Letter from the Editor

Eugenia Siegel Conte (University of California, Santa Barbara)

This is my last letter as Editor of SEM Student News. Working on this publication has been a joy, in that it has allowed me to grow with, and learn from, dedicated, talented, and, perhaps most of all, generous colleagues whom I never would have met if not for this “gig.” I am walking away from this editorship with a keen sense of collegiality within, and outside of, the field of ethnomusicology, as well as an exciting intimation of the directions in which the next generation of writers-about-music are moving, theoretically and stylistically. Perhaps the most riveting aspect of this viewpoint, as I finish my tenure, is that I get to see the interdisciplinary panoply of new directions/strands/through-lines in and around our field alongside some important overall debates about morality, representation, and community in scholarship.
 
Obviously, much has changed in the world since the publication of SEM Student News 12.2, “Decolonizing Ethnomusicology,” when students shifted conversations around ethnomusicology as they prioritized the levels and layers of injustice at institutional as well as disciplinary levels. Moving away from broad conversations about interdisciplinarity and area studies, those authors honed in on how the systems in which we participate as scholars, performers, teachers, and community members are bound by structural inequalities that simply cannot be transcended solely through topic or genre representation. In each subsequent issue, it became clearer that students were intent on integrating critiques of imperialism, colonialism, racism, sexism, anti-queer sentiment, and ideological hegemonies into their work in ways that did not “use” these critiques to further their scholarship, but, rather, used their scholarship to further these critiques.
 
This issue, centered around “Music and Faith,” foregrounds an interesting paradigm in current ethnomusicological work and popular thought, one not entirely divorced from more conventional questions surrounding “faith”: Should we trust that hegemonies can be changed for the better from inside our fields, departments, and institutions; or are institutional hegemonies of thought and territory so warped that they must be entirely subverted, if not destroyed?

Should we trust that hegemonies can be changed for the better from inside our fields, departments, and institutions; or are institutional hegemonies of thought and territory so warped that they must be entirely subverted, if not destroyed?

Rather than enforcing a binary between these two positions, most of our contributors have suggested approaches that prioritize specific circumstances, communities, and people. Inviting everyone to be a scholar, they suggest critiques to be localized, and conversations surrounding “solutions” to be based in intersecting communities that are not always properly considered or foregrounded. Iljung Kim discusses his decision to shift his scholarly focus from “addressing concerns resulting from the diminishing prevalence of the tradition” of Buddhist beompae in Bongwon-dong, Seoul, to a view that favors how the community itself considers the tradition as developing and sustainable. Ben Griffin notes how hymns more inclusive to queer worshippers hone the Christian tradition from within, affording broader acceptance of self and other. Sunaina Keonaona Kale (Kanaka Maoli) points out that colonial ideas about faith as separate from secular life have not always allowed for many Indigenous points of view to the extent that, in many cases, the word “faith” does not even apply.  Kimberley Watson challenges ideas of “faith” that rely too heavily on institutional hegemonies rather than community investment as she makes suggestions about how to better include and uplift scholars and artists of color and arts from Black traditions. Mariangela Nobre turns to poetry, dance, and the sensorium to ethically investigate her fieldwork experiences with Batuque religious practices. Discussing the dissonances of maintaining religious faith alongside graduate scholarship, Hannah Snavely notes that practicing religion is often perceived in seminar rooms as anathema to intellectual investment.

Rather than enforcing a binary between these two positions, most of our contributors have suggested approaches that prioritize specific circumstances, communities, and people. Inviting everyone to be a scholar, they suggest critiques to be localized, and conversations surrounding “solutions” to be based in intersecting communities that are not always properly considered or foregrounded.

While each of these pieces takes a slightly different approach to the term “faith,” the strand running through them all is trust. Can we trust systems of power, even (or perhaps especially) those that are so ingrained that they are hidden from us through enculturation—and should we? How do we trust ourselves and others within these systems? Now that we (as scholars and humans) have fully realized that ethics and morality are not guaranteed by pre-scripted universal actions or stances, but made and remade by a constant stream of microdecisions, -expressions, and -calibrations, how can we—must we—constantly adjust with fluid grace, navigating our own feelings and faiths and those of others? Being “good” (ethical, upstanding, trustworthy, compassionate) in our lives, our communities, and our scholarship is not a fixed identity. It is a series of actions and renegotiations that never settles into fixed permanence as the world fluctuates around us and requires us to change with it.

The core of these ideas centers on careful consideration, generosity, responsibility to one's self and others, and kind (but firm) constructive intervention. And these are approaches I personally have faith in. As undone as our field, and the broader world, may seem right now, there also seem to be so many radically inclusive ways forward—and so many young scholars thoughtfully charting ways through. Thank you for allowing me to think through these new directions alongside you.