CHAPTER 1b

Why I’m Not an Ethnomusicologist:

A View from Anthropology
MICHELLE BIGENHO

Each time I give a quick summary of my work, something like, “I focus

on Bolivian national and ethnic identities through the lens of music
performance practices,” I am immediately tagged as an ethnomusicologist.
Given the time and energy to do so, I always resist this categorization that
has implications on all sides of the disciplines. The simple answer to the
question of why I am not an ethnomusicologist is that my degree is in the
discipline of anthropology. But the differences run much deeper, rooted in
ideologies about music, disciplinary histories, institutional structures, and
pedagogical agendas. While there may be great affinities between what
ethnomusicologists and anthropologists do, any simple marriage of the
two disciplines or felicitous phrases like “anthropology of music”
(Merriam 1964) or “musical anthropology” (Seeger 1987) only thinly veil
an uneasy conjunction of disciplines. Indeed, as I understand it,
ethnomusicologists have maintained quite rigorous discussions on these
very issues, with the US flagship journal publishing multi-vocal debates
on the theme (see Kingsbury 1997; Seeger 1997; Titon 1997a; Keil 1998;
Kisliuk 1998; Wong 1998).
I resist being classified as an ethnomusicologist because the label
often inadvertently carries with it certain assumptions. Under the label
“ethnomusicologist,” “music” becomes my object of study, and I am then
expected to musically map the geographic area of my purported expertise,
an expectation that clings to a notion of bounded, discrete cultures tied to
specifically grounded places. When music becomes the object and
geographic mapping becomes the project, many compelling
anthropological and theoretical questions are swept to the sidelines. Many
ethnomusicologists are working beyond and outside of these two
problematic assumptions, but the discipline’s institutional affiliations
often inhibit its ability to move beyond these conceptualizations of
“culture.” Furthermore, the ethnomusicologist label also carries with it
expectations about a researcher’s position as a participating musician.
While this point is usually held up as a particular strength of
ethnomusicology, to privilege “doing music” over other kinds of
30 Bigenho

fieldwork participation is to play into Western ideologies about music,

talent, giftedness etc.—all points that should be under anthropological
scrutiny rather than assumed as givens.

DOING MUSIC

Ethnomusicologists write about music participation as a special realm, a

“truly participatory participant observation” (Cooley 1997:4), a kind of
participation that lends a special awareness “that there is much one can
only know by doing” (Kisliuk 1997:33). On the other hand, when
anthropologists identify an “ethnomusicologist” in their midst, one senses
a certain projection—what I call “the awe factor”—a thrill at the idea that
their colleague probably plays a musical instrument and has a distinct skill
and thus perspective on the ethnographic experience. I contend that even
though maintaining the idea of music participation as a special realm of
ethnographic work may have its benefits, such framings also have
significant drawbacks. All forms of fieldwork participation are different
and unique, but constructing music participation as a privileged realm
works hand in hand with an ethnocentric ideology that affords music an
autonomous space. Emerging from very powerful ideologies about music
in Western society, the awe factor cuts two ways—amazement at the
imagined talented colleague who “does music too,” and a tendency to
assume that one cannot fully understand work on music without being a
musician. While anthropologists seem to be quite adept at opening their
minds to absorb complex specialized information about kinship or
linguistics, strong ideologies about musical knowledge, who has access to
it, and who is empowered to speak about it, shape their open-ness to hear
about musical details of ethnographic work. The apologetic “I’m not a
musician, so...” seems to be invoked in a peculiar way. I suggest that
anthropologists might heed Michael Herzfeld’s suggestion that we learn
proficiency in other expressive modes beyond what is usually expected in
terms of language training (2001:280). Not everyone who learns Quechua
as a fieldwork language ends up speaking it fluently, but having studied it
at all is considered one of the many ways to struggle toward an
anthropological understanding. I think more supposed “non-musicians”
should be learning proficiencies in music and writing about social life
through the lens of music.
It is often assumed that when one plays music “like a native” one has
a privileged ethnographic view. But the claim to privilege comes with the
usual thorny issues about gaining or being assumed to have insider-ship.
Furthermore, such privileging also carries problematic assumptions about
experience. An ethnography of performance poses all the challenges of
 Why I’m Not an Ethnomusicologist 31

