Applied Ethnomusicology

Applied Ethnomusicology:
Historical and Contemporary Approaches

Edited by

Klisala Harrison, Elizabeth Mackinlay

and Svanibor Pettan
 Applied Ethnomusicology: Historical and Contemporary Approaches,
Edited by Klisala Harrison, Elizabeth Mackinlay and Svanibor Pettan

This book first published 2010

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2010 by Klisala Harrison, Elizabeth Mackinlay and Svanibor Pettan and contributors

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-4438-2425-9, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-2425-5

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements .................................................................................. viii

Preface ........................................................................................................ ix
Stephen Wild, Secretary General, International Council for Traditional
Music (ICTM)

Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
Klisala Harrison and Svanibor Pettan, Executive, Study Group on Applied
Ethnomusicology, ICTM

Part 1: Historical and Contemporary Understandings of Applied

Ethnomusicology in International Perspective

Chapter One............................................................................................... 22
Maintaining the Distance, Othering the Subaltern: Rethinking
Ethnomusicologists’ Engagement in Advocacy and Social Justice
Ana Hofman

Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 36

Solving Conflicts: Applied Ethnomusicology at the Music Department
of the University of Fort Hare, South Africa, and in the Context of IMOHP
Bernhard Bleibinger

Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 51

Applied Ethnomusicology, Music Therapy and Ethnographically Informed
Choral Education: The Merging of Disciplines during a Case Study
in Hopevale, Northern Queensland
Muriel Swijghuisen Reigersberg

Part 2: Teaching Pedagogies and Research Practices of Applied

Ethnomusicology

Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 76

United States Ethnomusicology and the Engaged University
Eric Martin Usner
vi Table of Contents

Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 96

Big Women from Burrulula: An Approach to Advocacy and Applied
Ethnomusicology with the Yanyuwa Aboriginal Community
in the Northern Territory, Australia
Elizabeth Mackinlay

Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 116

“Singing from the Dark”: Applied Ethnomusicology and the Study
of Lullabies
Katarina Juvančič

Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 133

Solid as Stone and Bone: Song as a Bridge between Cultures
and Generations
Vojko Veršnik

Part 3: Building Sustainable Music Cultures

Chapter Eight........................................................................................... 150

Three Journeys, Five Recollections, Seven Voices: Operationalising
Sustainability in Music
Huib Schippers

Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 161

Questioning the Possibility of Revitalising Traditional Rural Songs
in Topola, Serbia
Jelena Jovanović

Part 4: Music’s Roles in Conflict Situations

Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 182

The Music of Minorities in Austria: Conflict and Intercultural Strategies
Ursula Hemetek

Chapter Eleven ........................................................................................ 200

The Musical Arts in Aceh after the Tsunami and the Conflict
Margaret Kartomi
 Applied Ethnomusicology: Historical and Contemporary Approaches vii

Chapter Twelve ....................................................................................... 214

Polyphony of Cultures: Conceptualization and Consequences
of an Applied Media Project
Britta Sweers

Contributors............................................................................................. 233

Index........................................................................................................ 239
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

General editors:
Klisala Harrison
Elizabeth Mackinlay
Svanibor Pettan

Copy editors:
Klisala Harrison (article texts)
Elizabeth Mackinlay

Editorial assistant:
Rodrigo Caballero

Review board:
Samuel Araújo, Katelyn Barney, Kelly Best,
Sam Cronk, Ruth Davis, Gerd Grupe,
Erica Haskell, Jeffrey Hatcher,
Lasanthi Manaranjanie Kalinga Dona,
Michelle Kisliuk, Susan Monk, Karl Neuenfeldt,
John Phillips, Adelaida Reyes, Owe Ronström,
Anthony Seeger, Kjell Skyllstad, Atesh Sonneborn,
Jeff Todd Titon, Stephen Wild, Deborah Wong

Cover image: Photograph taken by Vojko Veršnik at the Twentieth Music

Review of Children, Pupils and Adults with Special Needs, “Let’s Sing,
Play, Dance,” on 13 May 2010 in Prevalje, Slovenia. Cover design by
Elizabeth Mackinlay.
 PREFACE

