Read an Excerpt
Music and Conflict
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS PRESS
Copyright © 2010 Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-252-07738-8
Introduction
An Ethnomusicological Approach to Music and Conflict John M. O'Connell
In his classic epic titled War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910) examines the nature of conflict during the Napoleonic era. With specific reference to the French invasion of Russia in 1812, he views war in terms of competing nationalisms, with two national armies representing two nation-states vying for political supremacy in a closely contested military encounter. In this matter, he understands peace as the necessary outcome of war, the only resolution possible in conflict, where winning all or losing everything is dependent on the tactical acumen of charismatic leaders. For him war and peace represent two polarities in a Hegelian dialectic, with conflict and conflict resolution continuously intersecting in an ongoing cycle of historical progress. Although he considers great men the active agents in this telos of time, Tolstoy is also interested in individual protagonists whose lives are determined by the course of historical events, each subject ambivalently suspended in a web of apparent contradictions, dualisms that embrace the conscious and the unconscious realms, which encompass the natural and the supernatural worlds. Invoking implicitly contemporary theories in science and philosophy, the author believes that conflict is inevitable, arguing that war is the logical outcome of natural determinants and social constraints.
The Language of Music
However, Tolstoy's reading of history is not universally held. In particular, his simplistic juxtaposition of war and peace disguises the reality of what Svanibor Pettan (see part 5) calls the "war-peace continuum," discord clothed in the garb of concord, peace couched in the mantle of war. By understanding peace in terms of war, Tolstoy advocates a "zero-sum" outcome to conflict resolution where the cessation of hostility always involves either victory or defeat. Further, he couches his argument in an evolutionist framework by advocating the supremacy of strength over weakness, a situation in which nations themselves are involved in a form of natural selection and dominant powers acquire satellite states to survive. As critics of Geopolitik remind us, the logical outcome of this biological conception of nationhood is disaster. Here, Tolstoy's use of language is problematic. By bracketing war with peace, he presents a singular reading of conflict, a discursive act that fixes meaning to the detriment of semantic variation. Tolstoy might be accused of symbolic violence since his definition of conflict and his identification of conflict resolution are informed by a specific intellectual tradition and particular cultural worldview. Yet they are presented here as natural laws within a seamless narrative sequence.
Music rather than language may provide a better medium for interrogating the character of conflict and for evaluating the quality of conflict resolution. While language as prose tends to delimit interpretation according to the partial dictates of authorial intention, music as practice serves to liberate interpretation according to the multiple views of audience reception. When critical theorists have emphasized the monologic character of language in its written form, they have also noted the multivalent potential of music in its practical guise. While writing may be a crucial factor in the chasm that separates literate control and nonliterate freedom, music in contrast to language may present a more fertile locus for studying multiple interpretations of war and diverse readings of peace. As Adelaida Reyes argues (see part 3), some ethnomusicologists recognize the variable character of musical meaning, a partial truth dependent on an unstable relationship between musical text and cultural context. This variability is further unsettled in communal contexts where music making invites an assorted array of distinctive social positions. Where musical meaning is dependent on the multiple vagaries of social circumstance (especially in highly contested cultural spaces), ethnomusicologists would agree that the definition of conflict is often difficult, both in theory and in practice.
The Definition of Conflict
In theory, conflict is hard to define. Conflict can be viewed negatively, as the logical outcome of economic inequality and social disparity leading inevitably to violent rupture where the status of a dominant elite is called into question. Conflict can also be viewed positively when economic difference promotes social mobility, competition being considered by some the hallmark of cultural progress. Although these distinctive definitions of conflict are broadly consistent with a Marxist and a capitalist position respectively, they share a common evolutionary trait, the progression toward a social ideal founded on economic principles. Like Tolstoy, they also consider conflict in terms of difference, a dialectical play of opposites resulting in a Hegelian cycle of stability and instability. While the instruments of control that sustain power are not considered here, the definition of conflict is itself implicated in a wider ideological debate concerning the appropriate constitution of a harmonious world. In this respect, conflict by definition implies the possibility of conflict resolution, an equivocal position that calls into question its fixity as a concept. That is, the study of conflict involves several paradoxes that inform the scholarly debate in political theory. Although generally concerned with violent circumstances, this discourse involves two main avenues of inquiry that encompass the nonrational and the rational domains.
