MONMahr AOL we AeA = AALS RAK) y io Maxtor Baumam Universitat 4 the world of music Corton Linds Fuije Bai ‘Book Review Editor: Jonathan Stock CD Review Editor: Janet. Sturman vol. 41(1) - 1999 Honorary Patrons: Profesor Gyirgy Ligeti and Prof. Dr. Alfred Herold Hearing and Listening in Cultural Contexts Lc Avery Bow aol Weye reno of ui aco, Ue of Banter Mat Zeck tora mans hsb, Vast a tery ad Kein, eure Departmen of nc Elecaon, Unive of ater Mine! Galtachincrer Deus of ui Econ, Uno Rekerg Mate Beker, profs of wanomeoy, Unies of Bam ‘isc etar dcr of Brin Feat eran, "rch Soskmuna, vce present fs Goan Mabe Conc ein Inemans Advisory Bout Me Uniti, oer roechasinentDepainent of Masi Unie of Spey. usin eae MeneaesBas, pte Depsanen of tpl. ard Unie ea Cts, Porpote Ba ‘Sta Chadha, Acie nd Resch Cnr Eom New Dei na Scheherazade Qui as, ctr Depress Congas Scones Pas Aor Pes Fe ‘ep Mant Pee, pres, Deparment of Msg Isat Mil Foal, C'S1C Base Spin ‘Stator etn profesor Mak: Acdcoy, Dies Llane Sneos ‘Asa Rye prof ef msc leney Cy Si Cole ey Cay USA Frac Saige pfeserDeprcnto Me Unventy efCap Cas Cpe at, Chana osc Tena potsor Deparment Mose, OcanonsesUiveniy Tae. Bel Yer potese, Downe of Man: Unvenyo Heng Kong Hen og Bonte Wade, profes Deparment ef Man Urey oCllrnia st Bee, USA Jonathan Stock Book Review Editor Janet Sturman CD Review Editor Ingres the wold of mas ole per yur) ‘een of he Deparnent of Edcmaskcloy. Univers of Bamberg Eioe Max Peter Bauan + elchent 1-908 Bante Gemasy Phone +45951-963 1953» Fx 9-051-86 1934 Ne Ea max peter bauann@® pp on-Saneg e« Web Ske: p/w ui-hanberg dhe Mo ed eee cee ee Siovmenenen Qe fr - layers ‘Subscription and advertising enquiries o be seat to the publisher io eee so ee rete eee ee lee mere ee Fae eae a usc Sieve arava eae tl ‘Alig, ncoigplotomechnial eran served IVINS MASA AY Se noo y ‘ 1 Sosa Sette Med pemeeciob a, ieee (atypia Te opinions xpresed in ths pero donot necessarily represent the views of he members fh advisory bss or of statonsinvoved (Cover Masten: sepa é VWB - Verlag fiir Wissenschaft und Bildung Berlin 1999Apiap World Hearing: On the Kamayura Phono- Auditory System and the Anthropological Concept of Culture Rafael José de Menezes Bastos Abstract ‘The Kamayurd are Tupian-Guarani and inhabit the Xingu Indian Park in Brail.Liv- ing in two villages, hey total 450 persons. This paper studies their phono-auditory stem, showing its ecological and socio-cultural importance. The system is charac- terized by high potency, economy and agi, its categories having a basically mono- lexemical constirution, directly related 10 the relevance of the sound domain for the Kamayurd. Their verbs “anup” (‘hear’) and “cak” (‘see’) are ordered accordingly 4 pattern called ‘axionomy’, being degrees of a scale of values. This ‘world hear ing'~ extremely widespread in lowland South America—is contrasted with our visual snosiology (world view), both being understood in terms of Mauss" notion of ‘body technique’. Reflexion is made on the current debate on nature and culture inthe low lands and on theory of culture. Renewed interest in the discussion of the anthropological concept of culture has re- cently emerged. One main concer of this discussion regards the creative impact that culture—understood as that universe of socially learned behavior and knowledge— has on the bio-psychological structure of Man. This discussion is a perennially con- stitutive quest of anthropology (with strong emphasis on its inaugural and critical ‘moments) and finds inthe works of Geertz (1966, 1984) some of its more recent sem- {nal expressions." Schematically, the query has divided scholars into two major parties: on the one side are those who understand culture as a kind of a cover for an essentially naked Man whose universal nature has a strictly bio-psychological constitution. Under this point of view, culture and particularly cultural diversity are perfunctory toward the definition of the state of humanity.” On the other side is the group of scholars, includ- ing Geertz himself, that envisages culture as an absolutely fundamental element of the above-mentioned state. For them, cultural diversity is irreducible and human na- ture—if it would be even possible to speak here in such terms does not exist at all, but asa virtuality of culture itself.