STEPHEN WILD,
SECRETARY GENERAL, INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR
TRADITIONAL MUSIC

Study groups are the lifeblood of the ICTM; they sustain the discourse
of members between biennial world conferences. Most ICTM members
actively participate in at least one study group, often more than one. Over
the last thirty years, the number of study groups has steadily grown from
six listed in the April 1980 Bulletin of the ICTM to nineteen listed in the
April 2010 Bulletin. Study groups may be either topically based, for
example Folk Musical Instruments, Ethnochoreology, and Music and
Gender, or regionally based, for example Music and Dance of Oceania,
Music of East Asia, and Music of the Arab World. Study groups meet
between world conferences, often in the alternate years between them. The
groups may be large, for example the Study Group on Ethnochoreology
has several sub-groups that meet independently in addition to meetings of
the whole group, or small, for example the Study Group on the Music and
Dance of Oceania, whose meetings usually involve only twenty to thirty
members. Study groups provide a forum for intensive discourse on
narrower subjects than that the whole ICTM represents. They also publish
results of those discourses while the ICTM provides limited opportunity
for members to publish papers in the Yearbook for traditional music. An
annual review of study groups by the Executive Board of the ICTM
ensures that those continuing to be recognised by ICTM remain active.
The Study Group on Applied Ethnomusicology, under the collaborative
leadership of Svanibor Pettan (Chairperson), Klisala Harrison (Vice-
chairperson) and Eric Martin Usner (Secretary), had its genesis in a
preliminary symposium associated with an ICTM Executive Board
meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia in 2006, and a panel at the ICTM World
Conference in Vienna in 2007. Its first symposium since official
recognition by the Executive Board was held in Ljubljana in 2008. The
present volume is the first published outcome of its deliberations. A
cursory examination of the contents reveals the global spread of its
participants’ research interests: South Africa, the USA, Australia, Slovenia,
x Preface

Serbia, Austria, Indonesia and Germany. It has close links with the
research interests of another recently formed study group on Music and
Minorities, as acknowledged by the latter’s Chair, Ursula Hemetek, in her
article in this volume. The two study groups will meet jointly in Vietnam
in 2010.
A full discussion of this volume belongs to the Introduction, but allow me
to touch on some highlights. After a thorough consideration by Ana Hofman
of the deep sources and ethical dilemmas of applied ethnomusicology,
particularly in Europe, several articles acknowledge the influence of
Daniel Sheehy’s 1992 seminal paper published in our sister journal
Ethnomusicology in the USA. Perhaps Sheehy’s article can be considered
as the formal starting point of applied ethnomusicology. However, as
Ursula Hemetek points out, much of ethnomusicology is inherently
“applied” research (as per the study group’s definition of the topic; see
Introduction) because of the discipline’s representation of the music of
ignored or oppressed peoples. This point comes through loud and clear
throughout the volume. Another prominent theme of the book is the
potential of music and the contribution of ethnomusicology to affect
tolerance and reconciliation between otherwise hostile peoples. This is
strongly expressed in Bernhard Bleibinger’s essay “Applied ethnomusicology
at the Music Department of the University of Fort Hare, South Africa” and
Britta Sweers’ article on combating extreme nationalism in a northern
German town through a multicultural music recording project. A final
theme of the volume that I wish to highlight is the use of music and
ethnomusicology in a therapeutic role, both in clinical practice and on the
ground: Muriel Swijghuisen Reigersberg on the therapeutic value of choral
singing in a northern Australian Aboriginal community, and Margaret
Kartomi’s account of the healing effect of music in tsunami and civil war
affected Aceh, Indonesia.
This volume repositions applied ethnomusicology in the characterisation
of the discipline. I suspect that no ethnomusicologist will be able to ignore
it in their own understanding of who they are and what they do
professionally. Every paper in this volume makes a significant contribution
to this still-emerging and dynamic field. I congratulate the authors and the
editors on producing such a powerful contribution to ethnomusicology as a
whole and a worthy addition to the publications of the study groups of
ICTM.
 CHAPTER ONE

MAINTAINING THE DISTANCE,

OTHERING THE SUBALTERN:
RETHINKING ETHNOMUSICOLOGISTS’
ENGAGEMENT IN ADVOCACY
AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

ANA HOFMAN

Introduction
This essay investigates the dynamics of “partnership” between the
scholar and the social subjects involved in ethnomusicological research,
with the aim of rethinking the scholar’s role in advocacy and social justice.
It questions the very notion of applied work and explores its existing
concepts, values and possible futures. The focus will be on the following
issues:

• fieldwork methodology and applied work,

• representation of the “subaltern,”
• ethics,
• the role of institutions, and
• industry and consumerism.