First, conflict is understood as a nonrational behavior; this understanding derives from the empirical study of a human response to resource deficiency where survival is a paramount concern. In this category, some commentators have focused on the influence of environmental and psychological conditions that favor conflict, with the will to survive (see R. L. O'Connell 1989) and the failure to achieve (see Burton 1990) informing distinctive scholarly traditions. Other observers have emphasized the social conditions that promote conflict by examining the ways in which aggressive behaviors are learned and transmitted. In particular, they recognize the significance of identity for fostering hostility, the differentiation between "in-groups" and "out-groups" resulting in social instability (see Tajfel 1978, 1981). Second, conflict is considered a rational reaction to power where the state provides a locus for simulating models of group interaction. In this category, analysts utilize a number of theoretical models to examine the ways in which power is exercised disproportionately to promote or to subdue individual groups (see Horowitz 1985). Here access to power through competition and the manipulation of power through popularization are especially important. Although different in scope, these two positions envisage conflict as a breakdown in relationships and as a challenge to authority. In both instances, the assertion of individualism is central.
In practice, conflict is also hard to define. When theorists attempt to deconstruct conflicts to ascertain recurrent norms, they often fail to recognize the multivalent attributes of conflict as a concept. That is, they rarely show that the definition of conflict is relative, being dependent on cultural factors that seek (or do not seek) to recognize conflict for strategic reasons in different circumstances. Accordingly, a number of continua emerge concerning the perceived character of a conflict, grades of intensity and extensity that necessitate ethnographic analysis. Although some theorists have recently examined multiple positions both within and between conflicting groups, they often assume that difference is a precondition of conflict, overlooking the possibility of groups living in apposite relationships rather than opposite circumstances where cultural diversity has creative benefits. Further, theorists are usually concerned with violent rather than nonviolent conflicts, often ignoring peaceful protests where the threat of violence is implicit and peaceful organizations where the reality of violence is covert. Yet these theorists have a practical agenda, the resolution of conflict and the promotion of peace. While a fundamental division still exists in theoretical discourse between nonrational and rational interpretations of conflict, recent approaches to conflict resolution draw on both scholarly traditions to propose harmonious solutions to discordant situations.
In this matter, some theorists have attempted to transcend the intellectual divide that informs conflict studies by presenting innovative answers to difficult circumstances. Shunning traditional models in peace studies that favor quantitative analysis over qualitative assessment, they have sought instead to promote the performing arts, suggesting that artistic production rather than economic development might provide a better locus for recognizing intragroup identities and for encouraging intergroup cooperation at a grassroots level. Although the seeds of this approach can properly be traced to the psychological dimension of Herbert Kelman's (1997) interactive model and the social component of John W. Burton's (1990) needs hypothesis, exponents of this position contend that expressive culture can be manipulated to transform social identities by creating alternative social practices and inventing new social relationships. In particular, Ho-Won Jeong (1999), when discussing conflict resolution in Northern Ireland, argues that music provides an excellent medium for honoring cultural diversity and for nurturing intercultural dialogue. Although the ideals of his argument are somewhat overstated, his recognition of music in trauma therapy and his advocacy of music in peace negotiations are extremely relevant. By recognizing the significance of music for promoting conflict resolution, Jeong expands on an established theoretical discourse by placing music at the very heart of research into conflict.
Understanding Conflict through Music
Music provides an excellent medium for understanding conflict. In terms of musical structure, conflict is a significant theme in music theory; dissonance has a functional significance in many musical systems. In terms of musical materials, conflict often appears in a symbolic guise, with musical instruments employed either in a warlike display of male bravado (as in poetic dueling) or in an aggressive exhibition of religious fervor (as in mendicant proselytizing). In terms of musical practice, conflict is sometimes reenacted in performance, where heroic wars are celebrated in song (as in oral epics), historic battles are remembered in dance (as in war dances), and military marches (performed by military bands) are used to incite warlike behavior. In terms of musical contexts, conflict is actively negotiated in musical contests, often reframing ancient antagonisms within the structured confines of competitive events, replacing the tragedy of violence with the triumph of virtuosity. In terms of musical values, conflict is indelibly inscribed within the life of music, providing a sonic articulation of dissonance in the social and economic realms. It is perhaps for this reason that the language of music is profoundly informed by the metaphors of conflict, offering a lexical setting for understanding the place of music in conflict.
