IV. Ethnomusicology in North America: Historical Reflections
Alan P. Merriam, Alan P. 1969. “Ethnomusicology Revisited.” Ethnomusicology, Vol. 13, No. 2: 213-229.
阿蘭·P·梅利亞姆：“重審”民族音樂(lè )學(xué)
主講：高賀杰 專(zhuān)業(yè)：民族音樂(lè )學(xué)
1968年5月9日-10日我走訪(fǎng)了UCLA的音樂(lè )系和人類(lèi)學(xué)系的研究生小組，在南加州大學(xué)民族音樂(lè )學(xué)（Ethnomusicology）社團、人類(lèi)學(xué)系、民族音樂(lè )學(xué)研究所、非洲研究中心的正式資助下，我應邀就民族音樂(lè )學(xué)（E）進(jìn)行了兩個(gè)附加討論。在討論中產(chǎn)生了許多有價(jià)值的觀(guān)點(diǎn)，隨之而來(lái)的是開(kāi)放性的思考及友好的爭論。我曾為此專(zhuān)門(mén)寫(xiě)過(guò)文章，這篇文章我只就前兩段中忽略的部分進(jìn)行了改動(dòng)，并略微調整了句子結構，另外，就聽(tīng)者與我自己間不同的重要觀(guān)點(diǎn)添加些注腳，以便大家更加明確。
演講中的一些觀(guān)點(diǎn)源于我所執教的印第安納大學(xué)民族音樂(lè )學(xué)席明納上的討論，因此我要感謝半晌同學(xué)們給我的啟發(fā)，他們小P、小M、還有Stephen A.Wild\Michael Williams等。
我希望能夠澄清我們大家最關(guān)心的問(wèn)題，寫(xiě)這篇文章我并無(wú)什么特殊的用意和論點(diǎn)，比如拯救人類(lèi)學(xué)家、民族音樂(lè )學(xué)家、音樂(lè )學(xué)家等宏大思慮。save for musicologists, anthropologists, and ethnomusicologists as broad groupings.（雖然這句是讓步，但也可以看出梅利亞姆的胃口）。我的目的是對這些領(lǐng)域（是Musicology、Ethnomusicology、Anthropology嗎?）的一般概括，試著(zhù)解釋為什么一些學(xué)者會(huì )專(zhuān)注于特殊的方法？（particular directions指的是什么？）像我一直所做的那樣，我們想彌合表面上的分歧而領(lǐng)導建立起一個(gè)真正民族音樂(lè )學(xué)（E）的學(xué)科體系。
沒(méi)有人會(huì )否認現在E出現了兩個(gè)嚴重的分歧。從中我們看到了在E中迥然不同的研究，有的關(guān)注于自然歷史過(guò)程、有的關(guān)注結構技法、有的重描述、有的重分析，當然還有一些什么也不是。我們的所做所為和我們秉承的理念、初衷是多么的不同。(Is ethnomusicology a discipline?如果是，那么學(xué)科的規范是什么？學(xué)科規范的基礎又是什么？我們該怎么學(xué)習？) 我們對它的定義其實(shí)非常的寬泛，比如“在文化中研究音樂(lè )”（梅利亞姆1966）“研究非歐文明中人類(lèi)的音樂(lè )”（內特爾1956）“研究世界上所有聽(tīng)覺(jué)感知的聲響”（吉爾茲的個(gè)人交流）（1、在探討E學(xué)科定義時(shí)，梅利亞姆引用的是自己著(zhù)作中的主張，可以看出，他的AofM實(shí)際上是認同于E；2、民族音樂(lè )學(xué)的社會(huì )科學(xué)視野，面對音樂(lè )，吉爾茲的解釋明顯要比內特爾的高一籌，所以，如果只看到音樂(lè )，那么就不會(huì )wild sight）。
不管怎么界定，也不管技巧和方法是如何運用的，主要的分歧在于，當把E作為一個(gè)學(xué)科來(lái)看的時(shí)候，事實(shí)上很難尋找到兩個(gè)學(xué)科間的調和的方式。當然，這兩個(gè)體系，實(shí)際上是音樂(lè )學(xué)和人類(lèi)學(xué)。同時(shí)，不難想象還有許多延伸學(xué)科如歷史的、心理的、生理的、物理的、社會(huì )的、哲學(xué)的一級其他許多。一開(kāi)始，民族音樂(lè )學(xué)E就顯示出建立在許多catch-all體系中，但是我們的意圖是對討論有所限定，因為學(xué)科的兩個(gè)基礎音樂(lè )學(xué)和人類(lèi)學(xué)是有很多不同的。我們的問(wèn)題是檢查彼此，真正理解各自的核心問(wèn)題，然后在兩學(xué)科之間找到平衡點(diǎn)。音樂(lè )學(xué)研究的主要目標是什么？人類(lèi)學(xué)的又是什么？他們之間的切合點(diǎn)又是什么？還有最重要的，當解決民族音樂(lè )學(xué)的問(wèn)題時(shí)，兩個(gè)學(xué)科的學(xué)科訓練又分別給了我們什么？
·音樂(lè )學(xué)·
先來(lái)看音樂(lè )學(xué)，當我在研究音樂(lè )學(xué)的一些討論以及與了解周?chē)卵芯康念I(lǐng)域時(shí)，我發(fā)現一些困惑。武斷的說(shuō)，我覺(jué)得音樂(lè )學(xué)家們言行不一（what musicologists do and what they say they do, are often quite different things批判意味十足），當然這也許者出現在所有學(xué)科（“打一巴掌揉一揉”）。這也許是老傳統，Willi Apel在《哈佛音樂(lè )辭典》解釋“音樂(lè )學(xué)”條目時(shí)說(shuō)“有關(guān)音樂(lè )的科學(xué)（自然科學(xué)的定位，和人文科學(xué)的現實(shí)）”，然而與此同時(shí)他也說(shuō)“研究中出現了對音樂(lè )歷史的研究。”
寬泛的說(shuō)，音樂(lè )學(xué)研究包括了對音樂(lè )藝術(shù)的發(fā)展、功效、過(guò)程以及對事實(shí)的理解與調查的所有學(xué)術(shù)與科學(xué)的研究行為。
而在引用時(shí)帕里斯卡則馬上進(jìn)行了系統的改變，這包括音響學(xué)、美學(xué)、生理學(xué)、心理學(xué)、教育學(xué)、音樂(lè )社會(huì )學(xué)等等，而這些都是與音樂(lè )學(xué)相關(guān)的領(lǐng)域而非音樂(lè )學(xué)的所屬部分（as related fields and not as a part of musicology per se (pp. 102-16)）。帕里斯卡界定的不是音樂(lè )學(xué)，而是對音樂(lè )學(xué)家進(jìn)行了解釋?zhuān)?/span>“音樂(lè )學(xué)家關(guān)注的是音樂(lè )的存在，包括書(shū)寫(xiě)的與口頭的，也包括與之有關(guān)的社會(huì )背景”，我便感到奇怪，老帕的解釋與他曾建議的并不相同(很難自圓其說(shuō))。
·人類(lèi)學(xué)·
我們所需要特別注意的是，人類(lèi)學(xué)始終將自己為“科學(xué)”，持科學(xué)的研究方法，并將科學(xué)作為自己的目的和手段。
就民族音樂(lè )學(xué)（E）而言，社會(huì )文化人類(lèi)學(xué)所給與的沖擊最大，雖然考古人類(lèi)學(xué)、體質(zhì)人類(lèi)學(xué)及語(yǔ)言人類(lèi)學(xué)也有很大影響。但是音樂(lè )通常被看作是人類(lèi)的文化活動(dòng)——這里的文化是從人類(lèi)學(xué)的角度——因此無(wú)論是觀(guān)念還是理論社會(huì )文化人類(lèi)學(xué)對民族音樂(lè )學(xué)的推動(dòng)力無(wú)疑是最大的。
因此我們可以總結如下人類(lèi)學(xué)的特征：
1、涉及任何時(shí)候的所有人的研究；
2、他把人類(lèi)文化和社會(huì )的所有層面視為整體的互動(dòng)的\可變化的機制；
3、強調科學(xué)性的定位；
4、學(xué)科方法有一部份屬于歷史研究范疇，但首先是科學(xué)的；
5、將理解人類(lèi)行為作為研究任務(wù)。
鑒于對音樂(lè )學(xué)和人類(lèi)學(xué)在方法及任務(wù)上的區分，老梅認為有必要進(jìn)而討論一下人文學(xué)科和社會(huì )科學(xué)。他還補充道自己曾經(jīng)做過(guò)討論，這里不再重復，只講講要點(diǎn)。