The main idea is not a critique as such of the application of knowledge in

ethnomusicology, but rather a response to the ongoing debate on the
power/knowledge relation in academic production and the general need for
rethinking the existent ethical problems in current scholarship.
 Maintaining the Distance, Othering the Subaltern 23

“Pure” academic vs. “impure” applied ethnomusicology

In recent years the ethnographically oriented disciplines such as
anthropology and ethnomusicology have been faced with the new concept
of promoting scholarly work “beyond” the academy. Growing interests in
advocacy, consultancy and the use of academic knowledge in education,
business or in the public sector also testify to shifts in the most
fundamental concepts of these disciplines. New approaches suggest that
scholarly work is a “socially produced interpretation” (Stanley 1992, 7) in
which every representation of the “Other” (the observed) is also the
construction of the “self” (the observer) (Geertz 1973, 14, 15). Regarding
the intersubjective concept of fieldwork, which is based on a dialogical
model of “webs of interlocution,” Taylor remarks:

I am a self only in relation to certain interlocutors: in one way in relation to

those conversation partners which are essential to achieve my self-
definition, in another in relation to those who are now crucial to my
continuing grasp of languages of self-understanding (1992, 36).

Taking this into account, the researcher constructs reality together with
social subjects—those partners and interlocutors involved in the research,
who participate actively in the research process, at times even becoming
co-authors of the project. Scholars such as Veit Erlmann (1991), Timothy
Rice (1994), Jeff Titon (1997), Virginia Danielson (1997) and Jonathan
Stock (1996, 2001) follow the new ethnomusicological epistemology in
which fieldwork is defined as “knowing people making music” (Titon
1997, 91), and further, as an interactive and dialogic way of researching
music. This approach includes the presumption of respect, equality and
reciprocity among the research participants. The concept of collaboration
(Field and Fox 2007, 9) as a method of field research and an
epistemological approach emphasizes an applied perspective of the
ethnographic method.
Such approaches assert the neglected moments in the “recognition” of
the essential relation between politics and theory. As Homi Bhabha
suggests, it is a question of political maturity to understand that there are
many forms of political actions that obscure the division between the
“theoretical” and the “activist” (Bhabha 2004, 32). These attitudes
destabilise the dichotomy between academic and applied work, challenging
the “purity,” “neutrality” and “detachment” associated with academic
work, and “impurity” and “involvement” as characteristics of the applied
approach. They also show that social interventions and ethical problems
are associated with both of these concepts, and challenge the idea of
24 Chapter One

knowledge being produced “inside” intellectual communities on the one

hand, and practical “action,” outside of them on the other (Titon 1992,
315), confirming that all ethnomusicological work is fundamentally
applied and that all ethnomusicologists are applied ethnomusicologists. As
a result, the firm boundaries of the very discipline are challenged, evoking
the many ways that an ethnomusicologist can embody or define his or her
roles both within and outside of existent academic concepts. From this
stance, “applied” and “basic” research do not involve separate scholarly
positions or intellectual traditions. Ethnomusicology should not be
essentialised and limited to a single field such as “academic” and/or
“applied,” but instead the strong multisided nature of the discipline should
be outlined.

Fieldwork ethnography and applied work

The above-mentioned new approaches to fieldwork in ethnomusicology
assert the crucial importance of the focus on individuals. Rice asserts the
need for shifting a focus in ethnomusicological research toward more
atomised studies of individuals and small groups of individuals’ musical
experiences, defining the approach as “subject-centered musical
ethnography” (Rice 2003, 152). As Jonathan Stock points out, such a
method disputes the holistic view, supporting reflexive accounts and
“polyvocality” (Stock 2001, 8). Both scholars employ a self-reflexive and
dialogic research methodology, with the aim of offering the polyvocal and
multifaceted images of many, complex and contradictory musical
experiences. This approach also suggests abandoning the concepts of
cultural coherence and purity, putting emphasis on alternative cultural
narratives as well as the dominant ones.
Because of its engaged nature and the pragmatic imperative “to enable
certain higher goals to be achieved” (Pettan 1996, 246), applied work can
fall into the trap of employing a holistic view of communities with the
purpose of achieving certain political goals such as: enabling the
empowerment of a group; earning official recognition; the right of self-
determination; to maintain and preserve the distinct culture of certain
groups; and to support interaction and dialogue among various national,
ethnic or social groups. This so-called “strategic essentialism” is criticised
by Judith Butler, who takes a stance against the essentialism of a collective
identity, pointing out that “we is only and just a phantasmal construction
that has its own purpose, but which is denying internal complexity and in
determination of this term” (Butler 1995, 131).
 Maintaining the Distance, Othering the Subaltern 25

