hi Susan et al,

for your reading pleasure, welcoming comment.


-------------------------------------
A Brief Reflection of 
Ethnomusicology into Ethnomagicology
and the Spectrum of Observation
-------------------------------------

I have had a chance to look over Susan Greenwood's
"The Anthropology of Magic" (2009) a bit, and give
a more careful exploration to her "insider's view" 
of Pagan magic (2000; "Magic, Witchcraft and the 
Otherworld", still waiting for "Nature of Magic'),
and i would like to attempt to continue our discussion
on the anthropology of magic from a perspective which
incorporates these books and explains where and how
they seem to fit within conventional anthropological
curriculae based on my preliminary findings.

as someone working outside of educational faculties,
i have started with the premise based on preliminary
evaluations of the field that a suitably comparable
field would be that of ethno*music*ology (and thus
coined the term 'ethnomagicology' for use). since i 
have relatives who are ethnomusicologists, this seemed 
a very likely hit. within this post i will make several 
references to an introduction to the field of 
ethnomusicology that i mentioned before when acquiring 
it, "The Study of Ethnomusicology: Thirty-One Issues 
and Concepts" by Bruno Nettl, University of Illinois
Press, 2005 new edition (1985 orig. pub.) as it has 
yielded very helpful bridging insights for me and i
hope you find it to be helpful to you also.

at first i was confused Susan Greenwood's approach, 
until i got her "The Anthropology of Magic" and read 
these pieces:

	"The study of magic is central to the study
	anthropology. ... magic is at the heart
	of anthropology in terms of the issues it
	raises in relation to human experience,
	people's lived realities and the meaning
	of science. ... it is the aim of this book
	to examine magic as an aspect of human
	consciousness." 
		(Greenwood 2009 p. 1)

and

	"We can make a shift from examining magic
	only through its sociological or psychological
	effects, or solely as a logical classificatory
	mode of thinking akin to the older
	conceptualization of science to a highly
	specific human mode of mind. The experience
	of magic must come in from the cold and
	take its rightful place within wider 'not
	only, but also' schemes of anthropological
	analysis." 
	  (Ibid., p. 157)

and in combination with the first of her particular
(Pagan) studies, i will look forward to comparing
that with a parallel text mentioned below (Merriam).  
these are very helpful indicators of Susan's 
participant-observer intentions, and i would now 
like to quote from other anthropologists to put 
them into clear perspective for those who may 
not feel comfortable with her language.

Nettl's study of ethnomusicology makes it plain
that he is attempting to be complete in his coverage,
down to a philosophical and sociological analysis of
his field. I will quote this aspect of his text in
brief and comment as i mentally switch out the term
'magic' for 'music' and see how they might apply.

one of the things which i first wanted to find and
did not, of course, find in Susan's very particular
and experience-oriented focussed study was universals.
it was toward and away from universals that almost
every multi-cultural study i've encountered has 
reached, and i loved the debates on this, no matter
the context. Nettl mentions this in a chapter devoted
in its entirety to the topic of universals:

	"...seeking universals suggests two approaches
	-- a search for specific features that musics
	('a' music being a body of sound, a system of
	ideas, or a complex of events) have in common,
	and the discovery of a conceptual framework
	for analysis broad enough to subsume all
	imaginable differences." 
		(Nettl 1983, p. 44)
	
it was always this first that i sought to find in
my readings of magic, and i was disheartened by the
many unresolvable arguments i witnessed or caused,
or the facile proposals provided by occultists or
the religious who degraded the subject to simplicity.

	"...there does not appear to be an
	interculturally valid conceptualization
	or definition of music." 
		(Ibid., p. 45)

probably this is true for magic also, and i have
intentionally left out the notion where Nettl
later indicates that ethnomusicologists presume
that all cultures have music (should we also be
presuming that all cultures have magic? maybe so).

