This article primarily talked about ethics in relation to trespassing on the knowledge and heritage of the studied culture for the sake of further knowledge and archiving of certain elements of the culture. In the case of the article, the sacred ritual known as Blessingway via the Mitchell Family were the subject of recording and archiving. An important milestone for the anthropoligical study of the Navajo culture, as none of their rituals had ever been documented before, especially Blessingway.
The obvious concerns with this were the family's reluctance to record the ritual because it is sacred and they believe that there should be no trespassers during the ceremony as well as the thought that no one should profit from the viewings of the recording unless it was the Mitchell family themselves. Their sentiments that the film would be misused and thus the meanings of the ritual misinterpreted resounded within much of the Navajo community.
McAllester touched on several points of ethical questions in his article:
1. Trespassing
2. Misrepresentation
elaborating on them through the narratives of his experiences with the Navajo community.
What I found the most interesting was when McAllester stated that he was shocked when he had received negative comments on his anthropological study from within the Navajo community. "One wants to be loved by everybody, and the fact that I was not seemed like a failure in social relations" is a very interesting point and I feel is a very important thing to keep in mind when we conduct our own research within the field. We do want to be loved by everyone, achieving high marks, good reviews, accolades for our work, but it hurts when we are met with much contempt and disapproval. This however, would be slightly expected within the community of Anthropologists/Ethnomusicologists, but often times the community we studied and researched is taken out of the question, probably from statements similar to these - They probably won't read our research; or they already know these aspects of their culture. It's my job to share them with the world.
....Or perhaps not. My point is though, is that we should be more considerate and take into account the culture that we study, as we can do some serious harm when we just go freely publish everything that we want. This brings up thoughts of collaborative ethnomusicology, as well as feelings from the Songcatcher film. What does everyone else feel? Do you think that these problems will arise within any culture that we study, or is it just the 'aboriginal' and more "primitive" cultures? Is there a way to solve these issues proposed by McAllester (Trespassing/Misrepresentation)?
I think any time someone seeks to learn, interpret and publish private information from within a culture, they are likely to be met with distrust and resentment. It is not unreasonable for the culture to feel like the ethnomusicologist is somehow taking their music or treating it unfairly. McAllester gained the trust of one family from within that culture, but the culture as a whole or majority never accepted him, his ideals or his presence. Even within the family, not everyone agreed or completely consented, and I doubt that they had the right to speak for the whole society.
ReplyDeleteThis was also seen in the Songcatcher film. Penleric was initially pushed away by the grandmother and her son due to fear of exploitation. Only after gaining their trust was she able to continue her research.
DeleteIn a world of internet and satellite television, you can pretty much find anything there is to learn with a quick google search. There are very few things that are still considered truly sacred and untouched. The Navajo ritual that was presented by McAllester is one of those rare instances and I feel as though it should be left that way if that is what they want. It's their ritual, their culture, and ultimately, their decision. Why should some ethnomusicologist be the one who decides otherwise? They have no right to study and publish works where they are not accepted by those he/she is studying. This is not to say that the ethnomusicologist will be accepted it open arms by everyone in the community all the time. However, there should be an overall cooperativity and willingness to cede information.
ReplyDeleteThe issue presented here is a tough one. The fact that the role of the ethnomusicologist is often to provide insight into a culture for Western audiences can lead to automatic distrust within any community. Some are glad to share and to be better understood while others feel that it is something that is theirs and not to be shared. This seemed to have been the case that McAllester confronted. While I respect the way that he handled things, especially regarding trying his best to follow the "contract" with Mr. Mitchell, I don't think the film should have been shown to anyone outside of the community without everyone on board with the idea. If his reason was for actual "archiving," the film could have been just left within the Navajo community. It doesn't do that much good to them to archive their work in someone else's culture and while I can see the good intentions that many ethnomusicologists like McAllester had, I found that it was a bit disrespectful to the community as a whole - something that he absolutely understood and struggled with.
