My undergraduate education was focused in Anthropology. Anthro has it’s own long, unique history of abusive practice, of taking cultural artifacts and using them as display tools, entertainment, or proof of the superiority of certain cultures. This project reminded me of a lot of what I saw in my undergraduate career, of the ways that researchers often don’t think of the full political implications of their work. And, of how they’re reproducing certain structures by moving to the world of the digital. I think this exemplifies how the digital, branded as new and transformative, can also play into these methods of imperialism, and create elite communities for cultural viewing.
The presenter at Virtual Musical Instruments began talking about the “African thumb piano”, which he later admitted was not was not what it was supposed to be called. If I’m asked not to reproduce colonialist monikers for someone else’s creative property, I try to listen, especially if I’m in charge of a project which will categorize said tools. I looked online, and two names I have found for this instrument are the Kalimba and the Mbira. After hearing this statement, I started to think about the different ways this project was taking cultural property and transferring it to a digital sphere, where it would be separated from its context and larger social role. And, where it would be readily accessible to a specific audience.
I took a “Musical Migrations” class in undergrad, and a lot of this project troubled me in terms of music as a construct. It’s one thing to be interested in the physicality of an instrument: how it works and how it makes music. But, you can’t separate that from the cultural space which these instruments inhabit, and the dynamics of their continued existence in a colonial history. Music is more than just the tools. These instruments might be inextricably connected to different religious rites, community practice, the people who work to continue on the traditions musical instruments are indelibly tied to. When you put it in a computerized database, who is that really for? Are people whose cultural property this instrument belong to going to be able to use it, or even want to use it? Will they profit from it? Take part in its construction and portrayal? How are you serving those peoples from whom you take creative tools?
I think the arbitrators of this project need to think about the ethical implications of their database. What is knowledge for the sake of gathering knowledge? Who does that benefit? Imperialist cultures gather knowledge as cultural collateral, to appropriate the advancements of certain peoples and take them under their domain. I don’t think the persons in charge of this database can ignore that history, which categorizes their practice.
