Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The relationship between ethics and music is one of the oldest topics in
philosophical discussions of music, dating at least as far back as Plato, who
warned against the morally corrupting power that music could have on the soul
while also recognizing that it could engender grace and harmony.1 Music and
ethics is, at the same time, one of the most recent topics attracting attention within
both music studies and philosophy, in that it is only within the last twenty-five
years that critical developments have begun to open up this sphere of inquiry. This
book is an attempt to respond, and add something, to these developments. Our
exploration is by no means intended to be exhaustive in scope. We seek, rather,
to unravel various ethical moments, which involve, on the one hand, ethical
issues that warrant musical discussion and, on the other, examples of music that
invite ethical explication. Of course, these issues and examples often overlap and
interact across fluid borders; ethical moments can be profoundly musical, and
evade straightforward discussion or translation, but nevertheless (or therefore)
add to ethical discourses within philosophical and critical disciplines. In addition
to providing a new angle within music studies, our study accords with recent
attempts to demonstrate how music can contribute to the study of philosophy.
We would argue that philosophy should not be considered merely a tool with
which music can be theorized and explained, and that the ethics of music should
not be regarded as a problem that needs to be solved by philosophical discourse.
Our primary aim is instead to examine music in ways that lead to critical and
philosophical reflections on ethics. To this extent we answer Andrew Bowies
exhortation, to regard the philosophy of music, not as the philosophy whose
job is conceptually to determine the object music, but rather as the philosophy
that emerges from music.2
One major challenge encountered in scholarly developments relates to the
intersection between ethics and aesthetics. Many twentieth-century philosophers
of art have not only neglected this intersection, but in fact presented it as
1
See, for example, Plato, The Republic, Book III, trans. Benjamin Jowett (Charleston,
SC: BiblioBazaar, 2007), p. 115 and pp. 12426.
2
Andrew Bowie, Music, Philosophy, and Modernity (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2007), p. 11.
irrelevant, or conceptually invalid. This has been due in particular to the Kantian
legacy, and to formalism and aestheticism (art for arts sake), for which it
would make little sense to include discussions of ethics in relation to art. By the
mid-twentieth century, many analytic philosophers were still relying on Kants
second edition of the Kritik der Reinen Vernunft (Critique of Pure Reason) from
1787, including its stern critique of aesthetics, which Kant claimed was not a
philosophical discipline at all.3 He radically altered this view with his writings on
aesthetics in the Kritik der Urteilskraft (Critique of Judgement) in 1790, but this
was not fully acknowledged or pursued. In recent years this state of affairs has
changed, however, and analytical philosophy has added a great deal to the study
of aesthetics, including its relationship to ethics.4 Nevertheless, certain limitations
still hinder this branch of philosophys deeper engagement with music and ethics,
as we shall see in Chapter 2, Discourse.
The area of music and ethics has also been opening up in music studies and
within other philosophical approaches. Two works should be mentioned here.
Kathleen Higgins published a book in 1991 entitled The Music of Our Lives, in
which she presents as ethically significant the affective character of music that
makes listeners aware of their connection with others.5 Music contributes to a
better understanding of ones place within the world, and (thus) to an ethical
sensibility. Higginss work can be seen as complementary to our own, in that
there is some similarity between our perspectives, including the exploration of
music and ethics in light of (human) interaction, and the wish to ground music
and ethics in intersubjective relations (not least from the perspective of listening).
We argue, as Higgins does, for contextual understanding and engagement rather
than Platonic or other universalist approaches to music as object. Another
precursor of the present book is the November 2002 issue of the Dutch Journal
of Music Theory (henceforth DJMT), devoted to the theme Music & Ethics.6 The
articles in this issue addressed ethical issues related to authority, responsibility and
3
Analytic (or Anglo-American) philosophers at this time dismissed aesthetics as
unworthy of study. One example is John Passmores article The Dreariness of Aesthetics,
Mind, 60/239 (1951), pp. 31835. Peter Kivy (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics
(Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2004), p. 3.
4
See especially Jerrold Levinson (ed.), Ethics and Aesthetics: Essays at the
Intersection (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Garry Hagberg, (ed), Art and
Ethical Criticism (New York: Blackwell Publishing, 2008); and Peter Kivy, Antithetical
Arts: On the Ancient Quarrel between Literature and Music (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2009).
5
Kathleen Higgins, The Music of Our Lives (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011).
Previously published by Temple University Press (1991).
6
Dutch Journal of Music Theory, 7/3 (November 2002). (The journal has two official
titles: the Dutch title is Tijdschrift voor Muziektheorie.) The articles in the volume emerged
from a meeting held in Rotterdam on 11 January 2002 entitled The Future of Musicology:
Towards Music(ology) and Ethics. This meeting was directly linked to Marcel Cobussens
defence of his PhD thesis, Deconstruction in Music, held the previous day.
Introduction
Introduction
Baby-eating Art Show Sparks Upset, BBC News, 3 January 2003, at: http://news.
bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2624797.stm.
15
Howard S. Becker, Art Worlds (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982).
