Sharing uncertainty: Music in humanistic and scientific understandings

IF 2.2 3区 心理学 0 MUSIC Musicae Scientiae Pub Date : 2023-09-07 DOI:10.1177/10298649231197388
Ian Cross
{"title":"Sharing uncertainty: Music in humanistic and scientific understandings","authors":"Ian Cross","doi":"10.1177/10298649231197388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The idea that science either can or does provide definitive ways of understanding music arose in the middle of the past century and almost immediately stimulated severe criticism, much of it from a perspective that came to elevate culture to the status to which science had been assumed to presume. It can be suggested that by the turn of the millennium the terms of this debate had begun to fragment. The idea of a positivistic science as the incremental accrual of a body of facts increasingly approximating to monadic truth was replaced by ideas of the sciences as multiple epistemologies that are mutually irreducible but somehow commensurable, as a set of related processes that result in highly instrumental yet still provisional bodies of knowledge. Simultaneously, the idea of culture as a stable and clearly identifiable set of features and practices was undermined by the realization of the political nature of the term and its applications—by a growing understanding of processes of cultural fluidity, hybridity, value, and identity formation—while the concept of the musical work was contested, as was the very idea of music as a discrete domain of thought and behavior. We have thus been left with a field of uncertainties that is too often used as an interdisciplinary battleground rather than as a meeting place to examine and negotiate the ideas and ontological commitments of our own and others’ disciplines. These uncertainties sometimes appear in plain sight but more often constitute implicit elements of disciplinary practice. We need to ensure that we negotiate encounters between disciplinary practices and commitments with our uncertainties in plain sight to develop mutual understanding across the broad worlds of humanistic and scientific research.","PeriodicalId":47219,"journal":{"name":"Musicae Scientiae","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Musicae Scientiae","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10298649231197388","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MUSIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The idea that science either can or does provide definitive ways of understanding music arose in the middle of the past century and almost immediately stimulated severe criticism, much of it from a perspective that came to elevate culture to the status to which science had been assumed to presume. It can be suggested that by the turn of the millennium the terms of this debate had begun to fragment. The idea of a positivistic science as the incremental accrual of a body of facts increasingly approximating to monadic truth was replaced by ideas of the sciences as multiple epistemologies that are mutually irreducible but somehow commensurable, as a set of related processes that result in highly instrumental yet still provisional bodies of knowledge. Simultaneously, the idea of culture as a stable and clearly identifiable set of features and practices was undermined by the realization of the political nature of the term and its applications—by a growing understanding of processes of cultural fluidity, hybridity, value, and identity formation—while the concept of the musical work was contested, as was the very idea of music as a discrete domain of thought and behavior. We have thus been left with a field of uncertainties that is too often used as an interdisciplinary battleground rather than as a meeting place to examine and negotiate the ideas and ontological commitments of our own and others’ disciplines. These uncertainties sometimes appear in plain sight but more often constitute implicit elements of disciplinary practice. We need to ensure that we negotiate encounters between disciplinary practices and commitments with our uncertainties in plain sight to develop mutual understanding across the broad worlds of humanistic and scientific research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
分享不确定性:人文与科学理解中的音乐
科学能够或确实提供了理解音乐的明确方法的想法出现在上个世纪中叶,几乎立即激起了严厉的批评,其中大部分是从一个将文化提升到科学所假定的地位的角度出发的。可以认为,在世纪之交,这场辩论的条件已经开始支离破碎。实证主义科学的观点是事实体的逐渐积累,越来越接近一元真理,这种观点被科学的观点所取代,这种观点是多种认识论,相互不可约,但在某种程度上是可公约的,作为一组相关的过程,产生了高度工具性的,但仍然是临时的知识体。与此同时,文化作为一套稳定的、清晰可识别的特征和实践的概念,被这个术语的政治性质及其应用的实现所破坏——通过对文化流动性、杂糅性、价值和身份形成过程的日益理解——而音乐作品的概念受到了质疑,音乐作为一个思想和行为的离散领域的概念也受到了质疑。因此,留给我们的是一个充满不确定性的领域,这个领域经常被用作跨学科的战场,而不是作为检验和协商我们自己和他人学科的思想和本体论承诺的会议场所。这些不确定性有时是显而易见的,但更多的是构成学科实践的隐含因素。我们需要确保我们在学科实践和承诺之间进行协商,以明确我们的不确定性,从而在人文和科学研究的广阔世界中发展相互理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Musicae Scientiae
Musicae Scientiae Multiple-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: MUSICAE SCIENTIAE is the trilingual journal, official organ of ESCOM, published with the financial support of the Belgian Science Policy.
期刊最新文献
Characterizing music for sleep: A comparison of Spotify playlists Performance profiling: A systematic approach to the enhancement of music practice and peak performance A phrase in a loop: A rethink of verbatim repetition in the speech-to-song illusion and a new approach to the study of involuntary auditory imagery Assessing aesthetic music-evoked emotions in a minute or less: A comparison of the GEMS-45 and the GEMS-9 Opera trainees' cognitive functioning is associated with physiological stress during performance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1