[Edit posted at 7 a.m. Monday, September 22: Oops. I missed the "brief" in our instructions. For the brief part, skip down to the last paragraph. Sorry!]
I found these two articles to be the most engaging I have read this semester. Being sleep deprived, I hope I am able to link all my disparate thoughts about this information coherently.
Both the Selfe and Tagg articles advocate the recognition of sounds as "modes of knowledge" (Tagg) and urge the re-valuation of "aurality" (Selfe) as means of restoring power to disaffected or marginalized peoples. Selfe explores aurality in multiple forms, ranging from lecturing to story-telling and chanting, and relates the de-valuation of aurality during the 19th and 20th century to several socio-economic developments of the times. Whites were privileged, she says, by this emphasis on written composition, and marginalized groups were relegated to maintaining a more oral tradition. In speaking of Native Americans, Selfe compares the primacy of writing (as valued by Whites) to a type of colonialization.
In reading this, I was reminded of my stint as a journalist in the heart of Native American country. To the west was the Navajo Nation; to the south, the Zunis; and to the east were the Acoma, Laguna, and Cebolleta Pueblos. At the time, a group of Christian missionaries was working -- toiling, you might say, since they had been at it for many years -- on converting the Zuni language from a strictly oral to a written language. The coordinator of the program was clearly frustrated at the Zuni's resistance to her group's noble efforts.
It has taken a long time to gain their trust, she said of the Zunis. I remember thinking, first, why would the white missionaries feel the need to encode someone else's language, and, second, what made them think the Zunis would want to cooperate with them in doing so? (As if the Zunis were going to hand over the last vestige of their culture to these outsiders...) The Native Americans I knew were sort of merry trickster characters who loved to put one over on Whitey. I could not help but think the Zunis were feeding them gibberish and having a big laugh about it over dinner that night. I believe the Native American oral tradition and the uniqueness of their spoken language affords them significant power (witness the importance of Navajo code talkers during WWII) that I can't imagine them relinquishing.
Through the Tagg article, I finally understand the enduring appeal of rap. Extending Tagg's argument about emergence of rock music, rap may be thought of as this generations' "appropriation of the seemingly uncontrollable forces of the environment" or "strategy for survival."
Nietzsche says, "Who defeats the power of semblance and reduces it to the status of a symbol? This power is music" (in
The Dionsyiac World View). If music is "symbolized feelings," as Tagg says, rap -- even more than rock -- represents this generation's sense of "clock slavery and constant noise." Indeed, is not rap metronomic rhythm? Even the vocalists rock sideways in a metronomic fashion.
Concerning the link to the various sound sites, I was annoyed that so many of them were text-based. What's the point in that? I looked for sites that recorded Native American chanting but couldn't find one. However, I enjoyed Marcus Coates Dawn Chorus and would have liked to hear/see the entire video. I believe the Ocean Conservation Research Sound Laboratory site material related most closely to our readings. The recordings of the humpback whale and bearded seal, for instance, appear to be symbolized aurality, as Selfe might say. In the recording of the humpback whale and the LFAS sonar, I couldn't distinguish which sounds were organic and which were electronic; it seemed one cohesive symphony. The recorded cacophony of the merchant ship made me wonder if sea creatures would soon be faced with intrusive "acoustic horizons" that might influence their strategies for survival.
Cheers, Judy