基于剛才的分析兩者有五個(gè)不同：藝術(shù)家與社會(huì )科學(xué)者，以及兩領(lǐng)域所涉及的方法、行為、結果等。從兩者的溝通（交流、表達）方式上可以看出，藝術(shù)家溝通的是情感，而科學(xué)家溝通的是知識。藝術(shù)家的中心任務(wù)是建立在感情之上的知識，而人類(lèi)學(xué)家則關(guān)注聽(tīng)眾所需要的知識（老梅認為這是本質(zhì)區別）。想想那些搞藝術(shù)的，他們最終任務(wù)是交流音樂(lè )，然而社會(huì )文化人類(lèi)學(xué)家，他們是要理解人類(lèi)的行為，不承擔藝術(shù)交流之類(lèi)的任務(wù)，他們的任務(wù)是關(guān)于音樂(lè )的知識。我意識到這樣地區別在之前已經(jīng)提出來(lái)了,但我沒(méi)有意識到它如此精確的提出了,也沒(méi)有意識到它的內涵，這里研究目的是關(guān)鍵，從目的可以清晰地推斷出結果的不同。
老梅進(jìn)一步闡釋?zhuān)?/span>“社會(huì )科學(xué)是把人作為社會(huì )動(dòng)物（social animal）解決日常生活中的社會(huì )問(wèn)題”而人文學(xué)科則是“在人們社會(huì )生活之外（beyond his social living）自我提煉出社會(huì )經(jīng)驗”（老梅1964：24）……作為社會(huì )體系的表達，這屬于社會(huì )科學(xué)的研究。而人文學(xué)科則是研究個(gè)人的創(chuàng )造性為的產(chǎn)生。從這里我們也能看出二者的區別。
以上簡(jiǎn)要的闡釋目的就是為了將人文學(xué)科和社會(huì )科學(xué)從方法和目標上進(jìn)行區分，其實(shí)更多的討論也都是為了要厘清一件事，音樂(lè )學(xué)和人類(lèi)學(xué)從來(lái)不穿一樣的衣服，關(guān)鍵的問(wèn)題就是民族音樂(lè )學(xué)在說(shuō)謊（ethnomusicology lies precisely hereP.219最后一段）。我努力在其中尋求切合點(diǎn)。不過(guò)現在先讓我們再看看這兩個(gè)不同的學(xué)科其研究、所關(guān)心的對于民族音樂(lè )學(xué)的影響。
這兩者最顯著(zhù)的不同是對音樂(lè )的種類(lèi)上。在民族音樂(lè )學(xué)中，音樂(lè )學(xué)家極為偏好對東方藝術(shù)音的研究，即所謂的藝術(shù)音樂(lè )或高文化音樂(lè )，如印度、阿拉伯、印度尼西亞等。而人類(lèi)學(xué)傾向的民族音樂(lè )學(xué)家（anthropological ethnomusicologists），關(guān)注與對無(wú)文字（低文明）人群的研究，美國印第安、非洲、大洋洲土著(zhù)人等。想想我一直跟你們說(shuō)的這兩個(gè)領(lǐng)域的主要傾向，其原因是不是很清楚了。讓我們先看看音樂(lè )學(xué)家的興趣。
就像我前面說(shuō)過(guò)的一樣，東方藝術(shù)音樂(lè )或許是最早被認可的非歐音樂(lè )，然而音樂(lè )學(xué)家卻在這個(gè)領(lǐng)域猶豫不決。就像那個(gè)提出過(guò)一個(gè)老套的音樂(lè )學(xué)定義的Apel同志，將比較音樂(lè )學(xué)定義為“研究異族音樂(lè )”，那么反過(guò)來(lái)異族音樂(lè )卻又排除了東方的印度的印度尼西亞的音樂(lè )。音樂(lè )學(xué)研究很難輕易的接受對無(wú)書(shū)寫(xiě)文化民族的音樂(lè )研究。
比起當代的非洲音樂(lè )，我們的音樂(lè )聽(tīng)起來(lái)就像幾千年前的一樣（小兒科）。這樣粗魯、令人不悅的說(shuō)“當代的祖先”，我需要困難的提醒各位，這是不負責任的。
但是要說(shuō)清楚為什么音樂(lè )學(xué)和人類(lèi)學(xué)關(guān)注的研究對象是不同的仍然很困難。我建議音樂(lè )學(xué)者、民族音樂(lè )學(xué)者把對象對所謂的高文化音樂(lè )中拉回來(lái)，因為這種訓練本來(lái)是在他們學(xué)習的時(shí)候該進(jìn)行的。其實(shí)音樂(lè )學(xué)的主要關(guān)注對象是西方音樂(lè )，特別是西方藝術(shù)音樂(lè )。
音樂(lè )學(xué)研究之關(guān)心少量的藝術(shù)音樂(lè )、有書(shū)寫(xiě)歷史、記譜體系的音樂(lè )。事實(shí)上，就是面對東方音樂(lè )很多音樂(lè )學(xué)家也用同樣的方法對待，這個(gè)觀(guān)點(diǎn)連老P都說(shuō)過(guò)“……（"Such a scholar is a musicologist in the same sense as a historian of Western music is, except that he specializes in a foreign musical culture" (Harrison, Hood, and Palisca 1963:107).）”
而另一個(gè)方面，音樂(lè )人類(lèi)學(xué)傾向的民族音樂(lè )學(xué)家，則將其注意力放在無(wú)文字民族上。歷史上來(lái)講，人類(lèi)學(xué)的推動(dòng)力就是對紛繁復雜的不同人的研究。西方人已經(jīng)被研究的差不多了，東方人正在研究，而對無(wú)文字民族的研究則基本上是空白。因此，人類(lèi)學(xué)傾向的民族音樂(lè )學(xué)家在人類(lèi)學(xué)的推動(dòng)下開(kāi)始了對無(wú)文字民族的研究。
我還看到了另一個(gè)不同，就像前面所說(shuō)的，因為人類(lèi)學(xué)對“所有時(shí)代的不同的人的研究”，所以人類(lèi)學(xué)傾向的民族音樂(lè )學(xué)者或多或少的接受了這個(gè)理念，一定程度上比音樂(lè )學(xué)者拓寬了研究對象的范圍。民族音樂(lè )學(xué)努力研究所有的音樂(lè )而不僅僅是非歐音樂(lè )。人類(lèi)學(xué)研究中出現的擴張體現在兩個(gè)方面,既有研究興趣的增長(cháng)也有研究疆域的擴張,因此在人類(lèi)學(xué)的研究中有越來(lái)越多的人開(kāi)始從事對印第安人甚至是美國本土的研究。我還沒(méi)有看到人類(lèi)學(xué)傾向的民族音樂(lè )學(xué)者轉向這方面的研究，但是這不妨礙他們對這方面進(jìn)行研究的熱情和精力。與此同時(shí)，音樂(lè )學(xué)傾向的民族音樂(lè )學(xué)家也開(kāi)始轉向了他們原來(lái)很少關(guān)注的對無(wú)文字民族的研究?？偠灾?，從學(xué)科的訓練及態(tài)度兩方面，研究轉向了世界的特殊區域和特殊人群的研究。因為人類(lèi)學(xué)研究?jì)A向于對所有時(shí)空的人的研究，同時(shí)又因為音樂(lè )學(xué)研究關(guān)注與于歐洲文化以及與之聯(lián)系緊密的文化的研究，所以明顯的看到人類(lèi)學(xué)傾向的民族音樂(lè )學(xué)家的視域寬于出自其同文化國家的音樂(lè )學(xué)研究。
第二個(gè)顯著(zhù)的不同，出現于建立在研究對象概念上的不同的研究方法。對于音樂(lè )學(xué)家而言，反過(guò)來(lái)說(shuō)，對于人類(lèi)學(xué)家，將人類(lèi)的行為和音樂(lè )的學(xué)習作為文化的一個(gè)方面。結果，音樂(lè )學(xué)家關(guān)注于在音樂(lè )表演或體系中特殊的結構和特定的研究。音樂(lè )學(xué)傾向的民族音樂(lè )學(xué)研究幾乎不需要文獻，甚至M·胡德這樣支持“我們或許可以這樣絕對的說(shuō)對音樂(lè )風(fēng)格透徹的分析——無(wú)論西方還是非西方——建立在絕對準確和詳細的信息基礎之上，這種信息是調查者的想象以及基于電子時(shí)代才可以產(chǎn)生的奇異景觀(guān)。”這里的研究對象顯然是作為音樂(lè )的音樂(lè )，還有很多細微的細節。音樂(lè )和文化的關(guān)系并不是音樂(lè )學(xué)傾向的民族音樂(lè )學(xué)者的研究對象。
對人類(lèi)學(xué)而言，最重要的研究對象是對人類(lèi)行為的理解，在這個(gè)基礎上，人類(lèi)學(xué)傾向的民族音樂(lè )學(xué)研究將人類(lèi)文化和社會(huì )的所有方面視為豐富變化的一個(gè)方面。因此他們對音樂(lè )的觀(guān)點(diǎn)不同于音樂(lè )學(xué)家。首先，作為很多表達行為的一種，音樂(lè )可能并不重要，其次，就象所有人類(lèi)的產(chǎn)品，作為概念化和行為的一種，音樂(lè )的產(chǎn)生不可避免的需要介質(zhì)。因此人類(lèi)學(xué)家并不局限于對單一問(wèn)題和單一行為的研究，而是要將音樂(lè )充分放置在其文化環(huán)境中?？梢哉f(shuō)幾乎無(wú)法孤立的看待音樂(lè )，相反地……。最后，作為人類(lèi)行為理解音樂(lè )，很少不充分關(guān)注行為過(guò)程。我記得在這方面C·F這樣說(shuō)“人文科學(xué)聚焦于……人的產(chǎn)品……然而社會(huì )科學(xué)聚焦于人們聚居的方式。”人類(lèi)學(xué)傾向的民族音樂(lè )學(xué)研究將音樂(lè )的聲音作為動(dòng)作、概念以及有關(guān)音樂(lè )的行為的復雜體的一個(gè)部分；而音樂(lè )學(xué)傾向的民族音樂(lè )學(xué)者這往往只關(guān)注與音樂(lè )聲響本身。
