Juliana Catinin

CUNY - Graduate Center

When I explain our discipline to someone outside the academy, I usually simplify it as a discipline that studies society through music. If we follow this line of reasoning, social studies is therefore not exclusive to social science and humanities scholars—and I add that it is not reserved only for academic institutions. Rather, social studies can be produced by anyone who uses theory and method, academic or not. The importance of these studies is indispensable for building critical thinking and generating improvements and social equity through praxis. Therefore, our approach within the humanities and social sciences not only produces social critique, but also situates music as possessing history and agency.

There is an attempt in ethnomusicology to be more attentive to social problems, especially in applied ethnomusicology. However, it’s important to remember that “intention” doesn’t necessarily equate to practical realization, as there are several determinations and over-determinations in reality that interfere with praxis. In short, we must treat reality as it is and not as we would like it to be. Our analyses should be in constant motion in order to respond to ongoing complexity and social movement, without, however, losing rigor (Gouveia and Mastropaolo 2019). In this sense, the neoliberal mode of academic production interferes negatively with our attempt to help overcome the world’s social problems with our academic research. We often work in shallow, uncritical, and productivist ways for an incessant and exhaustive scientific production with individual solutions, new academic concepts that are sometimes unnecessary, races for funding, and multiple functions in the same job. What I have just described is nothing more than the reproduction of the neoliberal mode of production.

Neoliberalism as the Infrastructure of “Capitalist Realism:” How it Affects the Academic World

According to David Harvey (2007), neoliberalism is a political-economic doctrine that proposes that the best path to human welfare is through the freedom of individuals to enterprise in the institutional structure, which can be characterized by private property rights, free markets, and free trade. The state has a role in providing an ideal structure for the guarantee of these practices that are taken as central values of civilization. And, going beyond this definition, Mark Fisher (2022) points out that capitalism, at this stage of neoliberalism, does not sell itself as the “best” system anymore, but as the “only” possible system. Therefore, what he calls “capitalist realism” is a fatalistic attitude toward capitalism, accepting it as inevitable. In this sense, it is a “realist” perspective and it is the depoliticization of the interpretation of life.

Ana Hofman (2021) points out some problems, common amongst researchers in the academic world, that come our way as ethnomusicologists. One of the issues is the (false) meritocracy to get research funding based on the number of publications and citations. This forces the researcher to publish even without new content to do so. We know that there are several phases in a research project and that the phase of disclosure through publication in books and journals is just one of these, usually taking place after a lot of “invisible” work (Hofman 2021, 83). But what counts in neoliberalism is the final product, not the process.

Following this thought, Anibeth Desierto and Carmela de Maio (2020) state that researchers are expected to monetize academic production, following a market trend in which quantity prevails over quality.[1] In this way, the researcher is subject to produce more and more to attract external funding. Thus, there is a tendency for researchers to lose part of their autonomy, as they are forced to produce at any cost to not be discarded and replaced. Therefore, we have three issues to address here: the loss of autonomy, the low quality of knowledge produced due to this loss, and the mental illness caused by being in this environment of accelerated production.

Therefore, the pressure for empty, high productivity has become a weapon against the academic professional who must meet goals and fill performance indicators, damaging the production and the professionals themselves: if they do not accomplish what is expected, they will be promptly punished. Besides this, there is the accumulation of functions accompanied by this factor, since the professional must fulfill administrative tasks according to this logic, leading to more stress and anxiety. Desierto and de Maio (2020) also indicate the weakening of the employment relationship as one of the problems—in other words, a solid employment contract is missing, leading to labor instability. Increasingly fragile employment relationships and precarious, poorly paid labor leave the worker increasingly unprotected when it comes to demanding better working conditions. Minorities (women, Black people, LGBTQIA+ people, among others) are the most threatened within this relationship, since systemic inequality permeates this institution.