writing about experience (Kisliuk 1997:33), and here, the term

“experience,” often becomes interchangeable with the term “fieldwork”
(Cooley 1997:4). But “experience” too often goes unexamined as a
component of social analysis. In his ethnography of a homeless shelter in
Boston, Robert Desjarlais critiques approaches that champion
“experience” as a natural, universal, and more authentic realm of inquiry
(1997:11). He argues: “The problem with taking experience as a uniquely
authentic domain of life—as the first and last court of appeal—is that we
risk losing the opportunity to question both the social production of that
domain and the practices that define its use.” (Desjarlais 1997:12). He
then suggests that experience as a social construct comes with specific
ideas about Western selfhood as characterized by depth, interiority, and
reflexivity (1997:13). When music participation is claimed as a privileged
form of ethnographic experience the claim plays into hidden Western
ideologies about talent and giftedness (see Kingsbury 1988), about music
as an autonomous sphere, and about experience and personhood.
Does being a musician provide a privileged form of insider-ship, and
is that insider-ship anything like being a native ethnographer? The
insider/outsider boundaries have been richly problematized by many
scholars within ethnomusicology and anthropology. Timothy Rice writes
about how his music participation put him in the ambiguous position of
being neither an insider nor an outsider (1997:110). Kirin Narayan points
out similar ambiguities she faces when others assume she is a “native
ethnographer” (1997; also see Kondo 1990). By unpacking her own
complex set of personal identifications, Narayan suggests that the very
practice of ethnography—through that oxymoron of “participant-
observation”—has all ethnographers moving uncomfortably back and
forth across varied lines of insider-ship and outsider-ship (1997). Some
people may justifiably object to the parallel I am drawing here between
musician as insider and native as insider. Colonialism, racism, and the
decolonization of anthropology indeed have distinct implications for the
positioning of “native ethnographers.” But the point in common is the
issue of imposed insider-ship and its implications. Kath Weston reflected
on her colleagues’ reactions to her own positioning as a lesbian who
studied gay kinship ideologies in San Francisco; she called her position
one of a “virtual anthropologist” because her colleagues tended to fall into
two camps: those who expected her to hold the torch for gay identity
politics and those who feared that precisely those identity politics would
draw her into activism and away from any substantive anthropological
theorizing (1997). The hidden assumption here is that it is not really work
if someone is so dangerously “inside.” Anthropologists may admire their
colleague who does music, but along with that admiration come ideas
32 Bigenho

