Naught for Your Comfort

reflections on Kofi Agawus Representing African Music: Postcolonial

Notes, Queries, Positions (2003)

Akin Euba
Asymmetries of power, exploitation, and ethical violations are not comfortable
topics of conversation.
Kofi Agawu
Ethnomusicology, as a name and as a field, seems to have become very
popular, certainly in the United States. It is a label that is used by a wide
variety of specialists and nonspecialists alike in describing what they do.
Numerous U.S. universities offer ethnomusicology courses of one form or
another, but considerably fewer universities offer graduate degrees in the
subject. I sometimes wonder whether universities are actually mesmerized
by the subject or are merely interested in listing token courses in what is
most often called World Music, which does not cover all that has come
to be associated with ethnomusicology.
The success of ethnomusicology in the United States may be gauged by
the membership of the Society for Ethnomusicology (SEM), along with its
regional and national activities, including the thrice-yearly publication of its
flagship journal, Ethnomusicology. At the 2006 annual meeting of SEM in
Honolulu, many half-hour paper sessions ran concurrently throughout the
day, with some starting as early as 7 am. But, in spite of its success in the United
States, the SEM is basically a regional organization that caters to an American
audience and rarely holds meetings outside the United States. I can report
anecdotally that in 2005 I used the SEMs membership directory to mail
leaflets to various European institutions listed there, and several were returned,
marked addressee unknown. In contrast, it is fair to say that the International Council for Traditional Music (ICTM)which meets in different
countriesis the only truly international organization for ethnomusicology.
Notwithstanding the apparent success of ethnomusicology in the United
States, I wonder how many supporters of the field ever pause to think of
the problems attached to the concept of ethnomusicology and the way in which
it is practiced. Apart from the basic social need of those attending ethnomusicology events to see and be seen, I wonder how many serious-minded
persons would continue to embrace the field if they fully understood its
implications. I am deeply concerned about the disregard for ethics by eth154

Transition 99

nomusicologists in carrying out their work, and Kofi Agawu has voiced this
same concern in Representing African Music: Postcolonial Notes, Queries, Positions (2003). Even if the ethical questions that Agawu and others (myself
included) have raised are invalidor even irrelevantall is not well with
the field. Now, intellectual disagreements are of course common in academia, but what bothers me is the kind of
What bothers me is the
vindictiveness that often accompanies these disagreements, and especially in a supposedly kind of vindictiveness
liberal field such as ethnomusicology. I have that often accompanies
heard such complaints about the field echoed by
these disagreements, and
colleagues in private conversation, but seldom in
public, for fear of recrimination. I can understand especially in a supposedly
the reticence of junior scholars looking for work, liberal field such as
tenure, publishers, or grants, and over whom
hangs the potential wrath of their senior col- ethnomusicology.
leagues, ready to descend at the slightest provocation. But what about
established and tenured scholars with many publications in refereed journals? What are they afraid of? Given that ethnomusicologists canand
willunleash venom on dissenting scholars, Kofi Agawus courage in daring
to write Representing African Music is admirable.

Agawus book has much to do with scholars pretention to authority about
the music of Africa, and the assumption by Western ethnomusicologists that
they are somehow endowed with analytical powers that Africans themselves
lack. In chapter eight, under The Story of an Analytical Paper, Agawu
describes comments made by peer reviewers about an article that he had
submitted to Ethnomusicology. The article was first sent to the journal in 1984
and subjected to a series of absurd evaluationsby persons who claimed to
be specialists in African musicologybefore finally being published in 1986,
alongside an article by James Koetting. I invite the reader to consult Agawus
book for a full description of the incident, but what I wish to highlight here
is the comment of Ruth Stone (who, like Koetting, is a non-African scholar
of African music), which was published in the journal as a preface to the
essays of Agawu and Koetting. Stone commented there that Agawu was an
African, enamoured of European tools, whereas Koetting, the American,
was more sensitive to the Africans way of doing things.
Let me say immediately that I have the greatest respect for both Stone
and Koetting, and the latterwhom I knew in the 1960s when we were both
students at UCLAbelonged before his untimely death to a breed of Western ethnomusicologist rarely encountered today, with a genuine,
noncommercial interest in and a humility toward the Others music. But,
Euba Naught for Your Comfort

155

in spite of my admiration for Stone and Koetting, I find incomprehensible

Stones allegation that Koettings approach to African music was more
African than Agawus. Having read the Agawu and Koetting articles at
issue, I find no basis for such a conclusion other than that Western ethnomusicologists automatically assume themselves to be more knowledgeable
about African music than are African scholars. Nor does it seem reasonable
to me that Western scholars should anoint themselves experts on African
music without reference to the perspective of Africans. Of course, we must
bear in mind the old saying about he who pays the piper and remember
also that Ethnomusicology is a Western journal, funded by Westerners. I
wonder what would happen if the position were reversed and a (mythical)
African journal of musicology published two essays on Brahms or Beethoven,
one written by a European and the other by an African, with an African
senior scholar pronouncing that the African scholars essay was more sensitive to the European way of doing things.