16
Nol Carroll, Moderate Moralism, British Journal of Aesthetics, 36 (1996),
pp. 22338.
17
Berys Gaut, The Ethical Criticism of Art, in Jerrold Levinson (ed.), Aesthetics
and Ethics: Essays at the Intersection (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998),
pp. 182203.
18
Rob van Gerwen, Ethical Autonomism: The Work of Art as a Moral Agent,
Contemporary Aesthetics, 2 (2004), online at: http://www.phil.uu.nl/~rob/PF_oud/s_
inlcolleges/s_inlteksten/ea.pdf.
shocking, but nevertheless stirs our moral consciousness. Here something may
be added to the ethical dimension of art by the context in which it is created and/
or received. Political art is an obvious example of this, and a famous example is
Leni Riefenstahls film Triumph des Willens (Triumph of the Will), a documentary
of the 1934 Nremberg Rally of the NSDAP, the National Socialist German
Workers Party. The film received the highest awards for artistic achievement,
including a gold medal at the Venice Biennale in 1936 and the Grand Prix at the
World Exhibition in Paris in 1937. After the war, however, it was condemned
as National Socialist propaganda, and its status as art was called into question.
For todays viewers, it is entirely possible to recognize the aesthetic qualities of
the film, which contains some beautiful images and sequences. It nevertheless
remains impossible to ignore the films promotion of National Socialism: it is
precisely the positive vision of the Nazis that is offered as beautiful. So if it is
possible to recognize the aspects of Triumph of the Will that would arguably link
it to the category of high art, deserving of aesthetic appreciation, our judgement
is challenged because we need to decide not only whether our response is still
appropriate in ethical terms, but also whether our moral response must necessarily
have an impact on our aesthetic interpretation. As the philosopher Mary Devereaux
argues, the conjunction of beauty and evil makes the film disturbing, but it is also
this conjunction that, along with our critical reflection, provides us with a reason
to watch and engage with it.19
From the example of Triumph of the Will we can deduce two points relevant
to the methodology we propose for the study of music and ethics. First, art that
is normally recognized as high art can also be caught in ethical dilemmas that
are due to the context of its creation or reception. Second, from the possibility for
a variety of responses inevitably follows responsibility: agency is an important
element within ethicalaesthetic tensions, and therefore, while considering the
many possible contexts for art, we also attempt to address the scope of agents
ethical choices. The issues that emerge with political art correspond to one notable
aspect of Music and Ethics. We examine ethicalaesthetic tensions that are
initiated through various processes and forms of engagement, and this requires
an understanding that reaches beyond art as an object into the ever-changing
situatedness of art where the relationship between art and recipient is key.
One further example from the visual arts will help to illustrate this essential
interactive and contextual aspect of our methodology. In the immediate aftermath
of the killings in Norway on 22 July 2011, The Sunday Times published a drawing
by the political cartoonist Gerald Scarfe that was a play on Edvard Munchs 1893
painting The Scream, arguably Norways most famous artwork.20 The cartoon was
19
For a detailed discussion of this dilemma, see Mary Devereaux Beauty and Evil:
The Case of Leni Riefenstahls Triumph of the Will, in Levinson, Ethics and Aesthetics,
pp. 22756 at p. 251.
20
The attacks by a right-wing Norwegian extremist included a mass shooting at a
summer youth camp for the Norwegian Labour Party on the island of Utya. The victims
Introduction
a close copy of the Munch painting, depicting in the foreground the famous face
distorted in a scream, holding his/her hands up to the cheeks, except that in the
background, Scarfe had placed just one person (in the original there are two), and
this figure holds a gun. It requires little capacity for interpretation to recognize the
representation of the real gunman (Anders Behring Breivik), while the screaming
face is that of one of his potential victims. Regardless of Scarfes actual intentions,
the cartoon clearly confronts us with an ethical challenge. What concerns us
here is the multiplicity of possible ethical responses in its reception.21 Many
commentators on The Times website were shocked by the extreme insensitivity
of the cartoon, pointing out that it was both inappropriate and tasteless (this was
linked to the presumed low intellectual level of The Times itself). At the opposite
end of the spectrum, it was claimed that the cartoon was not intended as either a
parody or funny, but could be seen instead to represent the angst of the Norwegian
people, and thereby served as an expression of sympathy towards the victims and
the nation as a whole.
The variety of responses to Scarfes knowing play on well-known cultural
motifs and current events within the form of a cartoon serves as an example of
the potent yet often ambiguous force of humour, which is particularly evident
when igniting ethical controversy. This is useful in that it suggests a comparative
link between humour and ethics, and between music and ethics. Humour, like
music, can generate powerful responses and can carry a multiplicity of meaning.