about an imposed insider-ship and the suspicion that one may be having
too much fun to do anything of theoretical significance. Herzfeld calls
attention to how anthropologists suspect media as a legitimate area of
inquiry because of media’s associations with pleasure (2001:312).
Similarly, music—unless it is closely allied with linguistic anthropology
(see Feld and Fox 1994)—may be seen as a realm of too much pleasure, a
realm from which substantive theoretical contributions are imagined to
rarely emerge.
As mundane as it may sound, I want to propose that music participa-
tion in ethnography is more like other forms of participant-observation.
All forms of participation are unique in some way, but all forms of
participation take on that challenge of walking a tight-rope between
observation and participation, a challenge that led Barbara Tedlock to coin
the phrase “the observation of participation” (1991; also see Lassiter
1998) or that led Narayan to coin the term “enactment of hybridity”
(1997:23). By invoking this term, Narayan refers to the fact that all
ethnographers are “minimally bicultural in terms of belonging
simultaneously in the world of engaged scholarship and the world of
everyday life” (1997:24). Thus the insider/outsider conundrum is reframed
in terms of the activities in which all ethnographers are engaged. All
ethnographers, at one time or another, embody the paradox of observing
and participating, of entering messy situations of both personal
commitment and social conflict, of negotiating the terms of insidership
and outsidership, and yes, of even at times suffering some pleasure.
When anthropologists present work with intricate details of kinship,
linguistics, and the law, these details are not the object of analysis, but
rather the lenses through which to examine broader cultural questions.
When people call me an ethnomusicologist, music implicitly becomes the
object of my studies; the practice of music-making becomes my work; and
I am immediately imagined on conference panels with others who “do
music,” even though I feel much more in dialogue with scholars focussing
on anthropologies of nationalism, the State, indigeneity, and embodied
experience. Even though ethnomusicologists have worked on these
themes, music still overwhelms ethnomusicology’s project. Like it or not,
external perspectives and institutional demands (more below) on
ethnomusicology still construct music as the discipline’s central object,
and this construction, because of powerful Western ideologies about
music, remains at odds with one of ethnomusicology’s major projects (at
least as I understand it): to move music out of the autonomous space
afforded it by Western-centered musicology. Michelle Kisliuk argued the
same point from a different angle, underscoring the problem of analyzing
music as a separate entity when in many contexts there is no such
 Why I’m Not an Ethnomusicologist 33

conceptualization of “music” (1998:313; also see Herzfeld 2001:280).

Ethnomusicology may benefit from a closer positioning with musicology
and a focus on specific questions of music practice—a positioning where
ethnomusicology might wield a productive influence over transformations
within the older and usually dominant of the two disciplines. But when
music is taken as the object or when music practices are privileged over
other kinds of fieldwork participation, “music” begins to get in the way of
questions that could be of interest to both anthropologists and
ethnomusicologists.

STILL MAPPING THE WORLD

One day, when I was making my usual arguments about why I’m not an
ethnomusicoloigst, a colleague trained in ethnomusicology claimed that in
the end, we really did the same thing—that ethnomusicology and
anthropology were not that different after all. But institutional
organizations and publications within the disciplines tell a different story,
and these are the conceptual spaces where anthropologists and
ethnomusicologists teach, conduct research, and write. Within two years
after the publication of my book, in which “Bolivian music” was featured
prominently in the title (2002), I had received a total of three requests to
write ethnomusicology textbook entries on “Andean music.” Some of
these textbook projects seemed to be aimed at the generic “World Music”
class and some of the editors were already working under contracts. I must
admit, I was rather puzzled by the pedagogical project of covering a
musical map. I have not done a meticulous study of course offerings in
anthropology departments, but among my disciplinary colleagues, I have
not heard of anyone presently having to teach a “World Cultures” class.
As is often the case, institutional frameworks take on lives of their own,
beyond the control of individuals who work within them, but the mapping
project embedded in these ethnomusicology textbook requests seems at
odds with “the critique” and the accompanying attempts at decolonizing
the discipline of anthropology.
While anthropology has been linked to mapping projects and is still
connected to geographic expertise, the critique within the discipline has
gone hand in hand with an array of debates about area studies.
Anthropologists today do not always claim a geographic expertise and in
some cases it has even become more fashionable to disclaim a geographic
expertise. Anthropologists seem to be taking seriously Clifford Geertz’s
suggestion that we don’t study places but rather study in places (1973:22).
Ethnomusicologists are also conducting research in multiple areas and
projects’ diverse methodologies open different sets of questions.
34 Bigenho

