Thinking IR Differently- audience receptivity and judgment
1. Introduction- Receptivity of audience
In my undergrad feminist musicology class one day, the professor brought up studies done that showed reactions to European tradition women composers from the same time periods versus canonized male composers. The judgments of women's work was always done against the men's work, with women's work being labeled as inferior, or not up to the standard of the large orchestral composers. For example, Fanny Mendelssohn (the sister of Felix) predominantly composed music for the salon (chamber music), musicologists judge it as less than her male counterparts because it not orchestral. But, women composers would not (and still are very minimally) be programmed in public performances of large orchestral (the "big" stuff) works. There are a few processes at work here. One is the historical process of how composers got canonized in the European tradition- and orchestral works are valued as the biggest measure of achievement. But, then, there were some orchestral works written by women composers, so why aren't they played? They are judged differently. That was the point my professor made- that even scholars trying to get these works recognized were sometimes guilty of this same way of marking compositions as inferior- whether because of it being for a salon, or because of the even more troublesome ingrained internalized judgments. Fanny even published some of her works under Felix's name to get around restrictions during their lifetime for the publication of women's works. If an audience listens and does not know who wrote the work (gender, race, etc) will that change their receptivity to the piece?
What happens to people's perceptions about a work when they know who wrote something and where it comes from? One of my friends recently posted something on Facebook about racism that drew some immediate reactions from a couple of her white friends. She is originally from India but has been living in the US for over 20 years. Anyway, she then said in response, "would it change what you think if I told you that Jon Stewart said this last night?" After that, the responses changed.
These two examples bring me to the point in the Tickner and Blaney book, in the introduction, where they are discussing how non-core scholarship is measured against, judged, and "coded as 'bad' or second-class version of 'good' and 'serious' core scholarship."(p. 7) What do you think of their approach of "engagement with difference" as "Dussel's 'trans-modern pluriverse'- a kind of cosmopolitanism in which diversity flourishes." (p. 11). ? How do audiences listen to and receive scholarship without coming to it with their own attachments to concepts and categories?
2. Chapter 6- The State of the African State and politics
Grovogui seeks to define the most salient aspects of African politics as more complex than many approaches have taken (conflict, state failure and civil wars). He articulates a balance between acknowledging African agency while also stating that "Africans have not been the primary or sole agents of the regimes of politics, economy, culture and morality that have operated on the continent for the better of four centuries." (p. 134) How should scholars address this complexity? He mentions Mariane Ferme's anthropological work (p. 129) as an antidote to Kaplan's Coming Anarchy essay (and he emphasizes that Kaplan's book is an essay and not a study (p. 127). Does Grovugui succeed in creating a convincing argument for shifting the onotology/epistemology for how to study African States?
In my undergrad feminist musicology class one day, the professor brought up studies done that showed reactions to European tradition women composers from the same time periods versus canonized male composers. The judgments of women's work was always done against the men's work, with women's work being labeled as inferior, or not up to the standard of the large orchestral composers. For example, Fanny Mendelssohn (the sister of Felix) predominantly composed music for the salon (chamber music), musicologists judge it as less than her male counterparts because it not orchestral. But, women composers would not (and still are very minimally) be programmed in public performances of large orchestral (the "big" stuff) works. There are a few processes at work here. One is the historical process of how composers got canonized in the European tradition- and orchestral works are valued as the biggest measure of achievement. But, then, there were some orchestral works written by women composers, so why aren't they played? They are judged differently. That was the point my professor made- that even scholars trying to get these works recognized were sometimes guilty of this same way of marking compositions as inferior- whether because of it being for a salon, or because of the even more troublesome ingrained internalized judgments. Fanny even published some of her works under Felix's name to get around restrictions during their lifetime for the publication of women's works. If an audience listens and does not know who wrote the work (gender, race, etc) will that change their receptivity to the piece?
What happens to people's perceptions about a work when they know who wrote something and where it comes from? One of my friends recently posted something on Facebook about racism that drew some immediate reactions from a couple of her white friends. She is originally from India but has been living in the US for over 20 years. Anyway, she then said in response, "would it change what you think if I told you that Jon Stewart said this last night?" After that, the responses changed.
These two examples bring me to the point in the Tickner and Blaney book, in the introduction, where they are discussing how non-core scholarship is measured against, judged, and "coded as 'bad' or second-class version of 'good' and 'serious' core scholarship."(p. 7) What do you think of their approach of "engagement with difference" as "Dussel's 'trans-modern pluriverse'- a kind of cosmopolitanism in which diversity flourishes." (p. 11). ? How do audiences listen to and receive scholarship without coming to it with their own attachments to concepts and categories?
2. Chapter 6- The State of the African State and politics
Grovogui seeks to define the most salient aspects of African politics as more complex than many approaches have taken (conflict, state failure and civil wars). He articulates a balance between acknowledging African agency while also stating that "Africans have not been the primary or sole agents of the regimes of politics, economy, culture and morality that have operated on the continent for the better of four centuries." (p. 134) How should scholars address this complexity? He mentions Mariane Ferme's anthropological work (p. 129) as an antidote to Kaplan's Coming Anarchy essay (and he emphasizes that Kaplan's book is an essay and not a study (p. 127). Does Grovugui succeed in creating a convincing argument for shifting the onotology/epistemology for how to study African States?
posted by WW at 11:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home