第三點(diǎn)不同在于民族音樂(lè )學(xué)具體研究方法上的不同，這主要是對于音樂(lè )表演的研究，而它根植于前面所說(shuō)的兩個(gè)不同體系的學(xué)科的區別。如果我理解正確的話(huà)那么音樂(lè )學(xué)將音樂(lè )作為了研究對象，而中心是對包含表演在內的藝術(shù)地研究，不難想象音樂(lè )學(xué)傾向的民族音樂(lè )學(xué)研究對表演想象實(shí)質(zhì)。而另一方面，這不是人類(lèi)學(xué)者所最關(guān)注的。他們的對象不是為聽(tīng)眾新創(chuàng )造出文化；他們的任務(wù)是分析那些他們觀(guān)察和引申出來(lái)的音樂(lè )的溝通。
分歧出自于兩個(gè)陣營(yíng)對表演活動(dòng)的認識，此外，涉及的理由，我認為一些民族音樂(lè )學(xué)家（在指胡德嗎？）強調表演準確的說(shuō)是因為這是他們早期訓練的一部分，對于一部分音樂(lè )學(xué)家也一樣。我相信在面對非西方音樂(lè )時(shí)，通過(guò)表演他們可以獲得大量的感受，這是欣賞音樂(lè )，寬泛的講他們也是一個(gè)聽(tīng)眾而已。通過(guò)演奏時(shí)風(fēng)格學(xué)習的不二法門(mén)。的確，學(xué)習演奏時(shí)這個(gè)領(lǐng)域的很好的方式。然而我卻不這樣想，就像J·M說(shuō)的那樣“the investigator's actual rendition of a native song will make him feel the emotions and perceive directly the aesthetic image ”。
我并不認為表演對于理解音樂(lè )有比其他方式更好的貢獻。簡(jiǎn)而言之，我對民族音樂(lè )學(xué)者學(xué)習演奏沒(méi)有意見(jiàn)，但不要因此排除其他理解的方式，對表演的作用意義也不可言過(guò)其詞。表演對民族音樂(lè )學(xué)者而言的確有用，但我要講清楚，它對于音樂(lè )學(xué)者的作用要大于對人類(lèi)學(xué)者的作用。
第四點(diǎn)不同在于對人類(lèi)綜合活動(dòng)的認識，將聯(lián)系著(zhù)大量數據、理論、對理論的理論，并趨向于臆測、理論和法則。在這里我對音樂(lè )學(xué)有一點(diǎn)擔心，但是在這里我更多的感到，人類(lèi)學(xué)有更多的興趣被卷入這兩個(gè)學(xué)科。我已經(jīng)意識到人類(lèi)學(xué)不僅僅是取決于科學(xué)的方法，它的目標是所有的學(xué)科，我們也可說(shuō)成是科學(xué)的。因此他所歸納的許多數據可以說(shuō)是臆測的，同時(shí)還因此形成了理論，甚至是法律，這些對人類(lèi)的行為來(lái)說(shuō)是適用的。人類(lèi)學(xué)家不是孤立的看待、研究問(wèn)題，他們知道這些問(wèn)題是建立在臆想基礎之上的，他們能超越人類(lèi)學(xué)的理論發(fā)展出系統的方法學(xué)。這是社會(huì )科學(xué)的標準程序。因此人類(lèi)學(xué)傾向的民族音樂(lè )學(xué)家不滿(mǎn)足于僅僅對資料的收集，他們將資料即視為方法又視為目的。
音樂(lè )學(xué)家更樂(lè )衷于收集資料并分析那些與他們個(gè)人興趣相關(guān)聯(lián)的資料。作為權威的觀(guān)點(diǎn)，我引用胡德在1963年寫(xiě)的條目“早期涉及不同音樂(lè )間比較所得到的結論是概論性質(zhì)的、過(guò)于簡(jiǎn)化的……”，三年后，胡德還進(jìn)行了補充。
假如胡德的論述表現出了ME中所盛行的一個(gè)觀(guān)點(diǎn)，那么我有把握論證人類(lèi)學(xué)家可能對此保持異議。依我個(gè)人的意見(jiàn)，預先的設想和對未來(lái)調查的劃定永遠不嫌太早。因為，理論或調查的原理法則有賴(lài)于已有論斷的科學(xué)和知識的積累。建立一種理論預設，并進(jìn)而打破和推翻，將使我們獲得越來(lái)越多的并且越來(lái)越準確的知識。智性的思考過(guò)程需要我們不斷的將理解有序化，使之越來(lái)越精確，其中，失敗和更正是思考過(guò)程中所不可缺少的。缺少這一過(guò)程，我們將僅僅只是獲得越來(lái)越多的數據，而這也正是我所不斷反復論證的：為什么數據的搜集對于民族音樂(lè )學(xué)研究來(lái)說(shuō)是遠遠不夠的緣由。數據的搜集必須靠一種強有力的主體理論和方法論的支撐。數據、方法論以及理論是任何研究所不可或缺的三方面——它們不可避免的相互依存，互相之稱(chēng)。正如我曾在其他地方所指出的：“這是為什么在任何研究領(lǐng)域中，業(yè)余性是如此大的一個(gè)難題。我們并不是因為他是一個(gè)業(yè)余人士而厭惡業(yè)余，而是因為因為對于研究他無(wú)所作為，或者貢獻極小”。
兩個(gè)領(lǐng)域之間的第5個(gè)爭議，則是關(guān)于所調查的相關(guān)學(xué)科的親緣關(guān)聯(lián)。在此，我再次發(fā)現音樂(lè )學(xué)從根本上是態(tài)度冷淡的，可以用帕里斯卡為例，因為他將“聲學(xué)、美學(xué)、物理學(xué)、生理學(xué)、教育學(xué)、音樂(lè )社會(huì )學(xué)、以及人類(lèi)學(xué)”從音樂(lè )學(xué)的主體中去掉，只將其視為“相關(guān)領(lǐng)域”而不是視為重要關(guān)注點(diǎn)。這一做法再次論證了，音樂(lè )學(xué)的研究對象只是音樂(lè )其本身。
另一方面，人類(lèi)學(xué)則歡迎姊妹學(xué)科的研究，只要其能解決所研究中所遇到的問(wèn)題，任何學(xué)科都可大膽借用。我相信這一現象，源自其自身學(xué)科的發(fā)展歷史，因為自人類(lèi)學(xué)產(chǎn)生之初，它所面對的就是人類(lèi)社會(huì )和文化的整體視域，或者至少是全部無(wú)文字的世界和族群。這就注定了人類(lèi)學(xué)必須大膽的吸收或者說(shuō)是吞噬其他學(xué)科的方法論原理，以一種開(kāi)放的態(tài)度去吸收異文化知識。
因此，當音樂(lè )學(xué)家貌似在捍衛其學(xué)科的純粹性時(shí)，人類(lèi)學(xué)家則海納百川，而不擔心這樣的人類(lèi)學(xué)是否合適？其答案必定是一個(gè)廣延的視域，其內容并遠遠超越于音樂(lè )聲音的本體研究。
但是要進(jìn)一步指出的是，我在這里對兩種學(xué)科所進(jìn)行的比較，并不是揚此貶彼。這類(lèi)兩學(xué)科的確是不同的，但是重要的是，我們要去理解它們?yōu)槭裁床煌?，其意義在于何處？下面，我希望能夠將兩者的分歧調和。
我希望能夠提出一種研究的理論模式，能夠為兩個(gè)領(lǐng)域之間的共同關(guān)注點(diǎn)服務(wù)。這一模式四年前曾經(jīng)在《音樂(lè )人類(lèi)學(xué)》中提出過(guò)。
假如我們的研究對象是音樂(lè )，但是從其最寬泛的意義上而言，它是一種人類(lèi)現象，那么我可以基于三個(gè)分析層面提出一個(gè)理論模式
A、 關(guān)于音樂(lè )的觀(guān)念；
B、 和音樂(lè )相關(guān)的行為；
C、 音樂(lè )本身；
其中，第一和第三個(gè)層面可以用來(lái)解釋所有音樂(lè )體系所展現出來(lái)的變化及動(dòng)態(tài)本質(zhì)。聲音體系有其結構，但是它必須視為行為所導致的結果。行為包括生理的、社會(huì )的、口頭的以及學(xué)習方面，但是反過(guò)來(lái)說(shuō)，行為也是來(lái)自于觀(guān)念的。“沒(méi)有和音樂(lè )相關(guān)的觀(guān)念，行為無(wú)從引發(fā)，同時(shí)，若沒(méi)有行為，音樂(lè )也不能制造出來(lái)”。
這一模型還隱含著(zhù)一個(gè)更大的含義，即，民族音樂(lè )學(xué)家研究音樂(lè )的目的，并不僅僅在于音樂(lè )本身；它是將音樂(lè )聲音視為一種人類(lèi)的產(chǎn)品，而不是僅僅將其看作自在之物。
對三分模式的批評
我看到了對此的批評，但我認為其中有一部分并不公正客觀(guān)。
內特爾：認為我的建議并不能真正消除兩大陣營(yíng)的分歧。
反駁：人類(lèi)的行為不就是音樂(lè )嗎，我的模式本意就在于將二者融合而不是割裂的看待。
