Challenge Question: Response

Response to Bryan's post.

I agree that assuming both the roles of an insider and outsider is completely outside the realm of a polyphonic discourse. It also lies outside the spectrum of experiential and interpretive ethnographies - as it is clearly a different method of study. However I disagree that Nettl's technique is an improvement on an experiential discourse. I believe it is somewhat deceptive to fabricate the "alien" musicologist in order to create this outsider's perspective. The fact of the matter is that Nettl is an insider to the heartland music tradition, and creating an entirely different persona does not allow him to jettison his point of view. However, an alternative point of view doesn't need to be fabricated. Nettl could have used real experiences that are separate from his teaching at American universities for comparison. Nettl was born in Czechoslovakia, which he could leverage as the point of view as an 'outsider'. In my opinion an internal dialogue between existing personalities with different points of view is preferable to an attempt to assume the role of a blank slate.

This insider's ethnography is no more informative, and no less informative, it is merely a different flavor. There are valuable elements of this ethnography that could have only come from an insider, however an outsider's experiential discourse may reveal much more that an insider takes for granted or never considered. It wouldn't necessarily be better if a member of an East African Kwaya wrote a about their experience. In fact, this point of view may be more difficult to interpret as an outsider, as there may be some cultural practices or even vocabulary that an outsider is not familiar with. An outsider's discourse would be more appropriate for an outsider to read.