Increasingly, anthropology posts and projects are defined not

geographically but rather in terms of substantive issues (medicine,
technology, race, ethnicity, risk, post-conflict contexts etc.). Topical issues
often implicate specific geographic areas, and “culture areas” and “area
studies” are still very present in the formation of anthropological careers.
But anthropologists have critically analyzed these academic ways of
mapping the world (Fardon 1990; Hale 1997; Herzfeld 1987:12; Kelly
1991; Lederman 1998). For example, the debates about Andeanism (Starn
1991; Mayer 1991) hit the press at the beginning of my graduate studies.
Just as scholars do not want to be accused of Orientalizing (Said 1978),
students of my generation did not want their work in the Andes to be to be
critiqued for Andeanism. I still locate my work within Latin American
Studies even as I am critical of the historical formation of this area studies
construct (see Mignolo 2005). I teach courses that are framed in terms of
Latin America, but I teach a critical view of the concept of “Latin
America,” a critique that comes out of a particular positioning in the
United States and that takes into consideration this country’s history in
relation to “the region.” In any case, I never feel compelled to “cover the
map.” According to ethnomusicology colleagues, covering a map is not a
current imperative of World Music courses either. So why does this
imperative seem to linger in the organization of textbook projects?
Anthropologists don’t teach “World Cultures” as a class, but my
colleagues usually teach some form of “Introduction to Cultural
Anthropology,” a course in which a textbook is often used. The authors of
one of these tomes recently contacted me. They did not ask me to write as
an “expert on the Andes,” but rather asked me to provide photos that
would illustrate the multi-sited nature of my ethnography. I don’t know
what the finished product will be like, but at first blush, their interest
seemed located, not in geographic location of my supposed expertise, but
in the on-going disciplinary debates about how anthropologists go about
their work (Geertz 1973; Marcus 1998; Gupta and Ferguson 1997). How
anthropologists do fieldwork, far from being in juxtaposition with the
crisis of representation (Cooley 1997:3), is part and parcel of “the
critique.” Since at least the 1980s, anthropologists have called into
question the positivist anthropological project (Clifford 1988; Clifford and
Marcus 1986; Marcus and Fischer 1986; Rosaldo 1989). In spite of the
strife it has initiated in some institutional spaces, the on-going vibrant
critique has been healthy for cultural anthropology because 1) it has
shaped the discipline away from a focus on “cultures” as objects, 2) it has
looked critically at the discipline’s early focus on “culture as difference”
(Rosaldo 1989), 3) it has critically examined the mapping projects that
often accompany such objectification of culture as difference, and 4) it has
 Why I’m Not an Ethnomusicologist 35

led to debates about the very “sites” of fieldwork (Gupta and Ferguson
1997).

CONCLUSIONS: POST-DISCIPLINARY SAGAS

“The critique” is of course old news in anthropology and the discipline is

already awarding prizes to its first “post-reflexive” ethnographies (Maurer
2005). Perhaps Kingsbury is right to suggest that ethnomusicology has
been rather disconnected from the anthropology of the last three decades
(1997:244)—from its un-bounding of “culture,” its recognition of multi-
sited fieldwork projects, and its debates about the “sites” of “the field.”
But perhaps the very “departmental fragility” of ethnomusicology (Wong
1998:320) has made it difficult to fully enter the critique and to move
away from teaching a musical map of the non-Western world.
Anthropology departments rarely hire ethnomusicologists and within
music departments, ethnomusicologists often seem to sit in token
representation of non-Western music, for as much as they may protest that
classification (Kingsbury 1997:244). Musicology colleagues ultimately
hire (or not) and tenure (or not) their ethnomusicology colleagues.
I do not propose to solve this dilemma by invoking inter-disciplinarity
or a quick and easy abolition of the disciplines. Inter-disciplinarity is no
easy task. Hampshire College, my teaching institution since 1998, sells
itself as an experimental and experimenting liberal arts college. The
College has no departments. All students design their own majors. A
School of Social Science, rather than a department of anthropology, is the
body that reviews my work, and professors are encouraged to explore
inter-disciplinarity by team-teaching courses. Within this supposedly
inter-disciplinary haven, disciplinarity still runs very deep. For example,
my colleagues who are trained in ethnomusicology and who are reviewed
within a Humanities School end up implementing concentration
requirements that look suspiciously like a “music major,” and as a body
they begin to act very much like a “music department.” Some of these
structures may be driven in part by the provisions for performance groups
that usually accompany the teaching of music. While I do not consciously
create any stealth anthropology majors, I do find myself identifying quite
strongly in disciplinary terms, wanting students in my courses to be
familiar with methods, approaches, and debates within anthropology. I
agree with many of my colleagues who point out the impossibility of
teaching inter-disciplinarity when undergraduate students may arrive at
our classroom doors without a disciplinary grounding of any kind.
That said, the post-disciplinary principles of Hampshire College have
provided me with an incredible amount of liberty in the courses I teach.
36 Bigenho

With this term I am not invoking a context that comes chronologically

after disciplines, but rather one that works from disciplines while also
making explicit the limits of those frames. Even though I “do music,” it
took about three years of teaching before I offered a course with the term
“music” in the title. When I do teach such a class, students tend to self-
select into the “musicians who know” and the “non-musicians who can’t
possibly really know.” The assumed claim to exclusive specialized
musical knowledge, as mentioned above, is replicated in the classroom
and this classroom division often emerges in heavily gendered terms. Most
of my courses do not have “music” in the title because the questions I find
most compelling are about embodiment, the politics of sensory
perceptions, the politics of pleasure, nationalism and indigenous
representations, ideas of property, national patrimony, and performance in
social life. Let me follow with some curricular examples. In my course
titled “Senses, Culture, and Power,” questions about perception emerged
through my work in music; but by posing the question without “music” as
the principal term, I took my students into an array of readings that
addressed sensory perception in relation to topics as varied as Catholic
charismatic religious experience (Csordas 1994), the workings of a Boston
homeless shelter (Desjarlais 1997), chronic pain clinic patients (Jackson
2000), the trial of the police who beat Rodney King (Feldman 1994;
Butler 1993), Brazilian experiences of “nervoso” (Scheper-Hughes 1992),
mimesis and colonialism (Taussig1993), and of course some readings on
music grooves (Keil and Feld 1994). Similarly, my methods course titled
“Performance and Ethnography” studiously avoids placing music as the
central point of inquiry; it does not work from the precept that the world is
“like a musical performance to be experienced” (Titon 1997b:90). Instead
I encourage students to think about different kinds of socially
contextualized performances and encourage them to think about and
critique an interpretive frame that views social life through a performance
model. Once again, “music” has been submerged within a broader, more
encompassing frame of performance.
While performance studies has its own set of problems (i.e. it is
perhaps overly determined by theatrical models)(see Schieffelin 1998), it
does seem to remain on a precarious but radical edge. Diana Taylor finds
strength in the untranslatability of the term “performance”; it works
“against notions of easy access, decipherability, and translatability”
(2003:15). Furthermore, as a field of inquiry “performance studies
challenges the disciplinary compartmentalization of the arts” (Taylor
2003:26), and perhaps has maintained a radical edge because it has not
been incorporated easily into any already existing departments.
Ethnomusicology may be considered as an inter-disciplinary enterprise,
 Why I’m Not an Ethnomusicologist 37

but its radical commitments often become rounded off at the edges as the
institutional dictates of musicology continue to shape it. While the inter-
disciplinarity of performance studies is not a simple answer, I have found
it useful to think outside the “music” box. My work through music evokes
questions about the politics of perception, the politics of authenticity,
ideas of property, processes of folklorization, the pleasures of
viewing/listening to Others etc. (Bigenho 2002; Bigenho 2005).
Participation in music performance led me to these broader questions, but
I resist claiming a privileged position for this kind of ethnographic
participation. Like many anthropologists, I am engaged in the practice of
participant-observation, a problematic methodology of ethnographic
fieldwork, no matter how you slice it. Oh yes… and I “do music” too, and
I usually have a great deal of fun doing it.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I greatly appreciate Henry Stobart’s invitation to write on this topic and

his editorial comments were invaluable in drafting the final version of this
piece. In developing the ideas presented here, I also benefited from
comments, debate, and suggestions from Daniel Noveck, Stefan Senders,
and students at Hampshire College. Of course, I assume responsibility for
the views expressed here as well as for any shortcomings in my analysis.

REFERENCES

Bigenho, Michelle. 2002. Sounding Indigenous: Authenticity in Bolivian Music

Performance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bigenho, Michelle. 2005. ‘Making Music Safe for the Nation’. In Natives Making
Nation: Gender: Indigeneity, and the State in the Andes. Ed. Andrew
Canessa. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Pp. 60–80.
Butler, Judith. 1993. ‘Endangered/Endangering: Schematic Racism and White
Paranoia’. In Reading Rodney King/ Reading Urban Uprising. Ed. R.
Gooding-Williams. New York: Routledge. Pp 15–22.
Clifford, James. 1988. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth Century
Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Clifford, James and George E. Marcus, eds. 1986. Writing Culture: The Poetics
and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cooley, Timothy. 1997. ‘Casting Shadows in the Field: An Introduction’. In
Shadows in the Field: New Perspectives for Fieldwork in Ethnomusicology.
Eds. G. Barz & T. Cooley. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pp. 3–19.
Csordas, Thomas J. 1994. The Sacred Self: A Cultural Phenomenology of
Charismatic Healing. Berkeley: University of California Press.
38 Bigenho

Desjarlais, Robert. 1997. Shelter Blues: Sanity and Selfhood among the Homeless.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Fardon, Richard. 1990. ‘Localizing Strategies: The Regionalization of
Ethnographic Accounts: General Introduction’. In Localizing Strategies:
Regional Traditions of Ethnographic Writing. Ed. Richard Fardon.
Edinburgh and Washington: Scottish Academic Press and Smithsonian
Institution Press. Pp. 1–35.
Feld, Steven & Aaron Fox. 1994. ‘Music and Language’. Annual Review of
Anthropology 23: 25–54.
Feldman, Allen. 1994. ‘From Desert Storm to Rodney King via ex-Yugoslavia:
On Cultural Anaesthesia’. In The Senses Still: Perception and Memory as
Material Culture in Modernity. Ed. C. N. Seremetakis. Boulder: Westview
Press. Pp 87–107.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gupta, Akhil & James Ferguson. 1997. ‘Discipline and Practice: “The Field” as
Site, Method, and Location in Anthropology’. In Anthropological Locations:
Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science. Eds. A. Gupta & J. Ferguson.
Berkeley: University of California Press. Pp. 1–46.
Hale, Charles. 1997. ‘Cultural Politics of Identity in Latin America’. Annual
Review of Anthropology 26: 567–90.
Herzfeld, Michael. 1987. Anthropology Through the Looking Glass: Critical
Ethnography in the Margins of Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Herzfeld, Michael. 2001. Anthropology: Theoretical Practice in Culture and
Society. Malden, MA & Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Jackson, Jean. 2000. ‘Camp Pain’: Talking with Chronic Pain Patients.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Keil, Charles. 1998. ‘Applied Sociomusicology and Performance Studies’.
Ethnomusicology 42 /2: 303–12.
Keil, Charles & Steven Feld. 1994. Music Grooves: Essays and Dialogues.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kelly, William W. 1991. ‘Directions in the Anthropology of Contemporary
Japan’. Annual Review of Anthropology 20: 395–431.
Kingsbury, Henry. 1988. Music, Talent, and Performance: A Conservatory
Cultural System. Philadelphia: Temple University.
Kingsbury, Henry. 1997. ‘Should Ethnomusicology Be Abolished? (Reprise)’.
Ethnomusicology 41/2: 243–49.
Kisliuk, Michelle. 1997. ‘(Un)doing Fieldwork: Sharing Songs, Sharing Lives’. In
Shadows in the Field: New Perspectives for Fieldwork in Ethnomusicology.
Eds. G. Barz & T. Cooley. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pp. 23–44.
Kisliuk, Michelle. 1998. ‘A Response to Charles Keil’. Ethnomusicology 42/2:
313–15.
Kondo, Dorinne K. 1990. Crafting Selves: Power, Gender, and Discourses of
Identity in a Japanese Workplace. Chicago & London: University of Chicago
Press.
 Why I’m Not an Ethnomusicologist 39

Lassiter, Luke E. 1998. The Power of Kiowa Song: A Collaborative Ethnography.

Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Lederman, Rena. 1998. ‘Globalization and the Future of Culture Areas:
Melanesianist Anthropology in Transition’. Annual Review of Anthropology
27: 427–49.
Marcus, George. 1998. Ethnography Through Thick and Thin. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Marcus, George E. & Michael M. J. Fischer. 1986. Anthropology as Cultural
Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Maurer, Bill. 2005. Mutual Life, Limited: Islamic Banking, Alternative
Currencies, Lateral Reason. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University
Press.
Mayer, Enrique. 1991. ‘Peru in Deep Trouble: Mario Vargas Llosa’s Inquest in
the Andes Reexamined’. Cultural Anthropology 6/4: 466–504.
Merriam, Alan. 1964. The Anthropology of Music. Evanston. IL: Northwestern
University Press.
Mignolo, Walter D. 2005. The Idea of Latin America. Malden, MA and Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
Narayan, Kirin. 1997. ‘How Native is a ‘Native’ Anthropologist?’ In Situated
Lives: Gender and Culture in Everyday Life. Eds. L. Lamphere, H. Ragoné,
& P. Zavella. New York: Routledge. Pp 23–41.
Rice, Timothy. 1997. ‘Toward a Mediation of Field Methods and Field
Experience in Ethnomusicology’. In Shadows in the Field: New Perspectives
for Fieldwork in Ethnomusicology. Eds. G. Barz & T. Cooley. New York &
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 101–120.
Rosaldo, Renato. 1989. Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Said, Edward. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Vintage.
Scheper–Hughes, Nancy. 1992. Death Without Weeping: The Violence of
Everyday Life in Brazil. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Schieffelin, Edward. 1998. ‘Problematizing Performance’. In Ritual,
Performance, Media. Ed. F. Hughes-Freeland. London and New York:
Routlege. Pp. 194–207.
Seeger, Anthony. 1987. Why Suyá Sing: A Musical Anthropology of an
Amazonian People. Cambridge, UK & New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Seeger, Anthony. 1997. ‘A Reply to Henry Kingsbury’. Ethnomusicology 41/2:
250–52.
Starn, Orin. 1991. ‘Missing the Revolution: Anthropologists and the War in Peru’.
Cultural Anthropology 6/1: 63–91.
Taussig, Michael. 1993. Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of the Senses.
New York: Routledge.
Taylor, Diana. 2003. The Archive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural
Memory in the Americas. Durham: Duke University Press.
40 Bigenho

Tedlock, Barbara. 1990. ‘From Participant Observation to the Observation of

Participation: The Emergence of Narrative Ethnography’. Journal of
Anthropological Research 47:59–94
Titon, Jeff Todd. 1997a. ‘Ethnomusicology and Values: A Reply to Henry
Kingsbury’. Ethnomusicology 41/2: 253–57.
Titon, Jeff Todd. 1997b. ‘Knowing Fieldwork’. In Shadows in the Field: New
Perspectives for Fieldwork in Ethnomusicology. Eds. G. Barz & T. Cooley.
New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 87–100.
Weston, Kath. 1997. ‘The Virtual Anthropologist’. In Anthropological Locations:
Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science. Eds. A. Gupta & J. Ferguson.
Berkeley: University of California Press. Pp 163–84.
Wong, Deborah. 1998. ‘A Response to Charles Keil’. Ethnomusicology 42/2:317–
21.