The musicologist Javier Rivas talks about the still prevalent notion of musicology being separate from politics and society, of being both essentialist and depolitical.1 ‘L’art pour l’art’, the idea of art being ‘outside’ of history is popular not only with modernists but serves an ideological function of separating art music from populist programmatic and entertainment music. L’art pour l’art might be an attractive and safe place to be in – free of responsibilities - but it is also a space without connections. There is a danger of hermetic self-reference and a neglect of the social and ecological aspects of music.2 In such an environment, knowledge can in some sense seen to be ‘disembodied’ – that is, not situated.
This issue is amplified in an environment where academic staff may present themselves as ‘objective’. However, as human beings, we are not infallible and are likely to carry some form of unconscious bias. So where does this leave the idea of objectivity?
Feminist objectivity
Donna Haraway suggests that ‘feminist objectivity means quite simply situated knowledges,’ and argues for a ‘doctrine and practice of objectivity that privileges contestation, deconstruction, passionate construction, webbed connections, and hope for transformation of systems of knowledge and ways of seeing’.3 Situated knowledges are for her not only concerned with recognising the significance of social and/or geographical locations but associated with specific relational entanglements. Furthermore, this knowledge is embodied, ‘always a complex, contradictory, structuring and structured body, versus the view from above, from nowhere, from simplicity.’4
If we acknowledge the intra-action between the how, why, where and what we do, then we create space for ideas to influence each other. In aspiring towards an environment where knowledge is situated and embodied it is essential to consider how we can teach the curriculum.