	"...in a complex society, one can find
	definitions of important concepts in at
	least three ways:"

and he details these in part by example, by:

	* asking the society's own 'expert' 
	       (or look into a dictionary),

	* surveying the society at large with
		questionaires,

and	* observing what the people do, going
		to musical events, gatherings,
		buying musical paraphernalia, etc.
		  (Ibid., pp. 17-21)
		  
these are all options that i selected through
time, including issuing surveys to find out what
people meant by the term 'magick' as i encountered
them at an early point in the history of the internet.
now it might be a more helpful survey to conduct with
the passage of time and the proliferation of computer
access. I kept running into predictable commonalities.
I didn't know all of the parameters i was facing.

Nettl talks about cultural myopia in some ways 
without regard for whether it is describing the
examining society or that being examined: within 
any given culture, music might need to

	"have certain traits in order to be
	acceptable [as music], but some of them
	need be present only in the mainstream
	of the repertory."
	
	"The idea of preconceived structure, of music
	being something created by people who know
	what they are doing... is tied to the more
	formal definition of music as a science."
	
	"The absence of a general term for music
	doesn't necessarily mean that there's no
	music concept, but the way in which terms
	appear in discourse about music may tell us
	about the configuration of the concept."

		(Ibid., pp. 19-21)

all of these ideas seem to me very likely to apply
directly to the study of magic also, in that language
is likely to vary, people may or may not find that the
practice or reporting on magic is acceptable (in a
comparison with music, for instance), and that cultures
will likely differ, based on the origins of our terms,
with their means of reference. 

there is an added dimension in relation to magic in 
that magic is by many within the scientific establishment
*as* a precursor to (at least some) science (such as that
of alchemy to chemistry, astrology to astronomy), yet 
ultimately, as Susan and others have indicated, this 
does seem to lead to antagonistic attitudes.

a few more quotes from Nettl drive home the his point 
of the comparison:

	"Although a society has a word roughly
	translable as music, that word may include
	things we in Western urban society, despite
	our own loose definition, do not include as
	musical, and it ay specifically exclude other
	phenomena that we regard as music."
	
	"...each society has its unique conception of
	music and a terminology to reflect the
	conception."
	
	"...a couple of thoughts relevant but somewhat
	tangential to the definition of music per se.
	First, the value of music in a society may be
	a major factor in determining the breadth of its
	definition of music. Second, the widely held
	view of music as merely a kind of sound is a
	basis of operations too narrow for acceptance by
	ethnomusicologists."

		(Ibid., pp. 22-23)

all of these are helpful parameters in the study of
music *and* magic across cultural lines. here Nettl
begins to resolve some of the strict considerations
of content in studying the phenomenon, based on Merriam:

	"Members of Western society often define music
	with specific reference only to the sound one
	hears and to their representation in written
	notation. But ethnomusicologists have reason
	to define music more broadly. Merriam
	[Alan P. Merriam, "The Anthropology of Music",
	Northwestern University Press, 1964] asserting
	that 'music' is more than just sound, provided
	a model grouping of three areas equally central
	to ethnomusicological work, labeling them concept,
	behavor, and sound (...[pp.] 32-33). Concept
	involves the way people think about music in the
	broadest terms, considering, for example, what
	power it has, what value, what fundamental
	function; behavior includes the musical and
	nonmusical acts of musicians, the activities that
	precede, follow, and accompany the production of
	sound; thus sound, which we usually call the music
	'itself,' is in this context no more the primary
	focus of attention than the other parts of the
	tripartite model."

it seems to me that Susan is proceeding from similar
interests, and emphasizing the CONCEPT aspect of this
model, especially as i can see her observations
matching with students of *religious studies* who
are saying similar things (an example being Yvonne
Chireau, who maintains that conjures in the African
American community are 'interacting with an invisible
reality' in order to do their magic). Nettl continues:

	"Merriam regarded the three components as equally
	deriving from and feeding into one another; but
	I'm inclined to think that 'concept' is primary, in 
	the sense that the ideas people have determines [sic]
	what they do, which in turn determines the nature
	of the sonic product. But for sure, the way we in
	ethnomusicology conceptualize music determines in
	part the definition of ethnomusicology."