The essentialised standpoint view risks reifying cultures as separate

entities, by overemphasising their internal homogeneity and cohesion. As
Fanon suggests, in asserting the cultural traditions of a subordinate people,
it is important to be aware of the dangers of the fixity and fetishism of
their identities (Fanon in Bhabha 2004, 13). Cultures are not homogeneous
wholes, but consisted from the narratives and symbolisations of their
members, and their complex social and significative practices. Therefore,
the applied approach can better comprehend the complexity and richness
of social reality itself. Benhabib further criticises the essentialism of a
shared comprehensive viewpoint as a distinguishable feature of groups and
asks, “Why should members of the same ethnic or other group share a
comprehensive worldview?” (Benhabib 2002, 123). By neglecting the
internal heterogeneity within communities, a researcher can tend to single
out the dominant narratives as more significant than others. What I am
suggesting is that the applied approach should avoid a reductionist
approach, and the essentialising idea of culture as the property of an ethnic
or social group. From this stance, the researcher should accept cultures in
all of their heterogeneity and be open to their various interconnected and
often incomprehensible discourses.

Speaking in the name of the “subaltern”

The issue of colonial legacy has been broadly discussed in the field of
anthropology. Its connection with European colonialism and imperial
domination was particularly visible in the works of early scholars who
collected information useful for governing “indigenous communities.” The
idea of applying knowledge in order to “help” people or communities to
“protect” their musical cultures, provide a better life or solve the conflicts,
seems to contain similarly emancipatory concepts. The authority of the
researcher who is “helping” a community involves a power/knowledge
relationship, which actually does not call for reciprocity as suggested by
the above-mentioned new ethnomusicological approaches. The discourses
on empowerment and emancipation have a long tradition in
ethnomusicological praxis, and are particularly prevalent in work
involving various kinds of marginalised groups and individuals. As Pettan
points out, applied ethnomusicology has very much to do with minorities,
indigenous communities, diasporas, immigrants and refugees (Pettan
2006), and generally with “voices of the marginalised.” In this respect, the
subaltern is very much the focus of applied work.
The new field of subaltern studies deals with representations as
authorial and hegemonic practices, approaching the problems of representing
26 Chapter One

the subaltern in disciplinary discourse and practice within the academy

(Beverley 1999, 1). As Spivak reminds us, representation is not only a
matter of “speaking about,” but also of “speaking for” (as I have pointed
out in the above sub-title) and therefore concerns politics and hegemony
(Spivak 1988). In this way, academic knowledge does not only represent
the subaltern, but also is involved in its production. Attempting to focus on
the subaltern, scholars maintain a relation between domination and
subordination, constantly “othering” the subaltern. Challenging this
stance, subaltern studies calls for an intervention into the production of
this binary notion in scholarship, emphasising the limits of such
representations. As Beverley points out, it is not just a question of studying
marginalised and subordinated people outside of the academy, but also of
examining our own involvement in creating and reproducing relations of
power and subordination within the academy (Beverley 1999, 10).
The question of the adequacy of representations of subalternity is also
strongly associated with ethnomusicological scholarly work. In my
opinion, the main problem is that by conceptualising the subaltern as a
subject who lacks the power of self-representation, the power/knowledge
relation is maintained. As already mentioned, applied research often
focuses on marginalised groups of people, who are considered as not being
able to speak for themselves, but instead as needing the “authority” of the
researcher to help them in their self-representations. By acting as “agents”
for our partners in research through the promotion of them and their
musics, we as researchers still maintain their subordinate position and rob
them of their right to self-promotion and self-representation. Even though
researchers “establish long-term relationships with the groups they are
working with, … [are] accepted as members of the community to a certain
extent, and … view their informants as partners, not as objects” (Hemetek
2006, 39), they still function as translators or mediators between the
“community world” and “the “world of academia.”
This constant othering of the subaltern maintains a hierarchical relation
with the Other, which cannot be transgressed, and as Lyotard argues,
ensures that the Other stays “Other.” This hinders any negotiation of such
a relation and Beverley asks the important question, “What is the point in
representing subaltern as subaltern?” (Beverley 1999, 28). Spivak claims
that only by altering the power/knowledge relations that constitute the
subaltern in the first place can the subaltern speak in a way that would
carry any sort of authority to alter the relations of subalternity (Spivak
1988). In that sense, our role as ethnomusicologists is to help in altering
these relationships by giving voice to the subaltern, and especially by
creating voice and knowledge opportunities for self-representation.
 Maintaining the Distance, Othering the Subaltern 27