One of the problems with the metropolitan, European constructionor
deconstruction, depending on your perspectiveof African music is identified by Agawu as the putative claim that African music constitutes a
homogenous body. This conflation makes our complex and diverse continent . . . virtually unrecognizable in the unanimist constructions employed
by some researchers. Such constructions, like other aspects of musicological representation, are founded on speech discourse and the use of this
medium to obscure or conceal the truth about
When you remove music African music, which ironically seems to be the
from ethnomusicology, what favorite occupation of some Western ethnomusicologists. In their hands, African music has become
remains is ethno-----ology!
virtually unrecognizable to Africans. Speech discourse has limitations as a means of explaining or describing music, and
Charles Seeger has dealt with this problem in several of his writings, including Studies in Musicology II: 19291979, published in 1994. Still, some
scholarsthose with a good command of language and a deep understanding of the music that they describedo find a way to engage readers attention
and to share with them something of their enthusiasm for this approach.
From my own perspective, lucidity of thought and accessibility of language
are so closely linked that indigestible or inaccessible writing almost invariably
suggests a lack of genuine understanding of the phenomenon being described.
Sadly, much of todays ethnomusicological writing is of this kind. It should be
observed here, too, that in much of todays ethnomusicology, music is no
longer the focus. When you remove music from ethnomusicology, what remains
is ethno-----ology! We can discard the redundant o and remove the dashes.
156

Transition 99

Departments of music continue to offer ethnomusicology, though it has little

to do with music.
In contrast to the work of many contemporary ethnomusicology scholars,
Agawus writing never fails to engage the readers attention and to convey
the intensity of his experience of music. His exceptional command of language and lucidity of mind naturally contribute to the depth of his
understanding of the music about which he writes. This rare combination
of language excellence, mental acuity and penetrating insight places Agawu
shoulder to shoulder with such great musicological thinkers as Mantle
Hood, J. H. Kwabena Nketia, Alan Merriam and Bruno Nettl. Charles
Seeger belongs in a special category all his own. Beyond clarity of thought
and command of language, Seeger was also a veritable poet of musicology,
who juxtaposed words for their structural balance, followed structural rhyming systems, and sometimes grouped his ideas in sets of three. It is Seegers
elevated language, his own poetry, that makes access to his writings difficult
for some.

Euba Naught for Your Comfort

157


The connection between ethnomusicology and colonialism is well argued
by Agawu, and it is remarkable that this connection seems to be acknowledged by the SEM, which in 2006 devoted two plenary sessions to the topic
of decolonization (Decolonizing Hawaiian Ethnomusicology and
Decolonizing Music Scholarship) at its fifty-first annual meeting in Honolulu,
the overall theme of which was Decolonizing Ethnomusicology.
The Society must be applauded for this and earlier efforts aimed toward
reappraising its colonialist heritage. Agawus description of ethnomusicology
as a discipline nurtured by colonialism recalls the notion that the colonization
of Africa was managed not by European politicians alone, but with the aid of
traders and missionaries. Nowadays, scholarsincluding ethnomusicologists
have replaced (or perhaps joined) the missionaries in neocolonialist ventures
conducted around the world by Western political and commercial interests.
Ethnomusicology as currently practiced is a kind of foreign policy and, in
my view, a bad one. It is customary for academics to decry foreign policies as
implemented by politicians, but this moralist
Ethnomusicology as
posture is not always justified, at least not
currently practiced is a among ethnomusicologists. A scholar who goes
kind of foreign policy and, into another culture to obtain materials for the
development and advancement of an academic
in my view, a bad one. career, and who assigns to him- or herself the
role of representative of that culture is practicing a form of foreign policy and
is, in fact, sometimes viewed as a foreign policy expert by politicians and
foundations and other such bodies. While I am not qualified to speak on
behalf of politicians, I would ask ethnomusicologists to exercise caution when
criticizing the foreign policies of politicians and to first make sure that theirs
is beyond reproach.
A good foreign policy in ethnomusicology is one that allows the Other
to speak for the Other, one that respects the Others point of view. A good
foreign policy in the case of ethnomusicology is one that seeks to pursue
vigorously and without reservation attempts already made by some among
the SEM to decolonize the field. Such initiatives should not be limited to
the occasional plenary session at annual meetings but should instead involve
an intensive and sustained discussion over a long period. Currently, ethnomusicologists are apt to pick up a cudgel the moment the Other dares to
voice criticism of the field and this, I feel, is wrong, not only because it
cultivates the suspicion that ethnomusicologists have something to hide, but
also because it is bad foreign policy.
To speak for the Other, when the Other has a voice, or to represent the
Other in any form, when the Other is fully capable of representing itself,
is to mute the Others voice, and perhaps even worse. This is not to say that
158