		(Ibid., pp. 24-25)

I intend to get a copy of Merriam's book and directly
compare it to Greenwood's 2009 book before writing
about it further, because it will be helpful in my 
interest in comparing ethnomusicology and ethnomagicology
and analyzing the principles of anthropology for each.
Susan is not only proceeding from an unusual perspective 
here, but emphasizing a particular style of anthropological
study which even this ethnomusicologist seems to like.
he continues with some helpful direction for those who 
study magic across cultures which we may heed in order 
to avoid ethnocentrism:

	"Defining the concept of music is basic to any
	understanding and study of the subject, but it
	is not, after all, the ultimate aim of the
	ethnomusicologist. The task is more properly
	one of studying the definitions provided by the
	world's musical cultures in order to shed light
	on their way of conceiving of music. ... When
	[ethnomusicologists] find that a 'musical'
	sound is considered speech, ethnomusicologists
	nevertheless include it in their area of study.
	When the concept of music does not appear to
	exist in a culture, or when it is extremely
	restricted so that certain phenomena considered
	to be music by the ethnomusicologist's own
	culture fall outside it, these phenomena are
	accepted as music too. When a society includes
	in its purview of music something that Western
	ethnomusicologists do not recognize as music,
	they also accept this for study, perhaps with
	certain reservations."

		(Ibid., p. 25)

this is why, when working outside of any educational
faculty of higher learning, i first tried to determine
by reading up in anthropological texts, then in texts
by practitioners, then by interviewing and surveying,
a working meaning for the term magic that i could use
in my future focus. I see that, were i now an associate
within such an institution, that it would be important,
as it is important to me now, to be inclusive in my
studies, and to differentiate between my own more
exclusive notions and those of the subcultures and
cultures within which i may be finding magic, even 
if i were to argue with colleagues about standards
and terminological meanings.

with the expansion of technology, perhaps the future
of ethnographic studies will, as they have begun to
proceed in studying small religious groups through
such things as online surveys, become cybernetic
adventures. Nettl talks about ethnomusicologies 
as a Western phenomenon, which is interesting:

	"Ethnomusicology as understood in Western
	culture is in fact a Western phenomenon.
	We will have occasion to talk about the world's
	'ethnomusicologies,' but they are varieties
	of a species united by its background in
	Western [conceptions of music?]."

		(Ibid., p. 26)

it was difficult to believe that Nettl intended to leave 
off there. I wonder if it is a Western phenomenon because 
it is so dependent upon travel and this is (/was until 
relatively recently?) primarily the privilege of the 
wealthy. where magic is concerned i am convinced that 
there will be far more 'students of magic' who will be
launched on trying to assimilate all of the world's 
magic and out to learn it from all souces.

my wife (who instructs magic) indicated that there
are some other interesting zones of examination in
between cultures separated by time and/or space,
such the notion of 'elfshot', or curses from the
entry into Egyptian tombs. I can generally see her
point, in that there is a magical result supposed
surrounding these things not originally intended 
by the peoples who deposited or built them.


I've now begun to accumulate some introductory
texts on anthropology, particularly some more books
on the anthropology of *religion*, watching for 
whatever may be said about the study of *technology* 
i can NOT find much so far, only a couple of expensive
books focussed on this topic. I see the advantage
of focussing there for comparison with magic study.

when i get Merriam's book, and the other text by
Susan, i will post again in the thread and hope to
inspire additional discussion on this excellent topic.

yours in high regard,

nagasiva yronwode ([log in to unmask]), Director 
  YIPPIE*! -- http://www.yronwode.org/
----------------------------------------------------- 
  *Yronwode Institution for the Preservation
   and Popularization of Indigenous Ethnomagicology
-----------------------------------------------------