Ethics in ethnomusicological work

The ongoing environmental, energy and economic crises, along with
widespread conflict and war, contributed to the global feeling of a “bad
conscience” and the re-emergence of the “ethical concerns question” in
public discourse in general. Supporting ethical behaviour, solidarity and a
general overall return to the concept of the universal good has become not
only a question of personal ethics or lifestyle fashions for many
individuals, but part of a larger global trend. Maintaining an ethical stance
also has been used by people in positions of power to maintain privilege
and legitimise various kinds of harmful activities, such as the use of
military power or the abuse of human rights.
In the social sciences, new moral imperatives have resulted in an
intention to adjust ethical goals in order to suit the existing canon of
epistemology and methodology. Sheehy states that the idea of applied
work is to “protect” and “help” as an “ethical responsibility to pay back to
those musics and lives we study and make our living from” (Sheehy 1992,
323). While at one level Sheehy’s claim actually calls for hierarchical
power relations and involves commercialising the act of research, he also
highlights how a researcher’s position bears significant moral consequences.
Drawing on ethical discourse and the concept of power/knowledge
relations, my question concerns how we can be sure that we know what is
the best way to “pay back,” and what are the real needs of the
communities or individuals with which we are working?
This ethical dilemma poses serious questions regarding a researcher’s
imposition of his or her own concepts of “culture,” “rights,” “equality,”
“development” or “modernity” onto communities or individuals involved
in research. Since cultural context is already a part of the process of
subject production, and politics and power pre-exist at the level on which
the subject and his or her activities are constructed (Butler 2003, 41), all of
our postulations are deeply rooted in the dominant discourses of our own
cultures. In this respect, we have to be aware of the hidden agendas and
discourses incorporated into our scholarly practices, taking into account
that often unspoken assumptions mediate between ideology, scholarly
work and public policy.
For this reason, protecting and/or empowering other communities
through the use of our own models of modernity and development can
prove rather problematic. Because of its association with colonialism,
imperialism, capitalism, and the exploitative aspects of development in
general, the Western concept of modernisation has often been examined
from a critical stance (Stewart and Strathern 2005, vi). The myth of
28 Chapter One

modernisation as a “stage” of economy-in-development towards a “modern”

capitalist market economy is an approach that neglects the historical and
cultural complexities and social consequences of such processes. Newer
approaches have challenged the Western idea of “progress” as a concept
shaped by capitalism and globalisation, moving away from the monolithic
concepts of development and modernity to the idea of “multiple
modernities.”
The second question concerning ethics is how can we be sure that our
ideas will be applied in practice in the ways that we intend? The problem
is that the initial goal does not depend directly on the guiding purpose and
quality of action—these actually can be performed very differently in
practice and carry the potential for unintended results upon the lives of the
people with whom we are collaborating. Since the individuals, groups and
communities are not passive, but active actors in the research process, the
actions undertaken in one concrete situation may have completely
different implications in another frame. In keeping with the Arendt’s
stance, an author of social action may be the initiator of its unique
meaning, but as an agent he or she cannot control its outcome (Arendt
1998, 180). Scholars focusing on discriminatory practices and
marginalisation processes have to be careful not to undertake particular
interventions. Additional dilemmas can arise from sometimes conflicting
demands, such as when certain goals might interfere with others (for
example, the rights of a minority group can conflict with another groups’
rights, or can interfere with global political and economic interests). It also
is particularly challenging if a researcher’s personal ethics are not in
connection or accordance with those of the community in which he or she
is working. Thus, the most crucial concept related to ethics and
ethnomusicological work has to be one of “responsibility”—that is, to be
responsible not only towards the people with whom we are working, but
towards ourselves and our discipline.

Research and institutions

Because of the above mentioned colonial legacy and its connection to
early anthropological work, the relation between ethnographically oriented
scholarly practices and institutions has a rather long history. The
association of ethnomusicological work with local, state or international
institutions is also not a new practice. In fieldwork, apart from the relation
with interlocutors, we as researchers must consider the contact and
interaction we have with leaders and intellectuals from the communities in
which we work. This means adjusting our actions to meet the criteria and
 Maintaining the Distance, Othering the Subaltern 29

