Music--Cognition--Culture--and-Evolution

28Music,Cognition,Culture,andEvolutionIANCROSSFacultyofMusic,UniversityofCambridge,CambridgeCB39DP,UnitedKingdomABSTRACT:Weseemabletodefinethebiologicalfoundationsforourmusicalitywithinaclearandunitaryframework,yetmusicitselfdoesnotappearsoclear-lydefinable.Musicisdifferentthingsanddoesdifferentthingsindifferentcul-tures;thebundlesofelementsandfunctionsthataremusicforanygivenculturemayoverlapminimallywiththoseofanotherculture,evenforthosecultureswhere“music”constitutesadiscreteandidentifiablecategoryofhu-manactivityinitsownright.Thedynamicsofculture,ofmusicasculturalpraxis,areneithernecessarilyreducible,noreasilyrelatable,tothedynamicsofourbiologies.Yetmusicappearstobeauniversalhumancompetence.Recentevolutionarytheory,however,affordsameansforexploringthingsbio-logicalandculturalwithinaframeworkinwhichtheyareatleastcommensu-rable.Theadoptionofthisperspectiveshiftsthefocusofthesearchforthefoundationsofmusicawayfromthematureandparticularexpressionofmusicwithinaspecificcultureorsituationandontothehumancapacityformusical-ity.Thispaperwillsurveyrecentresearchthatexaminesthatcapacityanditsevolutionaryoriginsinthelightofadefinitionofmusicthatembracesmusic’smultifariousness.Itwillbesuggestedthatmusic,likespeech,isaproductofbothourbiologiesandoursocialinteractions;thatmusicisanecessaryandin-tegraldimensionofhumandevelopment;andthatmusicmayhaveplayedacentralroleintheevolutionofthemodernhumanmind.KEYWORDS:Music;Cognition;Culture;EvolutionWecanexpressourunderstandingofbiologywithinaframeworkthatenablesustorelateit,ifnotreduceit,toourunderstandingoftheworldinphysicalandmaterialterms.Biologicalandphysicalunderstandingsoftheworldarecommensurable,inatleastoneofthesensesthatLakoff1(p.322)proposes.Anunderstandingofour-selvesasbiologicalbeingsappearstobeanunderstandingof“naturalkinds.”aButAddressforcorrespondence:IanCross,FacultyofMusic,UniversityofCambridge,WestRoad,CambridgeCB39DP,UK.Voice:+44(0)[e-mail]ideathatthereare“naturalkinds,”thatscienceprovidesanaccountoftheessencesofthingsintheworld.Theterm“naturalkind”isusedheresimplyasaconcisewayofreferringtotheobjectsofscientificdiscourse.AsRose45(p.42)pointsout,evenaconceptasseemingly“natural”andunambiguousasaproteinissusceptibletomultipleanddifferinglevelsofdefinitionthataredependenton“thepurposesforwhichweneedtomakethedefinition.”Thereisanincontestablysocietaldimensiontothemakeupofwhatistakentoconstitutescienceatanytime.Thenotion,however,thatscientificproceduresandunderstandingsaresimplyvari-etiesofsocialpracticedefinablebytheirparticularvocabularies46orbytheirpovertyandabstraction47isinsufficienttoaccountfortheinstrumentalityofthoseproceduresandforthecommensurabilityoftheunderstandingsthattheyafford.29CROSS:MUSIC,COGNITION,CULTURE,ANDEVOLUTIONismusicanaturalkind,comprehensiblewithinthegeneralizedframeworkthatisscience?Manyarguethatmusicisnotanaturalkind.Indeed,followingaconventionaldic-tionarydefinitionofmusic—“Theartofcombiningsoundsofvoicesorinstrumentstoachievebeautyofformandexpressionofemotion”—itwouldbedifficulttodoso.Theconsensualviewfromwithinthehumanitiesappearstobethatmusiciscul-turalratherthannatural;musicisviewedasconstitutedofpractices,concepts,andperceptionsthataregroundedinparticularsocialinteractionsandconstructions.Molino2(p.169),inquestioningthestatusofmusicasanaturalkind,proposesthat“Nothingguaranteesthatalltheformsofhumanmusiccontainanucleusofcommonpropertiesthatwouldbeinvariantsincetheoriginationofmusic.”AsGeertz3(p.5)putit,inpromotingasemioticandinterpretiveapproachtoculture,“manisananimalsuspendedinwebsofsignificancehehimselfhasspun,”andwithinGeertz’shumanocentricwebofculturethereislittleroomforthe“natu-ral.”ForTreitler4(p.203),“Meaninginmusicisafunctionoftheengagementofcodesorordersbythenote-complexesofwhichthemusicaleventiscomprised,”andmusicalphenomenaarethus“intelligibleonlyinthelightofaninterpretationwhichintuitsthepurposeorintentionthattheyembody.”Tomlinson,incitingmusicologiststoembraceGeertz’sconceptofculture,makesexplicittheideathatscientificgener-alizationisincompatiblewithmusicologicalmethod;heasserts5(p.352)thatthees-senceofcultural—andhencemusicological—explanationis“nottocodifyabstractregularitiesbuttomakethickdescriptionpossible,nottogeneralizeacrosscasesbuttogeneralizewithinthem.”Indeed,Abbate6hassuggested(p.xv)that“Thereisnoth-ingimmanentinamusicalwork(beyondthematerialrealityofitswrittenandsonictraces)andourperceptionsofforms,configurations,meanings,gesturesandsymbolsarealwaysmediatedbyverbalformulas,asonabroaderscalebyideologyandcul-ture.”AndGarnett7proposesthat“thereis…noextra-culturallocusfromwhichtoobservemusic,norextra-culturalmeaningtoobserve.”Musicisseenastheexpres-sionofdiscrete,contingent,sociallyconditionedfactorsinrespectofwhichagener-alizable—andhencescientific—accountisneitherrelevantnorpossible.Suchanapproachtounderstandingmusicappearsjustifiedinviewoftheheter-ogeneityofformsthatmusiccantake.What“nucleusofcommonproperties”other,perhaps,thantheveryconceptofthemusicalwork8underlie