[Smt-talk] Gender Terminology in Music Theory

[Conor Cook]

It seems that the foolishness of my post is grounded on the fact that terminology that causes such consternation (and thus carries baggage into or even derails another discussion) is better left unused, regardless of the associations intended.

It must be asked, however, pace Dr. Parsons, whether the observance of the spectrum of sex and gender identity needed to “move [this conversation] forward into the 21st century” requires the abandonment of binaries entirely as they relate to sex, or in the name of progress are certain still firmly-held world views in need of silencing?

I am willing to admit that the latter is necessary, based on my first point that the hard feelings engendered by their usage destroys the original purpose, and to continue the discussion of, in these cases, certain ubiquitous progressions or the accenting of a cadence, other non-distracting words are better suited to their purpose.  Besides, within SMT, we are indeed all bound to the guidelines (thank you to both Stefanie Acevedo and Laurel Parsons for the reminder, especially that this specific example is addressed).

Best,

Conor Cook
Master of Arts in Music Theory
University of Minnesota

> On Apr 30, 2014, at 10:13 AM, Laurel Parsons <laureljparsons at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> Thanks to Devin Chaloux for his original post, drawing our attention to a new sexist-language virus for the purpose of preventing further infection within the academic music theory community.  Thanks also to CSW committee member Stefanie Acevedo for sending out the link to SMT's guidelines on the use of non-sexist language, which includes the following paragraph:
> Certain terms that are often used in writing about music unfortunately embed sex-role stereotypes. It is not usually a great problem to avoid or rephrase these; for instance, "masculine ending" and "feminine cadence" are easily rendered as "metrically accented ending" and "metrically unaccented cadence" respectively, without loss of clarity.
> 
> Conor Cook writes: "But if one uses [masculine/feminine descriptors] to, say, reflect the inherent complementarity of the sexes, it might be seen to express the beauty and variety of life illustrated by music."  While I would agree that the use of strictly technical language often fails to convey the "beauty and variety" of the music we choose to analyze, many would argue that the binary construct of masculine-feminine "inherent complementarity" also fails to convey the much broader and more nuanced spectrum of gender identities acknowledged and celebrated in such contemporary symbols as the rainbow flag.  
> 
> Questions of gender and metaphor in music-theoretical language are important. But if we are going to have this conversation, surely it is time to move it forward into the 21st century.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Laurel Parsons
> 
> --
> 
> Laurel Parsons, Ph.D.
> Chair, SMT Committee on the Status of Women
> Sessional Lecturer, Music Theory
> School of Music
> University of British Columbia
> 6361 Memorial Road
> Vancouver, BC
> V6T 1Z2
> 
> E-mail: laurel.parsons at ubc.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Conor Cook <conor.p.cook at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It certainly is sexist if by their use a theorist intends to privilege one over the other.  But if one uses them to, say, reflect the inherent complementarity of the sexes, it might be seen to express the beauty and variety of life illustrated by music.  At least that's how I imagine the argument might go for those who persist in using the sexed terminology, assuming it's not out of an unreflective sexism.  I am curious why some theorists use it still.
>> 
>> On the other hand, Paul Cadrin's Greek words do seem provide a more technical description.  The Greek words in this case derive from “striking” metaphors, however, so they are ultimately associative, as well.  It's an interesting duality, the choice between descriptive (if they're even possible) and associative adjectives, and I don't think scholars agree (I know they don't) that only descriptive language is best, lest ideas like pitch space, for example, be scrapped.  But how to decide what associations are at best unproductive, if not harmful?
>> 
>> *These views in no way reflect those of the music theory department or School of Music at the University of Minnesota.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Conor Cook
>> Master of Arts in Music Theory
>> University of Minnesota
>> 
>>> On Apr 29, 2014, at 3:10 PM, Michael Morse <mwmorse at bell.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Like "sexist," the attributions "masculine" and "feminine" are ascriptive, not descriptive. Adjectives have no direct prescriptive power in reality, despite their undeniable if merely occasional affective influence; that matter was sorted out in 1324 by William of Ockham. Today, 1991 is every bit as much ancient history as 1324.
>>> 
>>> MW Morse
>>> z. Zeit freier Kunstler
>>> 
>>> > From: Jennifer.Bain at Dal.Ca
>>> > So to refer to a cadence that ends on a strong metric position as
>>> > masculine and one that ends on a weak metric position as feminine is not
>>> > sexist...? Didn't we sort this out in 1991?
>>> > 
>>> > Jennifer
>>> 
>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Smt-talk mailing list
>>> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
>>> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Smt-talk mailing list
>> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
>> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20140430/f3f4ca3c/attachment-0003.htm>