Another problem is the debt acquired during our training. Jackie Wang (2018) in her book Carceral Capitalism takes a moment to focus on what she calls the Debt Economy, where she points out that more and more young people are getting into debt. This becomes a problem in many aspects of their lives, since many institutions use credit scoring to decide, for example, whether you can rent an apartment or get a loan. Wang explains how student loans fracture borrowers into two groups: those from financially literate households and those from financially illiterate households (Wang 2018, 130), further stratifying generational wealth, regardless of education level. Desierto and de Maio (2020) additionally reinforce the idea that students, often from financially illiterate backgrounds, cannot pay off this debt in their lifetime, having to live with this financial obligation throughout their adult lives. This issue feeds many of the situations highlighted so far, such as lack of autonomy, mental illness, and class fragmentation.

Looking Deeper: Lack of Autonomy, Mental Illness, and Class Fragmentation

There are three interrelated issues to address here: loss of autonomy, low quality of knowledge produced, and mental illness resulting from this environment of accelerated production. Collectively, these increase class fragmentation and an individualizing ideology. Hence, there are some longer thoughts on these points that I would like to present.

The lack of autonomy is linked to the ephemerality of the useful lifespan of almost any product (Fisher 2022; Jameson 1991), such as a song, a cell phone, a car...and why not “knowledge”? It is not that knowledge has an expiration date, but the way it is constructed and consumed is affected by neoliberal logic. Production by pressure is something normalized in neoliberalism. Even when seeking leisure and recreation, there is a predominant tendency to seek optimal time management. There is an attempt to multitask in order to maintain a sense of productivity, even when this is not essential, as in the case of leisure and recreation. This results in a confusion between our genuine desires and externally imposed obligations. The pervasive influence of neoliberalism, with its emphasis on a fast-paced lifestyle, often forces individuals to take on self-imposed pressures to suit its demands, making us become our own bosses.

We are made captives of immediacy, fixated on production in the “here and now,” and this may impede the generation of knowledge. At times, we are compelled to adopt “fashionable concepts” to secure recognition or in order to be quoted. Fisher (2022), drawing from Jameson’s analysis of late capitalism and postmodernism, underscores that contemporary culture places exclusive emphasis on the immediate, concurrently fostering nostalgia devoid of genuine innovation. This phenomenon extends to the realm of knowledge production. Nevertheless, this does not implicate researchers as inadequate knowledge producers, but rather underscores a systemic issue where the overarching structure necessitates the mass production of knowledge but is unconcerned with the process and its long-term relevance.

Javier León (2014) points to postmodernism as a consequence of neoliberalism, steering academic inquiries away from grand narratives and toward a paradigm of fragmentation and individualization. Within this context, he observes that in the field of ethnomusicology, there exists a proclivity to shift the emphasis of ethnomusicological investigation from a potential “capitalist alienation,” focusing much more in terms of intersection. Additionally, the author underscores how the advance of technology and the idea of “progress” in the context of late capitalism is a misleading guise for democratization within the music industry, being misleadingly portrayed as “a flexible, competitive, and creatively entrepreneurial free market” (León 2014, 130).

The author highlights the common conflation of neoliberalism with globalization, which has had the effect of influencing researchers in the humanities to perceive the two as interlinked and inherently positive. Additionally, the author underscores the existence of other “confusions” brought about by neoliberalism, as it “collapses public into private, work time into leisure time, consumption into labor, thus undermining the basis for many of those dichotomies” (León 2014, 132).

In this direction, Mark Fisher (2022) introduces the concept of the “privatization of stress.” The powerlessness arising from capitalist realism also triggers a collective depression, wherein the burden of lacking opportunities, facing unemployment, or experiencing poverty is attributed solely to the individual. Fisher (2014) emphasizes that the fantasy that each person possesses the capability to independently engineer their own success is both an effect and a cause of diminished class consciousness and its fragmentation. “It is the flipside of depression—whose underlying conviction is that we are all uniquely responsible for our own misery and therefore deserve it.” Like Fisher, I believe it is of paramount importance to address and politicize mental health issues, highlighting their social origins and influences.