agendas of local authorities or communities’ leaders, which is part of the

ongoing negotiations that must occur when researchers consider the local
and more general goals and practices of others. Local, state and
international institutions, NGOs, political parties, and other civil society
groups thus are all highly involved in the work of ethnomusicologists.
Keeping this in mind, scholars should be very careful when employing
institutional guidelines in order to avoid indoctrination and propaganda.
Peacekeeping and human rights activist organisations that promote
universal international legal human rights have been challenged by many
scholars as means of transmitting dominant Western ideologies and global
technologies. While working within an institutional framework, it is
important to remember that the concept of human rights is culturally
specific and not always in concordance with universalised or
institutionalised formulations. In institutionally supported notions of
culture, cultural pluralism, multiculturalism and the development of
“democratic” societies, “all musical activity involves training and
development of the human capacity for communication, social interplay
and democratic action at all levels of society” (Skyllstad 1996, 235). These
concepts have already been criticised because of their relation to the
culturally unitary policies of Western ethnocentric and colonial discourses.
Helbig’s experiences of working with a Romani NGO in the Ukraine
throws light on the complexity of these relations (Helbig 2007). Her work
reveals how Western institutions play a significant role in establishing and
perpetuating global frameworks of understanding in the cultural
expressions within Romani groups. Helbig confronted the complex
relationship between Romani people and NGO leaders, and had to
negotiate between the interests of institutions and her personal and
academic priorities. She comments,

While our interlocutors may use the cultural representations we choose to

analyse for political means, it is important to practice caution regarding our
own involvement, as it is not always clear whom our best intentions benefit
in the long run (2007, 83).

In taking a critical stance against the universalised institutional and legal

concepts of protection, empowerment and human rights, we must also
debate whether such norms are able to articulate the needs of the
particular.
30 Chapter One

East-European experiences:
State socialism and applied work
In Eastern Europe, Hemetek (2006, 36) asserts that the paradigm of
folk music research is closely connected to the promotion of national
folklore, making the applied aspect an integral part of ethnomusicological
work. Scholarly work has been used in state projects to construct and
implement national policy. As my research on folklore performances and
identity politics in socialist Yugoslavia revealed, scholars were actively
involved in socially relevant work (društveno-korisni rad), and in the
promotion and development of folk culture (Hofman 2008, 2010). They
significantly contributed to an ideology of the “development of artistic
activities,” as part of the overall development of socialist society, which
was asserted as a primary goal of state policy. The concept of
volunteerism (amateurism) was represented in official discourse as the
most important feature in the creation of a “new folk culture.”
Volunteerism was presented as a “spontaneous cultural activity” and a
basic necessity of every individual subject aspiring to be a part of the
“wider social community” (Supek 1974, 8, 9).
In official narratives, this concept of culture emerged as a response to
old traditional culture and cultural life on the one hand, and elitist
activities of high culture, on the other. As part of the process of creating
new folk culture, the state established new institutions and agencies to suit
and cater to the demands of new cultural policy through so-called culture
houses, collective houses (Zadružni domovi), cultural-educational
associations (Kulturno-prosvetne zajednice or KPZs), and various amateur
associations and groups. These organisations were the main organisers and
purveyors of cultural manifestations together with individuals from local
communities—writers, scholars, composers, journalists, along with local
authorities and party administrators. Their main aim was to implement the
state’s agenda on education and to assist in the propagandisation of
“positive norms and values.” Cultural workers (kutlurni radnici) and
scholars were also highly involved in the “natural process of the
development of folk heritage” and in the development of cultural-
entertainment life (kulturno-zabavni život) in general (Zečević 1968, 219).
Due to this, emphasis was placed on direct, first-hand experiences and
cooperation realised through direct contacts among scholars and the
“culture producers.” In order to support more direct cooperation,
institutions called “self-governing interest societies” (Samoupravne
interesne zajednice or SIZs) were founded in late 1970s, with the aim of
mobilising people to take an active part in decision-making processes.
 Maintaining the Distance, Othering the Subaltern 31

Official narratives propagated the new concept of Yugoslav culture as a

direct result of “joint work” (udruženi rad) and “self-management free
cooperation” (samoupravna slobodna saradnja) (Dretar 1981, 117). The
main idea was to create an alternative method of cultural production
though “the social-productive everyday activity within the local
community and joint work organisations” (Hadžagić 1979, 167). The main
narrative of “democratisation of the relations in culture” or the
“socialisation of the culture policy” announced the end of cultural policy
“from above” (Gavriš 1981, 113).
Even though these agendas were quite different when applied on the
ground, the idea of a “culture from below” was based on the active
involvement of “all people” (including scholars, culture workers, policy
makers and community members) in cultural production. As my study
revealed, these activities were not state-imposed artificial culture forms,
but offered an excellent opportunity for various people to be engaged in
cultural activities. They also challenged the binary opposition between
“pure” and “applied” approaches, and as stated at the beginning, are a
good example of the public usage of scholarly work in Eastern Europe.