Music also provides an excellent medium for identifying conflict resolution, since conflict embodies within itself the seeds of its own resolution. Where musical systems acknowledge a dissonant register, they often recognize a consonant solution, thereby enabling the playful juxtaposition of conflicting and resolving elements within a musical frame. Where musical instruments symbolize conflict, they may also be utilized to signify atonement both in solo (for example, ceremonial horns) and in ensemble settings (for example, cross-cultural orchestras). Where musical practices articulate social divisions, they may also simulate social cohesion in the structuring and texturing of performance. Where performers operate at the vanguard of protest, they may also serve as intermediaries between opposing political entities (as ambassadors) and between divergent spiritual domains (as shamans). Significantly, the cultural exchange of musical performers is often one of the first indications of peaceful intentions. Further, where musical values are characterized by extreme prejudice, they may also be manipulated to foster tolerance by emphasizing similarity in musical practice and by accepting difference in musical taste. In this way, music offers the possibility of an imaginary ideal, a shared goal that promotes cooperation between groups while respectful of individual cultural identities.
However, music may sometimes not be used to identify conflict. Although musical discourse is redolent with the language of conflict, in certain cultural contexts silence rather than sound is equated with discord. As Anthony Seeger argues (see part 3), conflict for the Suyá in Brazil is marked by quiet noise and conflict resolution is celebrated with loud music, with amplitude used to signify different degrees of social tension. Jane Sugarman is also ambivalent (see part 1). With reference to Albanians in Kosova, she contends that music is not traditionally performed during times of war. However, both authors agree that music may be employed in certain instances to promote intragroup solidarity and to excite intergroup aggression. Again, music is sometimes not useful in identifying conflict resolution. As David Cooper demonstrates (see part 2), music in Northern Ireland has advanced rather than diminished sectarian hostility even when music has been directed toward pacific ends. Inna Naroditskaya is also skeptical (see part 1). With reference to music in Azerbaijan, she argues that music is by definition discordant since it expresses conflicting notions of national identity that followed a terrible defeat in a tragic war. While all of these scholars suggest that music in conflict is both conceptually complex and culturally relative, they might approve of one exception.
This exception is harmony. Embracing the musical and the cultural domains, harmony is often a metaphor for conflict resolution; indeed, consonance and dissonance are significant principles in theoretical discourse especially for the musical traditions of Asia and Europe. For example, the notion of harmony (Turkish, ahenk) in the Middle East is informed by a mystical reading of Neoplatonic philosophy in which heaven and earth are opposed and music occupies a pivotal role in cosmological order. For some theorists, the harmonic series represents different stages of mystical enlightenment, and musical harmonics represent distinctive moments of divine intervention. Further, music making also provides an important medium for expressing social stability. With reference to the takht ensemble in Egypt, Jihad Racy (1988) argues that musical texture articulates different social positions: antiphony between performers signifies social compatibility, heterophony among performers signifies social reciprocity, and monophony by performers signifies social hierarchy. For him, different musical textures enable distinctive social strategies, allowing for individual agency (through improvisation) within a highly structured performance tradition. Although different interpretations of harmony are extant, the notion that music is a metaphor for conflict resolution is widespread, not least of all in Ireland, where a functional harmony has been restored after an extended period of conflict.
Harmony after a Conflict: The Case Study of Ireland
Harmony had a role in Ireland. Where music was used to excite intergroup hostility, it was also used to nurture intragroup solidity, with the war pipes and the Celtic harp demarcating distinctive realms of war and peace. While the harmonious powers of the Celtic harp are well documented, the instrument when accompanying a poet could be transformed into a weapon of satire. In this matter, the bard was able to challenge the status quo with impunity by using his political position to praise or to reprimand. Music and dance were also employed to delineate intragroup differences; poetic duels and dance contests demonstrated the superior linguistic skills and the virtuosic talents of male opponents. Following the full conquest of Ireland during the seventeenth century, music played a significant role in differentiating group identities, broadly speaking Western art music and Irish traditional music respectively becoming the symbolic capital of the colonizer and the colonized. During this period of cultural transformation, traditional instruments lost their bellicose attributes; the pipes and the harp were now transformed into instruments of the theater and the salon respectively. As Barra Boydell (1996) argues, the harp unstrung became a metaphor for the enslavement of an idealized land and the violation of an effeminized nation.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Music and Conflict Copyright © 2010 by Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. Excerpted by permission of UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS PRESS. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