Hence, the demand for unrelenting high productivity, devoid of substantial content, has transformed into a tool against academic professionals who must meet specific targets and satisfy performance metrics. This not only harms the overall output and the well-being of these professionals but also exposes them to punitive measures if they fail to meet the expected standards. Furthermore, this accumulation of responsibilities is exacerbated by the often necessity for academic professionals to undertake administrative tasks within this framework, intensifying levels of stress and anxiety.

Why Should Ethnomusicologists be Concerned About the Rise of Neoliberalism?

The above points indicate that we are all in the same boat—ethnomusicologists and the entire academic community as well as all workers in general—but for those who have not yet been convinced that this is also our problem, I will give you some specific points from our discipline to think about in the future. Firstly, we are already a small discipline, often hidden within the music department focused on Western art music. The tendency with the neoliberal advance in education, in which more and more austerity policies select the most “profitable” investments, could cause ethnomusicology’s extinction. Only with systemic change will priority be given to the renegade disciplines in a world driven by productivity. Otherwise, at most, we will reap the crumbs of what little is given to the other more renowned academic programs.

Furthermore, similar to Titon (1992, as cited in Hofman 2021), I understand ethnomusicology as part of an emerging movement of the late 1990s and early 2000s of socially engaged activism, promoting multiculturalism in curricula and public policies as practice-oriented action. However, in neoliberalism, culture and identity are increasingly seen as “products” to be consumed (Jean Comaroff and John Comaroff 2014). In this regard, Falina Enriquez (2022) points out that the dissemination of local musical practices or the support of cosmopolitan musical practices are nonetheless embedded in local, national, and global power structures. Therefore, we must be aware that multiculturalism and neoliberalism can function “as exclusionary discourses and policies that strengthen new and pre-existing forms of racial and class-based gatekeeping” (2022, 4).  In this sense, ethnomusicology must be careful not to fall into the neoliberal trap and betray its important trend of the late 1990s.

Another neoliberal issue that can cross ethnomusicological research, especially in relation to applied ethnomusicology projects, is the relationship between time and funding. Two examples that go in the opposite direction of the neoliberal idea of research are the internationally recognized “applied” research: the project by the Musicultura Maré group, coordinated by researcher and professor Samuel Araújo; and the research carried out with the Kĩsêdjê/Suyá Indigenous people of the Amazon by the ethnomusicologist Anthony Seeger. Would the initiatives be successful with a limited funding period of two or three years? Would the projects have a transformative and political character in the communities without sustained involvement, gained through time in the field, with local people? How will there be space for long-term research in a world that increasingly demands agility and productivity? A neoliberal world not only interferes mentally and financially on a personal level, but also interferes with ethnomusicological research as a whole. The ethnomusicology we are building is based on collaboration, exchange, interdisciplinarity, and the prospect of having social relevance.    

Seeger (2008), reflecting on thirty-five years of interval research and collaboration with the Suyá people of Brazil, points out the importance of ethnographers maintaining continuous work as if it were thesis research, with field diaries and documentation, despite the lack of time and fatigue this can cause. He is convinced of the importance of using the results of our research beyond the university, thus improving the music and life of the community, as well as ethnomusicology itself. As a former member of Musicultura, I can say that the duration of that project’s funding followed the pattern of two or three years, but what ensured the project’s continuity was the commitment of the academic researcher and the local researchers to understand the importance of the project’s continuity. To give the accumulated work the character of long-term research, we submitted successive projects to funding institutions. By following a methodology along the lines of Paulo Freire’s (1970, 1985, 1986, 1996), the group is aware that the “success” of the research lies in its content and its depth, and in this process, the way in which this knowledge is constructed through horizontal dialog is part of the knowledge itself. However, this dynamic is not encouraged in academia.