民族音樂(lè )學(xué)E既不是“音樂(lè )的人類(lèi)學(xué)化（研究）”也不是“音樂(lè )的音樂(lè )”，它恰恰是二者的結合！
沒(méi)有“音樂(lè )的人類(lèi)學(xué)”，民族音樂(lè )學(xué)稱(chēng)為音樂(lè )學(xué)簡(jiǎn)單化的偏見(jiàn)；沒(méi)有“音樂(lè )的音樂(lè )”，民族音樂(lè )學(xué)變成了人類(lèi)學(xué)中部分文化的研究。
第二種批評來(lái)自于人類(lèi)學(xué)界——
考林斯基：仍間堅持用“比較音樂(lè )學(xué)”這一稱(chēng)呼，的確，他關(guān)注于音樂(lè )在精神層面上對人生理的影響，他只考慮聽(tīng)覺(jué)上的聲音，而我則關(guān)注音樂(lè )的方方面面——這是民族音樂(lè )學(xué)家了解“人們?yōu)槭裁粗圃煲魳?lè )”的必由之路。
同時(shí)，我不同意他將音樂(lè )學(xué)分為“音樂(lè )的人類(lèi)學(xué)”和“比較音樂(lè )學(xué)”兩個(gè)陣營(yíng)，這其實(shí)非常危險。
·結語(yǔ)·
• 民族音樂(lè )學(xué)永遠在找尋：用最合適的方法達到最好的效果；
• 我希望可以真正理解我們究竟要做什么；如果想擁有廣泛的理解，就要理解不同人的不同認識和不同的行為方式；
• 也許你我總有人要強調音樂(lè )學(xué)家與人類(lèi)學(xué)家的區別，但是我真誠的希望，這些都僅僅是我們的學(xué)習過(guò)程；
• 也許我們還要經(jīng)歷漫長(cháng)的過(guò)程，但當有一天民族音樂(lè )學(xué)不用再分所謂“音樂(lè )學(xué)傾向的”和“人類(lèi)學(xué)傾向的”兩個(gè)“陣營(yíng)”，我相信這將是我們最終尋找的。
曹老師：當然音樂(lè )與行為、概念有關(guān)，但是否這一定是一個(gè)局內人有“意識”的過(guò)程？我舉兩個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的例子讓大家思考，在很多地方的民俗文化中，往往會(huì )有很多巫師、巫婆，可能一直以來(lái)他們都和正常人一樣的生活，突然有一天他/她失蹤了一段時(shí)間或者得了一場(chǎng)大病，然后他們回來(lái)了、或病好了，就會(huì )唱很多很多的歌、會(huì )看到過(guò)去和未來(lái)、會(huì )治病。這個(gè)唱歌的行為和概念有什么關(guān)系？是局內人有“意識”的過(guò)程嗎？還有一種心理學(xué)神經(jīng)學(xué)稱(chēng)為“Savant”的人，他們往往很內向，智商在很多方面都和比常人低，但卻有一兩個(gè)特別的方面超過(guò)常人許多，特別是在我們所謂的藝術(shù)天才哪方面，他們的行為和概念之間又有什么關(guān)系？是否還有其他的可能性？
曹老師的點(diǎn)評：
Merriam是美國民族音樂(lè )學(xué)中走人類(lèi)學(xué)偏向的學(xué)科領(lǐng)先人物。他提出的“to study music as (in) culture”研究取向和“musical sound – behavior – conceptualization”的理論框架為美國民族音樂(lè )學(xué)提供了以人類(lèi)學(xué)視野研究音樂(lè )文化的主導理論思維。
Structure of the Article
Introduction
Background circumstances
Aim of the article
Horns of a Bifurcated Dilemma (musicology and anthropology)
Musicology (5 approaches)
Anthropology (4 branches, 3 concerns，5 characteristics)
Humanities (musicology) and Science (anthropology): 5 basic differences
Ethnomusicology, Musicology and Anthropology
Kinds of music being studied
Resolution
以下是曹老師希望同學(xué)在文章中注意的地方：
Introduction
p. 213
In writing this paper I had no particular individuals or groups of individuals in mind, save for musicologists, anthropologists, and ethnomusicologists as broad groupings. My aim was to generalize about these fields, and by isolating what I felt to be their major orientations, to attempt to explain why particular groups of scholars concentrate their efforts in particular directions. 【是嗎？文章似乎只有對音樂(lè )學(xué)的批評而沒(méi)“explain”】 As always, it seems to me that understanding who we are and why we do what we do will help to minimize the apparent differences of approach among us and perhaps lead to the establishment of a true discipline of ethnomusicology. 【這里的“us”指的是本段前面的“musicologists, anthropologists, and ethnomusicologists”，似乎意味著(zhù)三者是“一家”。但全文沒(méi)給讀者這個(gè)感覺(jué)，更多的是“分家”之說(shuō)?！?/span>
Horns of a Bifurcated Dilemma (musicology and anthropology)
l Musicology (five approaches)
p. 213 – 214
, some analytic, and even some which seem to be none of these… Is ethnomusicology a discipline? And if it is, what is the nature of that discipline, what are the principles on which it is based, and what is it seeking to learn? Our definitions of the field vary widely, from “the study of music in culture,” (Merriam 1960) 【Merriam后來(lái)擴展到“the study of music as culture”】through “the science that deals with the music of peoples outside of Western civilization” (Nett1 1956:1), to “the study of those world musics which are aurally transmitted” (Gillis : personal communication). 【怎么不提Hood的“the study of music within its cultural contexts”呢？】
p. 214