Transition 99

scholars with a genuine (rather than merely paternalistic) interest cannot

engage with cultures other than their own, but what I find reprehensible is
the policy of representing exclusively the Other rather than oneself. To put
it bluntly, scholars should represent themselves and leave the Others capable
of doing so to represent themselves. Moreover, scholars should cultivate the
humility of listening to what Others have to say about themselves, and not
merely at the level of informant. I agree with Agawus suggestion that we
eschew the soft strategies of dialogism and the solicitation of insider
viewpoints and work toward the direct empowerment of postcolonial African subjects so that they can eventually represent themselves. Agawu
further develops this idea by advocating the disappearance of ethnomusicologists and the installation of local scholars in their place.
There is something curious about scholars who parade themselves as
authorities on the Others culture, rather than seeking to establish themselves
as authorities on their own cultures. It is much easier to do the formerthe
risk of exposing their incompetence is minimal since the Other seldom has a
chance to know what informational atrocities are being committed in their
namethan the latter, where There is something curious about
competition is stronger and
the risk of exposure greater. scholars who parade themselves as
Furthermore, by representing authorities on the Others culture, rather
Others, rather than them- than seeking to establish themselves as
selves, scholars are prone to
the dangers of objectification, authorities on their own cultures.
treating the music and musicians of Africa as commoditiesakin to the way
African slaves brought to the Americas were treatedand thus disrespecting
the esoteric and mystical powers of music with which only those scholars who
represent themselves can fully empathize. The reliance on sophisticated technology in the analysis of music so common among Western ethnomusicologists
could also be considered an aspect of this objectification. It is my belief that
the understanding of music comes through the heart and the mind and should
not depend on technology. Technology is like crutches: when people can walk
properly, they have no need of crutches. Persons whose minds and hearts are
not crippled do not need technology in order to understand their own
music.
Needless to say, not every scholar of the Other is a charlatan, and there
are several clear models of excellence, among them Andr Schaeffner, who,
in addition to studying the Other, was also a scholar of Couperin and
Debussy. Kofi Agawu, a brilliant scholar of Western musicology, is bold
and strong enough to practice Western musicology among Western academics. One might also mention John Collins, originally from the United
Kingdom, who is an authority on highlife music, and who, as a professor
in the Department of Music at the University of Ghana, teaches in the
heartland of highlife culture. J. Lawrence Witzleben, from the United States,
Euba Naught for Your Comfort

159

is an authority on Chinese music who teaches at the Chinese University of

Hong Kong. Outside musicology, Karen Barber, also British, is an authority
on Yoruba literature who for some time was on the teaching faculty of the
Department of African Languages and Literatures of the University of Ife
(now Obafemi Awolowo University), which is situated at the center of
Yoruba culture. Barber taught Yoruba alongside such eminent scholars as
Wande Abimbola, Olasope Oyelaran, Akin Isola, and Olabiyi Yai. Before
Barber, no European, as far as I know, ever achieved such prestige in the
field of Yoruba literary studies. The position of spokesperson for the Other
is one of awesome responsibility, and those who aspire to this position must
first validate themselves by achieving the kind of distinction attributed to
these models of excellence, whether within or beyond the domain of
ethnomusicology.

A good sense of history helps to explain why Agawus book is so timely and
welcome. Unpopular though the books message may be to those who practice ethnomusicology and see nothing wrong with the field, most people in
the civilized worldincluding, of course, ethnomusicologistslook back with
horror at slavery, the denial of suffrage to Blacks and women, apartheid,
and other forms of injustice. There was a time, however, when such practices
were wholeheartedly endorsed by large sectors of otherwise reasonable members of society. Some of us today already look with horror at ethnomusicology
as an unfair and unethical field, especially in positioning Westerners as
spokespersons for the musics of other cultures and thus displacing and
marginalizingor even silencingthe voices of the members of those cultures.
Agawus book is a brilliant analysis of why and how ethnomusicology is
unfair and unethical, and the author deserves a medal for his courage in
expressing these views despite their overwhelming unpopularity in the
academyat least in the West. His publishers, too, are to be saluted. Agawus
is not a lone voice, and, however small our numbers may now be, some of
us are ready to challenge the wanton appropriation of intellectual property
that is at the core of ethnomusicology as currently practiced.
I invoke history as a reminder that, as terrible as slavery and other types
of inhumanity may now appear to us, the large majority of society might
have been happy to let things remain as they were. It took courage, effort,
pain, and sacrifice before society was persuaded to renounce its unjust
institutional practices. With hindsight, we may wonder why such pain and
sacrifice should have been necessary: the injustice of slavery and other types
of inhumanity now seem self evident, at least to civilized society.
For this reason, I recommend Agawus book for serious consideration and
deep contemplation. It provides ethnomusicologists (who, incidentally, nor160

Transition 99

mally see themselves as ultraliberal) with a good basis for reevaluating their
practice in order to see whether it is something that tomorrows scholarly community can continue to pursue and be proud to embrace. Those who provide
financial and other support for ethnomusicologyincluding foundations, publishers, and universitiesshould similarly reexamine their position. They, too,
need to take a good look at Agawus book in order to determine whether
ethnomusicology as currently practiced is something worthy of their support.
Although Kofi Agawus book focuses on Africa, it is in effect a critique of
ethnomusicology in general, for what it has to say is pertinent to the ethnomusicology of other regions of the world as well.

Euba Naught for Your Comfort

161