However, equating Brazilian ethnomusicology with US ethnomusicology is unfair for a number of historical, economic, and political reasons. Despite being a country of dependent capitalism, the Brazilian education system is much more advanced in terms of welcoming the community, in its tripod of teaching, research, and extension.[2] In addition, unlike in the US, most universities in the country, including the most prestigious, have no tuition fees: in other words, they are free.[3] The research funding system comes from a public government agency. The system is not perfect: there is a lack of structure and greater funding. However, critical thinking about how universities work is present in the academic community. The North American education system is private. There is a lot of money for projects, there is a worldwide circulation of brains, but its organization is regulated in a way that is even uncritical, if we look at it from a Freirean perspective of understanding education. Higher education in North America is a business. How free are teachers and students to express their conceptions of the knowledge produced there? Is there time to devote to campus life? Is there time to devote to outside it? Is there room for an approach like Musiculutura’s in North American universities? I see a lot of critical thinking within the US’s universities, but how can we broaden the criticism so that it focuses more on this conception of the university project? Why naturalize a business system in the university? Is there space for research, teaching, and extension in this logic?

Are There Any Solutions?

In considering solutions, I am sorry to say that there is not an easy one, because there is no “out-of-the-box” solution. However, I believe that there are a few premises to help us find a way through all of this. The first is that there is no individual way out of this hole. I conclude this simply because we are not alone in the world, and there is no individual way out of a collective problem. I have been developing some thoughts about this in relation to ethnomusicological research as a whole, especially that which has an engaged approach. In a keynote panel discussion at the British Forum for Ethnomusicology (BFE) in 2021, I talked about the differences between individual and isolated solutions vs. collective and structural solutions. Isolated and individual solutions lead to temporary and micro-scale resolutions. The overall problem remains and changes are blocked by structural problems. A simple hypothetical example to make it clearer: a researcher at a university could pay out of his own pocket for young researchers to take part in academic life at the university where he teaches. This would be very benevolent and would help these young people directly. But what if something happened to that researcher and he could no longer afford this initiative? The project would end. Now, if this project were a collective demand conquered through a struggle by students, professors, and the community, the continuity of the project would not be the responsibility of one specific person, so it would be more solid and lasting. Therefore, my thoughts haven’t changed since 2021, and I still advocate for a search for structural solutions. 

And for this I raise the second premise of finding a direction to create an alternative—confront the problem at its root (the neoliberal logic, that is, capitalism). Only by confronting the root of the problem will we be able to change the structural changes. This will require collective participation, more time, more energy, more dedication, and more risk...and if I were to add a third premise, it would be to have courage, because for a structural change in our research field we need to confront ideas, to be open to new practices and, mainly, to understand the need to be anti-neoliberal. We must position ourselves as the historical beings that we are. There is no way to calculate exactly what will happen and how it will happen, but we can work towards a more dignified future.

Providing a more refined definition of our field, Reyes (2009) states that ethnomusicologists study music in its cultural context, exploring the social and cultural factors that shape musical practices and the ways music is used to express identity, communicate meaning, and negotiate power relations within and between communities. We also conduct fieldwork and document musical traditions in different parts of the world. In addition, we can work as teachers, performers, and advocates for the preservation and promotion of musical diversity. But all of this involves being critical of the world we live in and understanding how it affects our work. Currently, neoliberalism is negatively affecting the way we do research. What are we going to do about it?

Final Considerations

It is important to understand that our choices are not shaped naturally or neutrally, but by historical material conditions. And there is no way to change society without changing the existing material conditions. Most of the time we are held hostage by the situation and are forced to just survive in society. But how do we get out of this situation? This is where the role of conflict comes in. Change will not come, for example, from a “written request” to superiors or a prayer to the heavens. Conflict plays an important role in marking out positions, confronting ideas, and achieving syntheses. But what is the point of a solitary individual coming into conflict with a structure? There isn’t one. What exists is dialogue between individuals for collective synthesis. There must be dialogues for consonance and tactical unity. As mentioned here, the struggle is a collective one. Capitalist realism tries to individualize the problem and the solutions, but this is a tactic to divert from the real solution.

