Have recently come across what is to me a whole new world that
may have great relevance to many of our concerns. Perhaps some
others of you have already discovered it.
A recent issue of the journal _Ethnomusicology_ (Winter 1995)
was devoted to the apparently controversial (but quite exciting)
ideas of Charles Keil (SUNY-Buffalo), who, since the 1960s has
been arguing for a more dynamic-processual approach to music
in our own and other cultures, in contrast with the dominant
Western musicological emphasis on syntax and structure patterns.
One aspect of his approach, further developed in collaborations
with ethnographer Steve Feld, has recently received some striking
confirmations from computer-aided analyses of live musical performances,
in which it appears that the qualities of the music most valued
by members of particular (sub-)cultures correspond not to the
ideals of mathematical perfection of form, but to very small
'off-pitch' and 'out-of-phase' or 'out-of-synch' acoustical
discrepancies, of which listeners and players are not consciously
aware. These 'material' and infra-semiotic subtleties seems to
be critical to the acquisition of both performance and 'receptive'
habitus, and thus to the otherwise 'ineffable' qualities that
define someone as a member of a community through their way of
participating in particular activities (unconscious style,
body hexis, etc.).
I am interested in this because my own theoretical models have
for some time been trying to reformulate the dynamical relations
between the material-but-not-necessarily-semiotically-significant
aspects of ecosocial systems and activities, and the 'emic' or
culturally salient and meaningful aspects of the processes and
practices that constitute these systems through our activities.
In terms familiar here, Keil's theory points to a role for
_operations_ above and beyond the features they have which
define actions and activities. It suggests, to me at least,
that apprenticeship and socialization into a community of
practice may depend in critical ways on differences that
do _not_ make a difference semiotically, meaningfully, or
consciously in our public frames of reference -- or at least
those which explicitly 'count' for us -- but may make all
the difference in the world to how we in fact establish our
membership in a community.
Presumably this has implications for developmental processes
as well as learning-enculturation-apprenticeship as such. And
presumably also for the basis of change: that some dialectic
between the infra-semiotic, operational level of behavior (the
micro-timings and spatial subtleties) and the overtly signifying
level(s) is involved in creating the possibilities for what
can become meaningful, and for potential future differentiations
based on such subtleties (from inflection to dialect, from
style to code).
I would be very interested to hear from anyone who may be
current with such discussions in ethnomusicology or parallel
developments in other fields. Or from people who have their
own sense of the possible significance of these considerations.
JAY.
JAY LEMKE.
City University of New York.
BITNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM
INTERNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU