Sound Structure As Social Structure
Sound Structure As Social Structure
Sound Structure As Social Structure
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Illinois Press and Society for Ethnomusicology are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Ethnomusicology
Steven Feld
n this paper I address two questions: What are the major ways that th
classless and generally egalitarian features of one small-scale society revea
themselves in the structure of organized sounds? What are the major ways tha
these same features reveal themselves in the social organization and ideology of
soundmakers and soundmaking? By providing an overview of these areas I hope
to illuminate some dimensions of a sociology of sound for the Kaluli of Papua
New Guinea, a traditionally nonstratified society where egalitarian features seem
significant to sound structure, and where inequalities also are clearly represente
in the distribution of expressive resources for men and women.
My concern with these problems derives from a preoccupation with mergin
ethnomusicological questions (the cultural study of the shared meanings o
musical sounds) with sociomusical ones (the study of musical sounds from
perspectives of the social structure and social organization of resources, maker
and occasions). My work of the last few years (Feld 1981, 1982, 1983) attempt
to understand the most salient lessons about the structure and meaning of Kalu
sounds and ways they are inseparable from the fabric of Kaluli social life and
thought, where they are taken for granted as everyday reality by members of thi
society. My title alludes to a perspective that considers structured sound as "un
fait social total," in the sense that sociologists like Durkheim, Mauss, G. H
Mead, and Schutz stress the primacy of symbolic action in an ongoing in
tersubjective lifeworld, and the ways engagement in symbolic action continual
builds and shapes actors' perceptions and meanings.
My title also alludes to another paper, Song structure and social structure,
one of Alan Lomax's seminal cantometric reports (Lomax 1962). This referenc
is meant to locate this paper, and the Kaluli pattern it reports, in a large
comparative framework for the sociomusical analysis of classless and egalitarian
societies. In doing so I also want to reconsider Lomax's rationale for why we
should compare sociomusical systems, and what we can compare from one to th
next.
For Lomax the "principal message of music concerns a fairly limited and
crude set of patterns" (1962:450); as a form of human behavior music should be
383
Lomax for these materials. Over the past few years I have listen
learned Lomax's core examples, and tried to apply his paramete
and musical system I know well from intensive field research.
sample of about 700 Kaluli songs and reduced this number to 500
single performer renditions or other reliability problems. What
taught me about those 500 songs is that they display so mu
variability and subtlety that it is virtually impossible to code a n
for them. To construct a typical cantometric profile what I really n
songs, but the problem is, which ten?' How can I maintain t
patterns discoverable in large bodies of data when the cantometr
to sacrifice so much significant data in order to objectify a "co
After wrestling with the training tapes (an example of one o
problems, with the social organization of the vocal group, follo
that Lomax is asking many of the right questions about m
institutions, but the mechanics of cantometrics crunches them
cannot satisfy the researcher accustomed to intensive field
analysis, and grounded ethnographic theory. So I go back to the
compare what?
My suggestion is true heresy to many committed comparativi
we need to pioneer a qualitative and intensive comparative s
without reified and objectified musical and social structural trai
unsituated laminations of variously collected and historically ung
als. Comparative sociomusicology should take the tough question
out with the best materials available for detailed comparison: t
long-term, historically and ethnographically situated case study.
comparisons are going to be the ones between the most radically
case examples, and not between decontextualized trait lists.
The data needed to begin this kind of comparative sociom
statements of pattern for single societies, focusing on stylistic
musical coherence, and the role of music in role differentiation.
etic input will have to be the most thorough emic data. By this I
meaningful comparisons will have to be based on accurate, detail
ethnographic models. So to start, the best way to answer Lo
about the systematic nature of musical representation in social o
study them on the ground, in the field, up close, over long periods
sound structures are observably and undeniably socially struct
A FRAMEWORK
While my firm belief is that the basis for comparing the social life
must be qualitative and derived from intensive local research, I also
Competence
Form
1. What are the material musical means and how are they organized into
recognizable codes?
2. How are musical means distributed across settings and participants?
3. What are the preferred aesthetic orderings?
4. What are the boundaries of perceived forms? What does it mean to be wrong,
incorrect, or otherwise marginal from the standpoint of code flexibility and
use?
5. How flexible, arbitrary, elastic, adaptable, open is musical form? How
resistant to changes, internal or external pressures, or other historical forces?
Performance
Environment
1. What resources does the environment provide? How are they exploited'? What
relationships exist between resources, exploitation, and the material means
and social occasions for performance?
2. Are there co-evolutionary patterns, ecological and aesthetic, linking the
environment and sound patterns, materials, situations'?
3. What are the visual-auditory-sensate relationships between people and en-
vironment, and how is this pattern related to expressive means and ends'?
4. What myths or models scaffold the perception of the environment? Are these
related or complimentary to conceptions of person, society, expressive
resources?
Theory
1. What are the sources of authority, wisdom, and legitimacy about sounds and
music? Who can know about sound?
2. Is musical knowledge public, private, ritual, esoteric?
3. What dimensions of musical thought are verbalized? Taught verbally? No
verbally?
4. Is theory necessary? How detached can theory be from practice? What
varieties of knowledge and activity count as musical or aesthetic theory'? How
is music rationalized?
1. Who values and evaluates sounds'? Who can be valued and evaluated as a
maker of sounds?
Competence
Form
society than any of the others cited above, Kaluli sound organization simp
lacks a unison principle altogether.
Like the use of "hardness" to characterize a Kaluli ideal of social
competence, there is also a metaphor that draws together the dimension
interlock, overlap, and alternation which are so important in Kaluli sound
style. This is dulugu ganalan, "lift-up-over sound." Parts, sounds, whethe
or many, must constantly "lift-up-over" one another; one cannot sp
sounds "leading" or "following" or "starting" or "finishing." Hum
soundmaking must stagger in layers, like bird calls, or arch up and ove
waterfalls. The idea is more spatio-acoustic than visual; Kaluli like all so
be dense, compacted, without breaks, pauses, or silences (Feld 1983). Wh
people sing together, the subtleties of the shifting lengths of overlap (or,
case of a leader and a group, the nuances in the alternation) are the locu
aesthetic play and tension. In the forest, sounds constantly shift figure
ground; examples of continually staggered alternations and overlaps, at
sounding completely interlocked and seamless, are abundant. For Kaluli
the naturally coherent organizing model for soundmaking, whether hu
animal, or environmental: a constant textural densification constructed f
"lift-up-over sounds."
Performance
Environment
For the Kaluli, the Bosavi tropical rain forest environment takes on several
levels of meaning and abstraction. In the most basic sense the environment is like
a tuning fork, providing well-known signals that mark and coordinate daily life.
Space, time, and seasons are marked and interpreted according to sounds.
Sounds give indexical information about forest height, depth, and distance. The
time it takes a sound to travel through various kinds of bush; the echoes through
land formations, waterfalls, and rivers; the layers of bird sound in the canopy and
at forest openings;-all these provide clock and spatial information to the
accustomed inhabitant of the rainforest. Daily cycles of bird presence, migration
cycles throughout the year, as well as cycles of cicadas and insects are taken by
Kaluli as indicators of location, season, and time of day. These signals have
different auditory appearances from the village longhouse, from the forest edge,
from the gardens, from the trails, or from forest depths. Rather than counting
months or moons, Kaluli conceive seasons and cycles largely in terms of changes
in vegetation, changes in bird presence, sounds of high and low water accumula-
tion, or white water runoff in relation to rainfall. Numerous sounds then are
continually available and interpreted by Kaluli as the clocks of quotidien reality
in the forest.
Theory
For Kaluli, the theory and concepts of where sounds come from and how
they can be organized, and, particularly, what they mean, is not contained in
esoteric knowledge or in a body of private lore controlled or circulated by
specialists. Myths about human-bird transformations explain the origins of
categories of sounds that humans share with each other and with the natural
world, namely, weeping, song, poetics, whistling, talking, noise, mimicry.
These myths frame the meanings of sounds in terms of the range of social
sentiments associated with categories of bird-spirit "reflections." No special
occasions are required for their telling, and no constraints exist on who may tell
or hear them. All in fact are quite short and even Kaluli who don't volunteer to
narrate them can certainly recount the punchline or general point to each. These
myths are central to the meaning and theory of sounds for Kaluli; the facts of
of "bird sound words" (o:be.: go.'no: to), and these have var
and deeply ambiguous "underneaths" which involve a varie
mystifying, and evocative devices (analyzed in Feld 1982
Kaluli listeners are not passive participants in symbolic affa
kind of active social work based on the interpretive assum
always a reflected "inside" or "underneath" meaning to sou
is a necessary, active component in the social life of Kaluli
individual competence with realms of theory and epistemo
Kaluli exhibit marked divergences in the propensity to ve
or poetics. Many Kaluli, including both men and women wh
many songs, simply do not go in for extensive verbalizatio
men tend to be the most talkative and intellectually invest
song resources clearly points to the way Kaluli men have appropriated and
control new expressive resources.
Finally, it is important to note the clear inequalities in what it is that these
expressive resources allow men and women to achieve, symbolically and
pragmatically. For men, the composition and performance of ceremonial songs
creates a grand social focus around them and their powers of evocation.
Ceremonial action of this sort is the height of Kaluli stagecraft, drama, and
collective celebration (E. L. Schieffelin 1976:172-196, Feld 1982:163-216).
Gisalo is the most powerful of these, but hevalo and ko:luba achi
effect for men. In all three the performance may be so moving that
lose her heart to the dancer, wish to elope, and follow him home. D
contribute to the same social power (Feld 1983).
What weeping achieves for women is far less sweeping. It certa
a social focus on women as performers, and that focus is significan
the role weepers play in articulating community sentiments. But n
social ends and no long-term changes in social life are effected b
largely it is an intensely aesthetic public display of personal g
If there is a key Kaluli metaphor that sums up male-fem
generally, and male-female expressive means and ends specifically
rather ambiguous term ko.li, "different." While this was abo
common term I heard men use when speaking of women, or wom
speaking of men, it certainly means different things from the re
points, and can have positive ("different" in the sense of n
valuable), flat ("different" in the sense of bland, not quite right)
connotations. Kaluli recognize real social difference, but there is of
is negative or antagonistic in that recognition. At the same time,
clearly casts women's differences in a dangerous light: aversion t
blood and belief that women drain male energy are rationales for
other social practices which reproduce beliefs in and actions a
contamination. The tensions and contradictions found here parall
of expressive domains, which have both a complementary dim
weeping, whooping-cheering) and an overlay of male-appropr
sources.
Discussion
To round out the shape of the Kaluli pattern, I organize a summary around
three questions:
(1) How are the obvious egalitarian features of Kaluli life marked within
the organizing schemes of Kaluli sound structures and soundmaking?
(2) How is the most obvious form of Kaluli inequality (men over
women) marked and resolved within the organizing schemes of Kaluli
sound structures and soundmaking?
(3) How does the Kaluli pattern fit into the broader comparative
framework of Papua New Guinea societies?
The bau at exhibited many features typical of a male initiation program, including the
seclusion of the members, ritual activity aimed at promoting growth and enhancing male
qualities, and the teaching of secret lore (E. L. Schieffelin 1982:156).
For the young men, the bau a removes them from the margins of social
thrusts them to its center; they emerge from seclusion in their best and
cultural image (ibid:194).
CONCLUSION
The great force shaping music and its meaning is social inequality specifically as
manifests itself in four directions at once: The dominance of some men over other men
men over nature, of men over women, and of some societies over other societies. Am
those remaining primitive peoples who have managed to maintain the social, natural,
sexual equalities, I assume that "music" is a vital part of that maintenance. Indeed,
such societies what we call music-dance-ritual-religion-ecology seem to be fused in
nearly one homeostatic system, symbolizing nothing or everthing (1979:1).
The Kaluli seem both to uphold and to contradict these three statem
First, social inequality is not the main force shaping music and its mean
Kaluli. The dominance of some men over other men, of men over nature
society over other societies is not a major theme in the content of Kalul
not related to the occasions of their performance, and not related to th
organization or performance styles of song makers. At the same time
seen that social inequality of men over women is clearly manifest amon
despite other complementary and cooperative tendencies. This ineq
sociomusically marked in two ways: differential expressive resources of m
women, and differential social-pragmatic ends those resources may serv
social inequality is marked in some dimensions of Kaluli musical life but
others; where the marking occurs, it is neither systematic nor without c
tion, particularly given the prominence Kaluli invest in the complement
song/weeping and whooping/cheering.
Keil's next statement also has validity for Kaluli, but again, the dic
less than wholly applicable. Kaluli traditionally did maintain many soci
natural equalities, and in their notions of competence, of form, of perfo
of theory, and of the environment, many indications of equality and bal
be found. Indeed, it seems that "music" is a vital part of maintainin
concepts and those relations with each other and the environment.
Keil's final statement also makes a lot of sense for the Kaluli: the
interpenetration of the environment with all Kaluli sound recognition an
expression really does symbolize everything in some way: competence ("hard-
ness"), form ("lift-up-over sound"), performance ("flow") are all tied togethe
by theory (in myths of human/bird transformation). The success of Kaluli
soundmaking as a deeply affective and emotional medium of communication
grounded in this invented coherence.
Moving to the general from the specific, my concerns with comparison hav
in great part been stimulated by reading Alan Lomax's work and by trying t
apply his training tape examples and coding procedures to Kaluli data.
obviously differ from Lomax at the outset in a basic philosophical matter: I do
not equate explanation with normative statistical correlations or causal analysis.
am more concerned with explaining the situated meanings of sound patterns in
the intersubjectively created world of actors and actions, and I am concerned
with the role local ideologies play in constituting and maintaining those local
specific sociological models of and for musical realities. I am therefore biased
toward what Lomax calls the "narrow features" of both the stream and content
of music, while his own focus is on grosser, objectifiable and redundant features
of the behavioral stream. At the same time, I have argued that it is possible to
conceive a set of comparative research questions that make use of local models
and metaphors while at the same time identifying issues that have broader
comparative value, concerning both the conceptual and material dimensions of
musicality. While these six domains may look more like artifacts of the
cultural-ideational sphere rather than the sociological, I have indicated that
cultural constructs are essential precisely because of the way they lead to and
provide local models for social structure (social roles, division of labor,
stratification, and differentiation).
I have also stressed that there is not a yes/no issue about correlating song
structure and social structure. Obviously such correlations are possible, whether
undertaken in world sample quantitative terms or small-scale ethnographic ones.
The issue is: how do we interpret such relationships, and how do we argue for
what they mean? Lomax's tendency has been toward causal connections between
social evolution and singing style. He argues for causal covariance from societal
complexity to melodic interval complexity, text precision and rhythmic freedom.
He argues for causal covariance from societal sexual restrictiveness to singing
voice nasality, and social cohesion to choral cohesion.
The most complete and convincing quantitative reanalysis of cantometric
data thus far, by one of Lomax's early statistical co-workers, uses multivariate
techniques to argue for historical diffusionist rather than evolutionary in-
terpretations of cantometric data. Many song features interpreted by Lomax to be
correlates of evolutionary process can be explained almost exclusively by
regional location (Erickson 1976). If culture history is enough to explain the kind
of taxonomic variance Lomax originally found, Erickson insists that:
For nearly every major style in the cantometric taxonomy, a wide variation c
on the posited cultural/institutional correlates. By contrast, such styles d
overstep the boundaries of their ethnohistoric homes. When they do, it appears t
context of an important event in history. The attempt to explain song in te
universal unilinear process of social evolution-for all that such a dimens
shown to exist-is to over-simplify our understanding of this most human o
(1976:307).
S. . from the point of view of its social function, the primary effect of music is to give the
listener a feeling of security, for it symbolizes the place where he was born, his earliest
childhood satisfactions, his religious experience, his pleasure in community doings, his
courtship and his work-any or all of these personality shaping experiences (1959:929).
The notion that the most general relationship between sound structures and
social structures concerns identity has strong support from qualitative research,
and certainly is a conclusion that could be derived from the Kaluli material,
where musical structures frame the message: this is what we are, where we are,
who we are. At the same time these musical structures more specifically move
the listener to an interpretive plane beyond general messages about identity and
boundaries to more explicit Kaluli semantics of sound. Here is where the listener
"turns over" the sound organization of singing and poetics to find "'un-
derneaths" about bird and spirit manifestations, and through these, "'insides" of
social emotion and world-sense coherence.
The Kaluli case makes it clear that it is difficult and confusing only to argu
from objectified social structures to musical structures; the result is a net o
reifications. Everything that is socially significant and institutionally real f
Kaluli is not necessarily represented in musical order, occasions, or resources
One cannot directly predict the shape of the Kaluli musical system, singing sty
or performance organization from their mode of production and techno-econom
complexity. The Kaluli sociomusical system is varied in its resources and form
and includes manifestations of musical features and style that can also be fully
partially found among societies of hunter-gatherers, horticulturalists, herder
planters, and even peasants (the most unegalitarian societies known to us; Falle
1977).
At the same time, it is equally unappealing to reverse the argument,
predicting social structures and modes of production from musical forms. Many
similar surface musical forms are found in societies of widely varying social
complexity, although the musical forms have greatly divergent meanings and
identities in these separate historical and geographic settings. (Witness the use of
hocket in the Renaissance.) In short, for all societies with similar techno-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
NOTES
1. Lomax (1976:16) maintains that "Generally, the more songs per culture we analyzed, t
clearer the core style became." This is a difficult statement to evaluate. While it should be obvio
that larger samples indicate clearer patterns, the real issue is whether the cantomet
or blur too many significant sociomusical dimensions to begin with, thus in
pattern" will be overly simple, and thereby making additional sample data
2. I write in an ethnographic present of the late 1960s to mid-1970s, based o
of two co-workers, ethnographer E. L. Schieffelin and linguist-ethnograph
Massive changes took place in Bosavi in the 1960s and 1970s; some of these are
cultural destruction in E. L. Schieffelin 1978. When I returned to the Kaluli in 1982 I found that
evangelical Christianity, so strong by the mid-1970s, had lost much of its appeal. Kaluli tired of
waiting for the second coming of Jesus Christ after so many years of being told to prepare for an
imminent arrival. Some ceremonialism was reinvigorated, but there were new disruptions and
changes related to outside contact, circulation of cash, and desire (largely through mission influence)
for material Western goods. The changes that have taken place have differently affected the various
longhouse communities, and differentials within communities are also clearly apparent. New forms
of exploitation and confusion have spread, and cultural anxiety has heightened. While this essay does
not touch on the implications of all this for Kaluli social organization, it is important to note that new
forms of stratification are evident: Christianity has given status and advantage to a small few,
cultivated high rewards for pastors, introduced cash and social differentiation, and greatly debased
traditional personal autonomy for Kaluli.
REFERENCES CITED
Allen, M. R.
1967 Male Cults and Secret Initiations in Melanesia. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Becker, Alton
1979 "Communication Across Diversity," in A. L. Becker and Aram Yengoyan, eds., The
Imagination of Reality (Norwood: Ablex), pp. 1-5.
Becker, Judith
1979 "Time and Tune in Java," in A. L. Becker and Aram Yengoyan, eds., The Imagination of
Reality (Norwood: Ablex), pp. 197-210.
Becker, Judith and Alton
1981 "A Musical Icon: Power and Meaning in Javanese Gamelan Music," in Wendy Steiner,
ed., The Sign in Music and Literature (Austin: University of Texas Press), pp. 203-215.
Brown, Paula and Georgeda Buchbinder, eds.,
1976 Man and Woman in the New Guinea Highlands. Washington: American Anthropological
Association.
Cancian, Frank
1976 "Social Stratification," Annual Review of Anthropology 5:227-248.
Erickson, Edwin
1976 "Tradition and Evolution in Song Style: A Reanalysis of Cantometric Data," Behavior
Science Research 11(1):227-308.
Fallers, Lloyd
1977 "Equality and Inequality in Human Societies," in S. Tax, ed., Horizons in Anthropology
(Chicago: Aldine, 2nd. edition), pp. 257-268.
Feld, Steven
1981 " 'Flow like a Waterfall': The Metaphors of Kaluli Musical Theory," Yearbook for
Traditional Music 13:22-47.
1982 Sound and Sentiment: Birds, Weeping, Poetics, and Song in Kaluli Expression.
adelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
1983 "Sound as a Symbolic System: The Kaluli Drum," Bikmaus 4(3):78-89.
i.p. Kaluli Weeping and Song. 12" stereo disc with notes in English and German. K
Bdirenreiter-Musicaphon.
Gourlay, K. A.
1975 Sound-producing Instruments in Traditional Society: A Study of Esoteric Instruments and
their Role in Male-female Relations. Port Moresby and Canberra: Australian National
University-New Guinea Research Unit.
Keesing, Roger
1982 "Introduction," in Gilbert Herdt, ed., Rituals of Manhood: Male Initiation in Papua New
Guinea (Berkeley: University of California Press) pp. 2-43.
Keil, Charles
1979 "Marxism as the Context for a Symbolic Analysis of Music," Paper presented at the
Society for Ethnomusicology annual meeting, Montreal.
Leacock, Eleanor
1977 "Women in Egalitarian Societies," in Renate Bridenthal and Claudia Koonz, eds.,
Becoming Visible: Women in European History. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
1978a "Society and Gender," in Ethel Tobach and B. Rosoff, eds., Genes and Gender (New
York: Gordian Press), pp. 75-85.
1978b "Women's Status in Egalitarian Society: Implications for Social Evolution," Current
Anthropology 19(2):247-275.
Langness, L. L.
1974 "Ritual Power and Male Dominance in the New Guinea Highlands," Ethos 2(3):189-212.
Lomax, Alan
1959 "Folk Song Style," American Anthropoologist 61:927-954.
1962 "Song Structure and Social Structure," Ethnology 1(1):425-451.
1976 Cantometrics: an Approach to the Anthrolpology of Music. Berkeley: University of
California, Extension Media Center.
Murdock, G. P.
1967 "Ethnographic Atlas: A Summary," Ethnology 6:109-236.
1969 Ethnograplhic Atlas. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Murphy, Robert
1959 "Social Structure and Sex Antagonism,'' Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 15(2):
89-98.
Schieffelin, Bambi B.
1979 How Kaluli Children Learn What To Say, What To Do, and How To Feel: An Ethnographic
Approach to the Development of Commnunicative Colmpetence. Ph.D. diss., Columbia
University.
Schieffelin, Edward L.
1976 The Sorrow of the Lonel/' and the Burning of the Dancers. New York: St. Martins Press.
1978 "The End of Traditional Music, Dance, and Body Decoration in Bosavi, Papua New
Guinea." (Discussion paper 30-32.) Boroko: Institute of Papua New Guinea Studies.
1979 "Mediators as Metaphors: Moving a Man to Tears in Papua New Guinea," in A. L. Becker
and Aram Yengoyan, eds., The imagination of reality (Norwood: Ablex), pp. 127-144.
1982 "The bau a Ceremonial Hunting Lodge: An Alternative to Initiation, in Gilbert Herdt, ed.,
Rituals of manhood: male initiation in Papua New Guinea (Berkeley: University of
California Press), pp. 155-200.
Schlegel, Alice
1977 "Toward a Theory of Sexual Stratification," in Alice Schlegel, ed., Sexua
(New York: Columbia University Press), pp. 1-40.
Strathern, Andrew
1970 "Male Initiation in New Guinea Highlands Societies," Ethnology 9(4)
Strathern, Marilyn
1972 Women In Between. London: Seminar Press.