…the major difficulty lies in the fact that ethnomusicology…made up of two established disciplines trying uneasily to find a modus vivendi. The two major disciplines…are musicology and anthropology…it would be easy to add several others to the pot we call ethnomusicology – history, psychology, physics, physiology, sociology, philosophy, and perhaps some others as well. 【對學(xué)科的平面認知！】At the start, then, it appears that ethnomusicology is essentially a catch-all discipline, 【“catch-all”？就是因為如同Merriam的這種對學(xué)科的定位的平面概念，導致學(xué)科失去了核心，所以在學(xué)科認同（discipline identity）上糾纏不清！】but for our purposes let me restrict the discussion to the two major bodies of knowledge which cause the basic difficulty – musicology and anthropology…. What do students of musicology see as their major goals? What is the main direction of interest in anthropology? Where do these fit together? And most important, what is it in the training procedures of the two disciplines which give musicologists and anthropologists such different perspectives when each approaches the problems of ethnomusicology? 【人類(lèi)學(xué)的研究對象并不是“音樂(lè )”，如以所謂的“文化”關(guān)注來(lái)說(shuō)兩者的“approaches the problems of ethnomusicology”，那么社會(huì )學(xué)、語(yǔ)言學(xué)…等人文社科學(xué)科便也是在“approach the problems of ethnomusicology”了？！】
p. 214
Turning first to musicology, I find myself somewhat bemused when I read discussions about what musicology is and when I seek a better understanding by talking with my colleagues in the field. 【Merriam的第一個(gè)攻擊，對象是“音樂(lè )學(xué)”。“bemused”？可能人家也覺(jué)得你這個(gè)民族音樂(lè )學(xué)是可笑呢。在沒(méi)搞清楚什么是“musicology”之前便把它視為對立的】To put the matter rather flatly, I find that what musicologists do and what they say they do, are often quite different things, though that may be true in all disciplines. 【“they”？文章的開(kāi)場(chǎng)白可是用的是“us”，似乎是想扮演一個(gè)包容的態(tài)度。但這里卻用把音樂(lè )學(xué)分界為“they”？ 究竟是誰(shuí)在“說(shuō)一套做一套”呢？】
p. 215
…My musicologist friends at Indiana University tell me that a more modern statement of what musicology is and does is to be found in the more recent book, Musicology, co-authored by Messrs. Harrison, Hood and Palisca (1963), and I am happy to agree. But I run across confusing obstacles here, too. 【難道民族音樂(lè )學(xué)沒(méi)有confusion？如果它沒(méi)有混淆，為何自50年代有了“民族音樂(lè )學(xué)”這名稱(chēng)以來(lái)的50多年后，我們仍然需要澄清它是什么？民族音樂(lè )學(xué)的混淆，可能沒(méi)其他學(xué)科可以與它“比美”。Merriam的這一段對音樂(lè )學(xué)的批評，與他前言所說(shuō)的“minimize the apparent differences of approach…”是背道而馳的；他前言中的所謂“lead to the establishment of a true discipline of ethnomusicology”，其“true”，看來(lái)只是他眼中的“ethnomusicology”才是“true ethnomusicology”！】
p. 216
What I gain from a reading of musicologists, and from discussing musicology with friends in the field, is that musicology is characterized by five basic points of approach: 1) musicology is concerned in the main with Western art music; 2) it sees sharp distinctions between what are most often called “art” and “primitive” music, based primarily on the presence or absence of a written literature and so-called “developed” theory; 3) it is specifically humanistic, and excludes, except as tangential or related fields, the sciences; 4) it is essentially historical; 5) it views as its study-object music per se. 【片面之詞。同學(xué)回顧一下Adler對音樂(lè )學(xué)的構圖便知。我到覺(jué)得Merriam的批評暴露了人類(lèi)學(xué)背景的他，對音樂(lè )學(xué)的認識是不全面的，且具偏見(jiàn)。人類(lèi)學(xué)背景的他，使他缺乏對音樂(lè )“歷史”的概念，也不能接受音樂(lè )中“works of art”的存在?！?/span>
l Anthropology (4 branches, 3 concerns/5 characteristics)
p. 216
We must begin in anthropology by differentiating among its four major branches. Archaeology deals with the physical, and increasingly with inferences about the social remains of extinct cultures. Physical anthropology examines the biology of man through time. Anthropological linguistics seeks an understanding of the structure and function of the languages of man, and social and cultural anthropology attempt to understand why man behaves as he does. Three major concerns override all four fields of specialization in anthropology, however. First, anthropology… looks at all men everywhere, regarding any particular group of men as but a single variable in human behavior as a whole. 【他所見(jiàn)的“人”，是只有群體，不見(jiàn)個(gè)人的“all men”】Second, it seeks an understanding of all men everywhere through all of man’s time on earth. 【除了考古學(xué)，其他三個(gè)對民族音樂(lè )學(xué)有直接影響的分支，基本上都是對“現在”的研究，何來(lái)“all of man’s time on earth”？說(shuō)一套做一套?！?/span>And third, it seeks its information through the methods of science and regards itself as a social science.