Ethnomusicology, industry and consumerism

Sheehy notes that in recent years, applied ethnomusicology has been
promoted as a career option (1992, 323). The pragmatic reasons behind the
idea of applied work are related to new areas in which scholars can work.
Some important questions arise from this: Are ideas about widening the
discipline and making it more marketable behind the façade of the new
ethnomusicology’s “public profile”? Or do they include creating more jobs
for professionals from the discipline? Indeed, there is no doubt that the
revived relevance of applied work and similar concepts are responses to
the current social and cultural climate, and the demands of late capitalist
and post-industrial societies. Therefore, the main idea of “selling”
knowledge and making a “commercially consumable discipline” can be
seen as part of global transnational processes. The discipline’s orientation
has shifted in order to meet the demands of changes not only in culture,
society and politics in a global context (Pink 2006, 4), but also in the
academic market place.
The global economic, political and social climate, in which countries
of the West have controlled almost eighty percent of global production,
has produced social and cultural conditions that depend substantively not
on national governments, but on multinational corporations such as the
World Bank or the International Monetary Fund. This is particularly
32 Chapter One

visible in the wake of the current global economic crisis. Spreading neo-
liberal economies and globalisation have produced new patterns of
domination and exploitation, with pressure on scholarly work to produce
knowledge appropriate to the task of understanding and administrating
multicultural populations and transnational working classes (Beverley
1999, 29). In such a global climate, disciplines such as ethnomusicology
will have to become more action-oriented and engaged in shaping public
policy, and also be strong enough to confront the dominant interests
inherent within the politics of research.

Conclusion
In my opinion, the issues I have outlined are very important for the
present and future of the discipline of ethnomusicology. Essential
scholarship exists in the academy, and must be open for public scrutiny
and become more engaged in solving important social issues.
Ethnomusicology has contributed to social policy, practice and advocacy
in a number of different ways. Mutual interaction of people inside the
academy and mainstream scholarly practices in research projects can
become the source of newly emerging concepts in ethnomusicological
work and can help to overcome the existing tensions. Bohlman and Stokes
remind us, “Such knowledge and its circulation as ethnomusicological
scholarship are by no means dependent on professional academics, but
rather are conditioned, as elsewhere, by complex interactions between
universities, museums, amateur organisations, state agencies, and markets”
(Stokes and Bohlman 2003).
However, regarding ethnomusicological work, it is not possible to
offer one single answer or coherent strategy, establishing any single
universal behaviour, practice or rule as the norm for applied work. As
Lacan (in Šumić Riha 1995, 87) suggests, it is not possible to talk about a
universal ethic, but only of relative ones, attached to specific discourses,
that is ethics (in plural). It is important to take into account our different
backgrounds, inner conflicts and identity transformations, and the fact that
we are always confronting new situations and making new decisions,
which can also call into question our own assumptions, and challenge our
individual norms as subjects, researchers and persons. We have to deal
with moral dilemmas, which are connected with our own personal
biographies and research contexts. I do not argue here for the universal
particularity or the hegemonic domination of the singular, but rather for
abandoning generalised codes of moral behaviour in favour of specific or
personal ones. By becoming aware not only of our moral dilemmas but
 Maintaining the Distance, Othering the Subaltern 33

also of our moral limitations and the choices we make, we can grow as
moral subjects together with our research partners.

References
Arendt, H. 1998. The human condition, 2nd ed. Chicago: Chicago
University Press.
Benhabib, S. 2002. The claims of culture: Equality and diversity in the
global era. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Beverley, J. 1999. Subalternity and representation: Arguments in cultural
theory. Durham: Duke University Press.
Bhabha, H. 2004. The location of culture. New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. 1995. Od parodije do politike (From parody to politics). Ženske
studije (Gender studies) 1: 131-37.
—. 2003. Slučajna utemeljenja: Feminizam i pitanje postmodernizma
(Contingent foundations: Feminism and the question of postmodernism).
Genero 2/3: 33-47.
Danielson, V. 1997. The voice of Egypt: Umm Kulthūm, Arabic song, and
Egyptian society in the twentieth century. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Dretar, T. 1981. Razgovor o kulturnoj politici (Discussion about culture
policy). Kultura (Culture) 53: 91-132.
Erlmann, V. 1991. African stars: Studies in Black South African
performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Field, L. W., and R. G. Fox, eds. 2007. Anthropology put to work. Oxford:
Berg.
Gavriš, K. 1981. Razgovor o kulturnoj politici (Discussion about culture
policy). Kultura (Culture) 53: 91-132.
Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New
York: Basic Books.
Hadžagić, M. 1979. Samoupravne interesne zajednice u kulturi (Self-
governing interest societies in culture). Kultura 45/46: 166-177.
Helbig, A. 2007. Ethnomusicology and Advocacy Research: Theory in
Action among Romani NGOs in Ukraine. The Anthropology of East
Europe Review: Central Europe, Eastern Europe and Eurasia 25 (2):
78-83.
Hemetek, U. 2006. Applied ethnomusicology in the process of the political
recognition of a minority: A case study of the Austrian Roma.
Yearbook for Traditional Music 38: 35-57.
34 Chapter One

