 2018, p. 14).

 

Field is more than a piece of land to reach or a certain community to study. It is a heavily loaded concept that “does not depend on geography, but on the self-constructed identity of the ethnographer” (Arslan, 2018, p. 14).


Reference 


Aslan F. (2018). The Clash of Definitions: A Critical Review of Field and Fieldwork. Alternatif Politika,10 (1),  https://www.academia.edu/36017901/Ferhat_ARSLAN_THE_CLASH_OF_DEFINITIONS_A_CRITICAL_REVIEW_OF_FIELD_AND_FIELDWORK_IN_ETHNOMUSICOLOGY



 

 

 

Popular posts from this blog

Music Perception and Cognition: A Review of Recent Cross-Cultural Research - Catherine J. Stevens

  Music is social, dynamic and interpersonal. As musical cultures are endangered by globalization, it’s now more important than ever to document and analyze musical diversity and consider the way people and cultures interact with it and its environment. Luckily nowadays cross-cultural studies are focusing on the way listeners perceive music of other cultures, its structures, similarities and differences (Stevens, 2012, p. 654).   Because of processes of enculturation and people’s acquired perceptual habits, it is always a challenge to compare music from different regions of the world. How can similarity or complexity be measured without the bias of a particular cultural perspective? Recent studies have tried to focus on the development of perceptual habits from exposure to a particular music environment (Stevens, 2012, pp. 659-660).   Aspects like cultural knowledge can also influence musical expectancies in the context of an unfamiliar musical scale system. In the West, ...
Read more

Music’s “design features”: Musical motivation, musical pulse, and musical pitch - John C. Bispham

  Music, Communication and Affect   Music, like every other way of human communication, exists and depends upon culture (Bispham, 2009, p. 30). Even though the meaning of music is the result of a specific cultural and social context, all of us seem to be able to engage and to respond to some aspects of music outside our own culture (Bispham, 2009, p. 30). This kind of engagement works in different dimensions such as biological, social or cultural spaces (Bispham, 2009, p. 30).   Music is usually associated with emotions. People describing “shivers” or “chills” while listening to music are evidence of strong emotional experiences (Bispham, 2009, p. 30). However, there is still not enough evidence to prove that musical emotions are in any way different from other types of emotions (Bispham, 2009, p. 30). Maybe the most common example could be the use of music in society or even in psychology as a means of altering or creating particular moods in individuals or groups (Bisph...
Read more

Cultural constraints on music perception and cognition - Steven J. Morrison and Steven M. Demorest

Being at the very heart of human evolution, music has created and afforded spaces for individual and collective ideas, thoughts, or conceptions. Since the beginning of history, music’s ability to hold multiple interpretations may have enabled interactions and negotiations among the early human societies.    Foundations of music enculturation   When it comes to music, fundamental components such as pitch or duration aren’t really defined by culture. We talk about musical enculturation when studying the relationship of certain groups of people to these kinds of constructs. For example, when understating if a specific pitch or duration is considered typical, acceptable, or desired among a group of people (Morrison and Demorest, 2009, p. 67).   A few examples of the influence of enculturation in music are people’s responses to pitch, rhythm, and more complex musical structures such as scalar or metrics. The different responses observed between cultural groups reflect dif...
Read more