pp. 216 – 217
. 【從這里可以看到北美學(xué)界文化中的“理論”、輕描述偏見(jiàn)。在此，Merriam也以此偏見(jiàn)來(lái)批評他認為是描述性的歷史音樂(lè )學(xué)。但是，無(wú)論他以為人類(lèi)學(xué)是何等的“科學(xué)化”或“理論化”，拆去了包裝，實(shí)質(zhì)上最終仍然是對“人”的描述！】 Thus anthropology does depend upon the scientific method, but more importantly it identifies itself not only with the procedures of science but with its goals as well. Science begins with observation and experimentation…, moves through repetition and verification (in anthropology often expressed through the comparative method), to classification of observations, formulation of hypotheses, prediction of further experimentation, testing of predictions, and the verification or modification of hypotheses. 【這早就是Adler時(shí)期的從所周知、而且誰(shuí)都在用著(zhù)的方法學(xué)了。正如“比較”不是只有“比較音樂(lè )學(xué)”才有的一樣，這種“observation – verification – classification – hypotheses”也不是只有“人類(lèi)學(xué)”才有的?！?/span>
p. 217
In respect to ethnomusicology…social and cultural anthropology have had the greatest impact…. music is usually conceived of in anthropology as a cultural activity …thus the ideas and theories of social and cultural anthropology are brought to the forefront in connection with ethnomusicology .
We can, then, characterize anthropology…: 1) anthropology is concerned with all peoples at all times; 【真的嗎？】 2) it sees all aspects of human culture and society as a single interacting set of variables; 【這是沒(méi)有個(gè)人的“人”】 3) it is specifically scientific in its orientation; 4) its methodology is partly historical, but primarily scientific; 5) it views its study-object as an understanding of human behavior. 【這里是p. 216的重復，但前面的3個(gè)人類(lèi)學(xué)關(guān)注，在這里重復時(shí)變成了5個(gè)特征。結構邏輯有些問(wèn)題】
l Humanities (musicology) and Science (anthropology): 5 basic differences
The humanities【指歷史音樂(lè )學(xué)】and social sciences【指人類(lèi)學(xué)】 have been differentiated in the past on five major bases: the differences between the artist and the social scientist, 【這中兩分，同學(xué)們可以聯(lián)想到上一篇Nettl的文章中提及的“doers”和“talkers”，我認為是很遺憾的概念】and the differences between the methods, results, activities, and content of the two areas of concentration. 【這，也是Merriam的書(shū)里第一章所用的比較】You will perhaps recall that the difference between the artist and the social scientist is what each communicates; that is, the artist communicates feelings while the scientist communicates knowledge. 【感性和理性。同學(xué)可以考慮一下，在對待“音樂(lè )”（關(guān)及人的creativeness）之時(shí)，兩者如何平衡？我們要單純從“說(shuō)”去了解音樂(lè )，還是從“奏”、“聽(tīng)”、“看”、“感”、“想”去了解音樂(lè )？】 Given what I have attempted to establish above, the musicologist, then, has as a central task the communication of that kind of knowledge which will enable the artist to communicate feeling. The anthropologist, on the other hand, has no obligation to such an intervening personage as the artist; it is his task only to communicate knowledge【“knowledge”不包括人的感受？】in any way he sees fit and to whatever audience suits him. This seems a crucial difference to me in assessing the two fields.
p. 218
Since music per se is the study-object of the musicologist, his ultimate task is to communicate music, which he must do through the artist. Since the study object of the social and cultural anthropologist…is an understanding of human behavior, he is under no obligation to communicate music as such, or its feelings – to the contrary, his task is to communicate knowledge about music…. 【音樂(lè )作為人類(lèi)文化中的“產(chǎn)物”，它是有一個(gè)社會(huì )化的“過(guò)程”的，Adler對音樂(lè )學(xué)的構圖已經(jīng)清楚理解到這一點(diǎn)。Merriam在這里把“產(chǎn)物”和“過(guò)程”分別拿來(lái)等同音樂(lè )學(xué)和人類(lèi)學(xué)，其合理性和邏輯見(jiàn)仁見(jiàn)智?！?/span> Crucial here is the study-object; what results from the particular concentration in the two fields is a sharply different set of obligations.
Within this framework the methods used are of little concern to us, for scholars in either field may use any methodology deemed appropriate to their task, and scholars in both may use the same methodology. …anthropologists use both scientific and historical methodology and so do musicologists… it is the results achieved that provide us with another characterizing difference between the humanities, as represented by musicology, and the social sciences, as represented by anthropology. 【這些“要點(diǎn)”反復重復了幾次了】
p. 219
This brief examination of the methods and goals of the humanities and social sciences indicates that the two areas of study do differ from each other… Musicology and anthropology are not cut of the same cloth, and the crucial problem for ethnomusicology lies precisely here… the thrusts of these two disciplines move in different directions, and if I am correct in this then we should expect to find that the two approaches to ethnomusicology must differ, and in predictable ways. Let us turn, then, to the studies and concerns of each discipline as reflected in ethnomusicology.