Hofman, A. 2008. Music of “working people”: Musical folklore and

creation of the Yugoslav identity. In Musical folklore as a vehicle, ed.
M. V. Veselinović-Hofman, 59-67. Belgrade: Faculty of Music.
—. 2010. Staging socialist femininity: Gender politics and folklore
performance in Serbia. Leiden and Boston: Brill Publishing.
Pettan, S. 1996. Making the refugee experience different: “Azra” and the
Bosnians in Norway. In War, exile, everyday life: Cultural
perspectives, eds. Jambrešić Kirin, Renata and Maja Povrzanović, 245-
55. Zagreb: Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Research.
—. 2006. Applied ethnomusicology and empowerment strategies:
Preliminary considerations. Paper presented at the conference
Emerging musical identities: Views from across the Atlantic, Wesleyan
University, Middletown, USA.
Pink, S. ed. 2006. Application in anthropology: Professional anthropology
in the twenty-first century. New York: Berghahn Books.
Rice, T. 2003. Time, place, and metaphor in musical experience and
ethnography. Ethnomusicology 47(2): 151-79.
—. 1994. May it fill your soul: Experiencing Bulgarian music. Chicago:
Chicago University Press.
Sheehy, D. 1992. A Few Notions about Philosophy and Strategy in
Applied Ethnomusicology. Ethnomusicology 36(3): 323-36.
Skyllstad, K. 1996. Music in conflict management - New avenues for
research. In War, exile, daily life: Cultural perspectives, eds. R.
Jambrešić Kirin and M. Povrzanivić, 231-44. Zagreb: Zagreb Institute
of Ethnology and Folklore Research.
Spivak, G. 1988. Can the subaltern speak? In Marxism and the
interpretation of culture, eds. C. Nelson and L. Grossberg, 271-313.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Stanley, L. 1992. The auto-biographical I. New York: Manchester
University Press.
Stewart, P., and A. Strathern, eds. 2005. Anthropology and consultancy:
Issues and debates. New York: Berghahn Books.
Stock, J. P. J. 1996. Musical narrative, ideology, and the life of Abing.
Ethnomusicology 40(1): 49-74.
—. 2001. Toward an ethnomusicology of the individual, or biographical
writing ethnomusicology. The World of Music 43(1): 5-19.
Stokes, M., and P. V. Bohlman, eds. 2003. Celtic modern: Music at the
global fringe (Europea: Ethnomusicologies and Modernities, 1).
Oxford: Scarecrow Press.
Supek, R. 1974. Sociološki značaj amaterizma (Sociological significance
of amateurism). Kultura (Culture) 26: 8-16.
 Maintaining the Distance, Othering the Subaltern 35

Šumić Riha, J. 1995. Nemožni konsenz: Etika in politika (Impossible

consensus: Ethics and politics). Problemi (Problems) XXXIII (1-2):
81-94.
Taylor, C. 1992. Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Titon, J. T. 1992. Music, the public interest, and the practice of
ethnomusicology. Ethnomusicology 36(3): 315-22.
—. 1997. Knowing fieldwork. In Shadows in the field: New perspectives
for fieldwork in ethnomusicology, eds. G. F. Barz and T. J. Cooley, 87-
100. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zečević, S. 1968. Uloga smotri i festivala u razvitku našeg narodnog
stvaralaštva (The role of reviews and festivals in the development of
our folk heritage). In Rad XIII kongresa Saveza Udruženja Foklorista
Jugoslavije (Work of the thirteenth conference of the Union of
Associations of Yugoslav Folklorists), 219-24. Dorijan, 1966, Skopje
1968.