ReplyDeleteI think Arman brings up an interesting point about who makes the decision about to study and publish research. The idea that an ethnomusicologist can come in and decide what they want to study and publish, irregardless of what it means in the culture, is a very dangerous idea. It strays very close to the idea that the culture doesn't actually understand the importance of or how to handle its own music. It is hard to imagine someone coming up to us and saying that we don't understand the culture we grew up in and that more 'enlightened' person from another culture is taking over how we handle things. The idea is very much a euro-centric kind of view and one that devalues the cultures that we study.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your points, especially the one where ethnomusicologists are in a position of greater determining power. It is an innate sense of superiority [regardless of what they say otherwise] that they are going in having selected a culture to study & tell them that their culture & music must be published [when the people themselves may not have even taken that into consideration].
DeleteI think the problems Jordan pointed out are going to arise in any culture being studied, not just the "primitive" or "aboriginal" ones. This ties into the 'insider' vs. 'outsider' discussion we've had in previous classes, where the person conducting the study is immediately set apart from the subjects being studied no matter how ingrained the ethnomusicologist tries to participate in the culture. Unless the ethnomusicologist is undercover, the distinction has already been made.
I wanted to add that since only one person within the community was actually compensated, I'm curious how he was seen by the others.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Brent who perhaps got at the idea I was going at in a better way and how I imagine many of those in other cultures, including the Navajo, feel. Especially after reading Professor Guy's article, it is seen that those are trustful sometimes get taken advantage of which is a valid concern for everyone. This can go back to Professor Guy's idea that then we should further educate our ethnomusicologists on these topics, but the issue of ethics will always be looming.
The point about trespassing is a difficult one to overcome. If a culture feels as though the ethnomusicologist is trespassing by researching and recording their cultural practices, there is not much the ethnomusicologist can do other than attempt to gain their trust and hope that the product given to him is in its truest form. What if the culture purposely gives him the wrong information? How can the ethnomusicologist truly rely on this data? I think this is what Penleric's refusal of the "non-scientific" transcriptions was hinting at. Penleric would not be able to guarantee the fact that what was written down was actually reliable. By transcribing the music herself, she had a sense of assurance as to the reliability of the data.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I hated that part within Songcatcher, putting it into this context makes much more sense! I still think that the data should not be completely discredited though, as there are many things that can be learned from it even though it might not necessarily be "scientifically collected." I think this can be applied to other situations, probably not as well as within the film, but in general, we can still draw from all outlets of information, as they might lead to more exciting discoveries and ways of approaching matters that were previously unseen.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the Penleric had reason to believe the data given by the lady was false or wrong. She had those passed on from generations, and it could have been very useful information. Additionally, the lady giving her the old transcripts did not resent her and was offering it to her with a positive attitude. I still believe that the transcripts could have consisted of useful information and Penleric should not have rejected them completely. She didn't have to rely on them completely, but she should have at least looked at them a little more closely. In regards to trespassing, I think the movie relates very much to this topic because some of the people in the town didn't want her there to begin with. They disliked the idea that she was taking something that was theirs. Although it wasn't explicitly stated in the film, I feel like the music had great meaning to them. So in that sense, they felt that it was something a part of them and belonged to them. Playing the fiddle was a sort of outlet for Dean, and he seemed defensive to want to share something so intimate for him.
DeleteTrespassing on a culture is a very serious things. While I understand what McAllester was trying to do, he did it in a very messed up way by compensating only one person and still recording even after other people in the community were against it. While I can understand the interest in what was going on, he used one person (who was willing) to take advantage of everyone else for his own good.
ReplyDeleteI think it doesn't really depend what culture we are studying. If someone doesn't want to be recorded and someone else takes advantage, then it is wrong and is disrespectful to the culture.
In some ways, this makes me think about paparazzi. While celebrities can be where they think they are private and can relax, due to technology, pictures can still be taken of them from a quarter of a nile away. This makes me wonder, Now that some of the laws have changed, do you think the technology is able to take advantage of the people? In the Song Catcher, Penleric had to have the people sing the songs many times before she had it all written. Maybe that was more fair to the people because they had a chance to change their mind or to hide the music.