Ethnomusicology, Musicology and Anthropology
l Kinds of music being studied
p. 220
One of the most noticeable differences between the two is the kinds of music they study. The musicologists in ethnomusicology have a strong predilection for Oriental art music, and in general, … “fine art” music of …“high” cultures, i.e., India, Arabia, Indonesia, and so forth. The anthropological ethnomusicologists, on the other hand, have concentrated most of their attention on the music of …“non-literate” peoples, that is, American Indians, Africans, peoples of Oceania, and so forth…Let us look at musicologists and their interests first. 【這是Merriam自己（或他那個(gè)時(shí)代）的分類(lèi)，同學(xué)在Nettl、Myer等人的有關(guān)民族音樂(lè )學(xué)的專(zhuān)著(zhù)中可以知道，如此概念已給時(shí)間淘汰。我們可以略過(guò)Merriam的這個(gè)“不同點(diǎn)”?！?/span>
p. 221
I do see one other difference, …that anthropology is concerned with all peoples at all times. Thus, the anthropological ethnomusicologist is probably more receptive to a broad listing of the kinds of music he will study …than the musicologist. I see this receptivity in the anthropological definitions of ethnomusicology in which stress is laid on working with all music rather than non-Western music alone.... In sum, the training and attitudes of both fields move students toward particular world areas and particular kinds of societies.
pp. 221 – 222
A second notable difference between the two approaches is found in the conceptualized study-object of each which, for the musicologist, is music per se, and for the anthropologist, human behavior and the study of music as an aspect of culture. As a result of this focus the musicologist tends to emphasize structural and particularistic studies of music performance or style. That this focus is evident in the work of musicological ethnomusicologists 【這是文章中的第二個(gè)攻擊，對象是Hood，把Hood帶上了一頂“musicological ethnomusicologist”的帽子?！?/span>hardly needs documentation, and the extent to which it may be carried is demonstrated by Mantle Hood when he writes that “. . .we may state categorically that a thorough stylistic analysis of music – whether Western or non-Western – must be founded on the most accurate and detailed information that the imagination of the investigator and the marvels of an electronic age can produce” [Hood’s italics] (Harrison, Hood, and Palisca 1963:273). The basic objective here is clearly music as music…. The relationship of music to the rest of culture is not the objective of the musicological ethnomusicologist. 【如果我們回顧Adler對音樂(lè )學(xué)的構圖，我們可以知道，Adler的音樂(lè )學(xué)并不是沒(méi)有考慮到“文化”！另外，在研究音樂(lè )的過(guò)去的時(shí)候，“田野”在那里？“田野”應該不是Merriam或人類(lèi)學(xué)家所熟悉的那種“田野”了（當然他們是不會(huì )明白的）。而且，Hood從來(lái)沒(méi)有說(shuō)過(guò)他不關(guān)注音樂(lè )的文化問(wèn)題，只是他提倡的是從音樂(lè )切入，在文化中理解而已。Merriam是見(jiàn)而不聞呢，還是故意誤導？】
For the anthropologist the essential study–object is the understanding of human behavior, and in this context the anthropological ethnomusicologist sees all aspects of human culture and society as a single set of variables. Thus for him music is viewed differently…In the first place, music as such is probably less important, for it is but a single kind of expressive behavior among many. And second, music is inevitably a product produced through the medium, as in the case of all human products, of a number of kinds of conceptualizations and behaviors. Thus the anthropologist is trained not only to focus upon a single problem or a single kind of behavior, in this case music, but to view it in the context of an entire culture, all parts of which impinge in multiple ways upon what he is studying in particular. He should be virtually incapable of seeing music as an isolate, then, and conversely, it is his specific task to see music in a broad context. Finally, since he is attempting to understand music as human behavior he is less likely to direct his entire attention on what to him is a product of behavior. I am reminded in this connection of Carl Friedrich’s statement that “the focus of the humanities is upon . . . the products of man . . . whereas the focus of the social sciences is upon the way men live together” (Parker 196 1 :16). The anthropological ethnomusicologist sees the sound of music as but one part of a complex of activities, conceptualizations, and behaviors connected with music; the musicological ethnomusicologist sees music sound as the precise focus of his attention. 【音樂(lè )是產(chǎn)品和過(guò)程，這才是音樂(lè )學(xué)研究對象的應有概念！】
pp. 222 – 223
A third difference in ethnomusicological approach concerns the emphasis, or lack of it, placed upon performance of the music studied…. If I am correct in my understanding that musicology holds music per se as its study-object, and that the central concern of musicology is to provide the artist with music to perform, then it is not surprising that performance assumes substantial importance in musicological ethnomusicology…On the other hand, this is not the anthropologist’s central concern. His object is not to recreate the cultures he studies for an audience; his job is to analyze what he observes and elicits and to communicate knowledge about it…【這就又要回到上一篇Nettl文章中描述美國的所謂學(xué)者認為他們應該是“講者”，而不是“做者”的問(wèn)題了。按Merriam的說(shuō)法，看來(lái)我們要把我在北美讀書(shū)時(shí)音樂(lè )圈里用來(lái)譏笑音樂(lè )學(xué)的名句（“those who cannot play, study musicology”）移去北美民族音樂(lè )學(xué)者中的人類(lèi)學(xué)偏向的“講者”身上了：“those who cannot play, study ‘anthro’-ethnomusicology”。補充：“performance practice”演奏習慣的研究是歷史音樂(lè )學(xué)的研究課題之一】 …Learning a style 【進(jìn)一步攻擊Hood的“雙重音樂(lè )感”】teaches the performer a good deal about that style which may be obtainable in no other way. It is also true that performance is an excellent methodological device in the field. I do not, however, share Jose Maceda’s belief that “the investigator’s actual rendition of a native song will make him feel the emotions and perceive directly the aesthetic image . . .” of the music (Maceda 1966:224). 【再一個(gè)攻擊！菲律賓學(xué)者Maceda（已故）是UCLA Hood陣營(yíng)的成員，是Merriam的所謂的“音樂(lè )學(xué)”傾向的民族音樂(lè )學(xué)學(xué)者，在這里也免不了要受到Merriam的攻擊。明顯的，Merriam反對的不只是Maceda的這一句話(huà)，他是在攻擊Hood的“雙重音樂(lè )感”，一個(gè)當時(shí)普受學(xué)界認同的概念?！?/span>Neither do I believe that performance is more than one contributory mode of understanding a music. 【Hood沒(méi)說(shuō)過(guò)“雙重音樂(lè )感”是唯一理解音樂(lè )的途徑】In short, I have never had any objection to performance in ethnomusicology except as it has tended to overshadow other aspects of our study, and as exaggerated claims for its importance have been made. 【念來(lái)有些吃醋的味道】Performance is and will continue to be a useful part of ethnomusicology, but because of the factors I have tried to make clear it always have greater appeal for the musicologist than for the anthropologist. 【十分荒唐的強辯！這那里是在合二為一??！說(shuō)一套做一套?！?/span>
pp. 223 – 224
【這兩段引言都是Hood針對比較音樂(lè )學(xué)的宏觀(guān)比較仍不是時(shí)候，因為尚缺乏足夠的數據基礎。Merriam引來(lái)用在此地有些張冠李帶的感覺(jué)，頗為誤導?！?/span>
Assuming that Hood’s statements represent a prevalent view in musicological ethnomusicology, I think it is safe to say that anthropologists would disagree. In my own view, it is never too early to suggest hypotheses and lines of further inquiry. 【為了攻擊Hood，這里到讀來(lái)好像Merriam是贊同比較音樂(lè )學(xué)的宏觀(guān)比較了？那么，比較音樂(lè )學(xué)是否算是人類(lèi)學(xué)視野的民族音樂(lè )學(xué)呢“anthropological ethnomusicology”呢？不明！】 This is, after all, the principle upon which science and the accumulation of knowledge is predicated. 【總算看到可以認同的東西了。即是，學(xué)科的宏觀(guān)目的（對“人”的研究）必須通過(guò)比較獲得?！?/span>The building and subsequent destruction of hypotheses and principles always leaves us with more accurate and greater knowledge; 【那么Merriam就應該對前期歐洲比較音樂(lè )學(xué)的貢獻給予肯定】the intellectual process demands that we constantly attempt to order our understanding and make it more precise; failure and subsequent correction are a necessary part of the procedure.