Finally, I can safely state that the solution to the problems here is not in a self-help group—that is a conformist solution. It is necessary to attack the root of the problem, which is the capitalist mode of production that permeates every aspect of our lives.  It is also necessary to be bold enough to propose a way out of neoliberalism, and to take our learnings to other groups and to our communities as well as the other way around—taking the knowledge of our communities and other groups to the academy. Paulo Freire (2012) reminds us that for praxis we must unite theory and practice,[4] because pure theory is academicism, pure practice is voluntarism, and neither of the two alone promotes the transformation necessary for structural change.

The aim of this text is not to answer existing questions, but rather to raise more questions for further reflection. In this direction, we can talk more about this subject, with conferences and publications about all these issues surrounding neoliberalism, but mainly use this theoretical accumulation to promote changes beyond our discipline. This will take time, dedication, and a lot of energy, but I believe that it is very necessary. Because I believe that there are alternatives to the problems of neoliberalism, but we need to think together about ways to overcome it instead of being afraid to dare to do so.

Notes:

References

Comaroff, Jean, and John Comaroff. 2014. “Ethnicity Inc.: On the Affective Economy of Belonging.” In Corporations and Citizenship, edited by Greg Urban, 249-266. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Desierto, Anibeth, and Carmela De Maio. 2020. “The Impact of Neoliberalism on Academics and Students in Higher Education.” Journal of Academic Language and Learning 14, no. 2: 148-159.

Enriquez, Falina. 2022. The Costs of the Gig Economy: Musical Entrepreneurs and the Cultural Politics of Inequality in Northeastern Brazil. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Fisher, Mark. 2014. “Good for Nothing.” The Occupied Times, 19. https://theoccupiedtimes.org/?p=12841.

———. 2022. Capitalist realism: Is there no alternative?. John Hunt Publishing.

Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogia do Oprimido. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.

———. 1996. Pedagogia da Autonomia: Saberes Necessários à Prática Educativa. São Paulo: Paz e Terra.

———. 2012. “Princípios do Trabalho Popular.” In Trabalho de base: seleção de roteiros selecionados pelo Cepis, edited by Ranulfo Peloso, 21-31. São Paulo: Expressão Popular.

Freire, Paulo, and Faundez, Antonio. 1985. Por uma Pedagogia da Pergunta. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.

Freire, Paulo, and Shor, Ira. 1986. Medo e Ousadia – O Cotidiano do Professor. Traduzido por Adriana Lopez. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.

Gouvêa, Maria Machado, and Mastropaolo, Maria Josefina. 2019. “Capitalismo, Racismo, Patriarcado, Dependência: Por uma Teoria Unitária Materialista, Histórico-dialética.” Marx e o marxismo, 1-19.

Harvey, David. 2007.  "Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction."  Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 610: 22-44.

Hofman, Ana. 2021. “Silenced Registers of Ethnomusicological Academic Labor Under Neoliberalism.” In: Transforming Ethnomusicology Volume II, edited by Beverley Diamond and Salwa El Castelo-Branco, 83-95. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jameson, Fredric 1991. Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press.

León, Javier. 2014. “Introduction: Music, Music Making and Neoliberalism.” Culture, Theory and Critique 55, no. 2: 129-137.

Reyes, Adelaida. 2009. “What Do Ethnomusicologists Do? An Old Question For a New Century.” Ethnomusicology 53, no. 1: 1-17.

Seeger, Anthony. 2008. “Theories Forged in the Crucible of Action.” In Shadows in the Field: New Perspectives for Fieldwork in Ethnomusicology, 2nd ed., edited by Gregory Barz and Timothy J. Cooley, 271-288. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wang, Jackie. 2018. “Racialized Accumulation by Dispossession in the Age of Finance Capital: Notes on the Debt Economy.” In Carceral Capitalism, 99-150. South Pasadena: Semiotext(e).