Interpretation, affectivity and understanding often depend on context and framing,
on cultural references and on vagaries of taste. Scarfes cartoon could elicit
powerful moral responses because of its obvious associations and references; in
order to provide an adequate explanation, meaningful interpretation and criticism,
a recipient would need to be informed of a range of topics, including the fact of the
Norwegian attacks themselves, the cultural context of the original Munch painting,
the nature and meaning of cartoon parody, the possible reference in the cartoon to
the spoof horror film Scream, Scarfes other work, the nature of the newspaper in
which the cartoon was published and its intended readership, and so on. Only then
would the relevant ethicalaesthetic tensions emerge for example, between high
and low art (for instance, what happens when we understand Munchs painting
in the context of Scream), between sincerity and banality (whether and how a
newspaper cartoon in this case trivializes a serious matter), and how this cartoon
given the circumstances could be seen in some way to cause harm to its audience
or to others.
of the massacre were mostly teenagers, and 77 were killed in all (in addition to 96 injured).
Scarfes cartoon was published on Sunday 24 July, before all missing teenagers and victims
had been accounted for.
21
It was briefly given attention by one Channel 4 reporter and by another newspaper,
the Guardian, resulting in a number of comments from the public. See especially Benjamin
Cohen at: https://plus.google.com/100441642353694045036/posts/WeQV18n3KVZ.
22
Bruce Johnson and Martin Cloonan, Dark Side of the Tune. Popular Music and
Violence (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), p. 24.
23
Steve Goodman, Sonic Warfare: Sound, Affect, and the Ecology of Fear (Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 2009).
Introduction
as unethical, torture being the most extreme example.24 However, music can
also be used as an auditory tool to thwart unethical behaviour as is the case with
Muzak, which is often used to induce customers to buy while also solving loitering
problems in shopping malls. Music can prevent unrest in prisons, and classical
music played in planes appears to calm its passengers before take-off or landing.
However, here we arrive at a tricky problem. Music can, in some ways, contribute
to the structuring of the world, of civilization and of a culture in order to prevent it
from chaos and disorder; but a striving for order can itself display unethical traits,
as in the case of overtly or covertly repressive state interventions.25 The powersthat-be can decide whether (certain) music should be allowed or advocated, or
regarded as subversive and banned. In any case, it is evident that it is difficult to
maintain an absolute autonomous position for music in the light of ethical and
moral questions and attitudes. Often, music is more or less directly involved
in various complicated ethical situations, either supporting certain ethical norms
or challenging them. The role, function and position of music in contemporary
society exceed the aesthetical realm; music has more to offer to humanity than
various kinds of aural entertainment, or of beauty for beautys sake. Alongside its
social, religious, political and economic roles, music is also an active participant
in ethical concerns.
Does our rejection of musics still often proclaimed (radical) autonomy mean
that we are forced to embrace either a radical or a more moderate moralism one
of the alternatives sketched above? We do not think so. These theories present the
ethical content or effects of art products in relation to existing ethical principles
or moral norms. In other words, ideas about ethics and morality precede here the
artwork under consideration and provide, in advance, arguments with which to
evaluate its ethical and moral qualities. These arguments, these principles and
norms are often pre-established, deriving primarily from political, philosophical
and juridical discourses.
In our view, this is only one side of the story. Of course, judging music according
to ethical standards means entering into juridicalpoliticalethical discourses and
accepting certain norms and values developed in and through those discourses.
But we also propose and try to test another option. It is our claim that these
discourses can benefit from the recognition of certain experiences encountered
in and through music. Music offers much more to the topic than just adjustment
to, or transgression of, prevailing ethical standards or moral laws; through music,
aspects of ethical and moral discourses and behaviours can be rethought, revisited
24
See, for example, Suzanne Cusick, You are in a Place That is Out of the World
: Music in the Detention Camps of the Global War on Terror, Journal of the Society
for American Music, 2/1 (2008), pp. 126.
25
The positive and negative consequences of structuring with the help of music or
sound are also the main topics of Jacques Attalis famous book Bruits (Paris, 1981); English
translation Noise. The Political Economy of Music, trans. B. Massumi (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 2003).
10
and revised. Instead of a mere reactive role, music can proactively contribute to
debates around ethical and moral issues.26 At the centre of this is the idea that
the responses elicited by music in particular historical, political and cultural
circumstances matter. Ethical issues are revealed more fully if we avoid the
tendency to turn to the music itself, as an object, for insights on this issue, and
instead explore the ways in which music engages with its listeners.
One of the ideas we develop in this book is that musics contribution to ethical
issues can be useful and fruitful because music operates, at least partially, outside
the domain of language, outside the restraints of discursivity. The specific role that
music can play in and around ethics or morality is a musical one: via encounters with
music, prevalent ideas about ethics and morality can be challenged, transgressed,
changed or deepened. It is here that the relevance of Music and Ethics is most
conspicuous. Music always already plays a role in the (de)(con)struction of our
society, a fundamental but also very specific role, which might in turn influence
the ways in which we deal with ethical and moral matters. Furthermore, music
also (de)(con)structs our sonic, as well as our social, environments, and musical
discourses have the power to shape our (moral) imaginations. We want to explore
ways of doing justice to music and musical discourse: we hope that the following
pages will convincingly demonstrate a few useful avenues.
Introduction
11
12