pp. 224 – 225
A fifth difference between the two fields concerns their relative hospitality to the investigations of related disciplines. Here again I find musicology to be essentially inhospitable, and cite as part of my evidence Palisca’s careful stripping away of “acoustics, aesthetics, physiology, psychology, pedagogy, musical sociology, and anthropology” from the main body of musicology, treating them as “related fields” but not as central concerns. 【對學(xué)科的立體定位是學(xué)科認同（discipline identity）的基本；就是Merriam式的多學(xué)科平面排列使民族音樂(lè )學(xué)主客不分，搞不清自己究竟是什么學(xué)?！?/span>
The anthropologist, on the other hand, welcomes the investigations of sister disciplines and tends to borrow whatever he can master from them which throws light on the problem he is pursuing. Anthropologists have thus been forced to learn all they could from their sister disciplines and have welcomed all the assistance they could get. Thus, where musicologists seem to defend the purity of their discipline, anthropologists use anything they can get their hands on… result is inevitably a broad scope which extends far beyond the study of music sound. 【另一個(gè)結果是，什都不是，什么都不象，外行充內行?！?/span>
…I would expect the musicological ethnomusicologist to be far more preoccupied with the history of ethnomusicology than he apparently is. We badly need histories, and particularly histories of ideas, in ethnomusicology, but I do not know of any such activity. Far too few of us, for example, know what von Hornbostel really did, and I hope very much that this will become a matter of concern for ethnomusicology in the near future. I suspect that musicologists are more likely to pursue this kind of investigation than are anthropologists. 【對的】
pp. 225 – 226
l Resolution
…I would like to turn now to the possible resolution of these differences. As we stand today we are but two disciplines looking for a joint home….
I wish to suggest once again a theoretical research model which can serve our area of common concern but which has not been clearly understood; this is the model proposed four years ago in The Anthropology of Music (Merriam 1964:32-35)…I propose a model based on three analytic levels: conceptualizations about music, behavior in relation to music, and music sound itself, with the first and third levels connected to provide for the constantly changing, dynamic nature exhibited by all music systems. The sound system has structure, but it must be regarded as the product of the behavior that produces it. Behavior includes physical, social, verbal, and learning aspects, but it, in turn, arises out of the conceptualizations which underlie it…. The product, however, feeds back upon concepts, and it either reinforces or changes them in accordance with what society conceives its values about music to be. 【基本上就是“思想”（conceptualizations about music）（和“行為”（behavior in relation to music, and music sound itself）。注意：國內有人把“music sound itself”翻譯成“音聲”或“聲音”，都不對！Merriam的“music sound”，只是“音樂(lè )”。他之所以如此用，只是想表示他概念中的音樂(lè )，有狹義（音樂(lè )本身）和廣義（音樂(lè )作為文化）兩各含義。他在The Anthropology of Musicology一書(shū)的行文中更多用的只是“music”。我在“儀式中音聲”的研究所提出的“音聲”概念，完全不是Merriam的“music sound”，希望國內學(xué)者不要繼續制造兩者之間的混淆！】
I am well aware of the fact that the model has been criticized by my fellow ethnomusicologists, but the grounds for criticism do not always seem justified for me. Bruno Nettl, for example (1966), 【轉換目標，攻擊Nettl了！】 feels that I have suggested ethnomusicology must irrevocably be split into two camps, and that the musicologically oriented scholar must concentrate upon music sound while the anthropologically oriented scholar continues on his merry way of studying music as human behavior. Nothing could be further from the truth, for while music is human behavior it is also music, and the model was deliberately constructed to take both into account. I should like to quote a further passage from The Anthropology of Music which I feel has been consistently overlooked:
It should be emphasized that the parts of the model presented above are not conceived as distinct entities separable from one another on any but the theoretical level...They are presented individually here in order to emphasize the parts of the whole…. (Merriam 1964:35)
【說(shuō)是這么說(shuō)，但實(shí)際上Merriam研究本身的去向顯示了他是重兩者之其一的。就算他是抱著(zhù)三合一并重關(guān)注的“公平”態(tài)度的，但當其他人類(lèi)學(xué)偏向的美國學(xué)者在他的框架的影響下，越來(lái)越走偏去鉆音樂(lè )上下文的牛角尖的時(shí)候，他并沒(méi)出來(lái)澄清他的所謂“并重”原意。這，他是有責任的?！?/span>
p. 227
I do not see how I could state more clearly my belief that ethnomusicology is neither “the anthropology of music,” nor “the music of music” – it is both. Without “the anthropology of music,” ethnomusicology becomes simply musicology with an areal bias; without “the music of music,” ethnomusicology becomes simply the anthropology of a particular aspect of culture. 【注意：這是Merriam自己的表白！但國內仍然有以Merriam的The Anthropology of Music書(shū)名為依據，把“the anthropology of music”與“ethnomusicology”混為一談，譯成“音樂(lè )人類(lèi)學(xué)”，甚至把它鼓吹為學(xué)科！】
A second criticism of the model has been made on the ground that it is anthropological and that it relegates musicology to an inferior position – this view has been taken in a recent article by Kolinski (1967)…. Again nothing could be further from the truth; while the model was suggested by an anthropologist, and while it clearly grows out of anthropological training and interests, it considers fully the work done by what Kolinski chooses to call the “comparative musicologist.” Indeed, Kolinski's insistence on the importance of studying human physiology and its effect as a common base from which music springs for all humanity is, to make a poor joke, “music to my ears.” 【確實(shí)是一個(gè)餿笑話(huà)】My insistence, once again, is that all factors must be considered in ethnomusicology...
My view is that what we are looking for in ethnomusicology is what we are always looking for – that methodology which will give us the most substantial results in the most economical and reliable way. We wish to understand everything we can about our object of study; we know that we must bring to bear upon it every technique and every body of knowledge we can if we are to reach the broad understanding we must seek. 【說(shuō)一套做一套】
pp. 227 – 228
Perhaps you and I will never reach that understanding; perhaps some of us will always remain musicologists and some of us anthropologists, but we do have one bright hope, and that is our students… see ethnomusicology as ethnomusicology, and not as a presently existing pair of disciplines tossing darts at each other… But until we revise our own thinking we are going to continue to have two camps, each wary of the other, and not, in fact, doing ethnomusicology but musicological ethnomusicology and anthropological ethnomusicology, and this must not be what any of us seeks. 【仍是說(shuō)一套做一套。整篇文章給讀者的感受是以人類(lèi)學(xué)為重的兩分?！?/span>
順便對Merriam的理論框架做以下的分析：Merriam的理論框架實(shí)際上只是一個(gè)哲學(xué)界早就論及的“思想～行為”二元。
而Merriam的三元模式基本是人類(lèi)學(xué)的照搬：
Levels in Merriam’s Model Anthropological Correspondence
Music sound itself Material
Behavior about Music Social
(physical, social, verbal)
Conceptualization about Music Cultural or ideational aspects of human
Organization
聯(lián)系客服