‘Other important concems ofthis discussion on culture point to the exclusively symbolical, or nonsymbolic, nature of culture. Authors such as Geertz and Sablins tend to reduce culture to symbolic behavior and knowledge; thus for them culture is simply representation. Others argue that culture also pertains to the physical-instru- mental domain, irespective of its symbolical construction.” Particularly this point of the discussion has profound consequences for the constitution of anthropology as a science: is anthropology a comprehensive and/or an explicative endeavor (see Car- 4doso de Oliveira 1998)? During the last twenty years, the theoretical context of the anthropology of low- land South America has been marked by a profound collaboration between (to cite an outstanding scholar of the area) “structural and historical approaches, [and] by an at- tempt to go beyond monocausal explanatory models (whether naturalistic or cultur- alistc) in favor of a dialectical view of the relations between society and nature that could integrate the knowledge accumulated in the fields of human ecology, so- In an axionomy the taxonomic categories (taxa) are ordered from the view- point ofa scale of values. Thus, in a axionomy not only taxa discrimination is impor- tant but also their evaluation as grades (axia) of the referred scale of values. In the same text, [also showed that both the taxonomy in question and the correspondent axionomy were metaphorically employed among the Brazilians studied on the con: ‘ceptual level (thus pointing as well to forms of knowing). In this manner, a relation ship of similarity is designed between perception and conceptualization. Finally, 1 have suggested in 1978 and other subsequent texts that probably in many cultures the taxonomies of verbs that indicate the senses and their perceptual actions (“perceptual verbs” as, for example, ‘see’ ‘hear’ and “smell” in English) have high tendeney to be axionomically reorganized and to constitute as well gradients of verbs that point to different manners of knowing (“conceptual verbs"), more or Jess culturally privileged in terms of gnosiological jurisdiction, competence and credibility. ‘The study of the senses has a vast tradition in Western thought, being anchored in philosophy since the classics, with important developments in psychology, semiot ics, music theory, musicology, anthropology, sociology, literature and the humani- ties in general © In ethnomusicology, the subject matter is aso crucial, being one of the constitutive interests of vergleichende Musikwissenschaft, originally a compara tive psychology of music. Unfortunately, this interest was almost silenced by the positivstic, illustrative ethnological thematization of music, crystallized during the 1950s and 1960s by Merriam’s dilemmatical model of “music in culture” (Menezes Bastos 1990, 1991, 1995a, 1997). Since my frst experience with the Kamayurd in 1969, Ihave noted that their con- ception of the world would constitute a “world hearing” rather than a “world view" In their culture the amount of significant sonic messages—originating in the “hu- ‘man’, “natural” or “supernatural” spheres —is simply immense. Their living in close contact with various kinds of forest configurations is largely consistent with this. Ac- tive monitoring of their environment is chiefly of an auditory nature. Walking through the bushes and forests (where vision does not reach greater depth), usually at extraordinarily high speeds, the Kamayurs control auditory information from many different directions: ‘floor’, ‘roof (vertical, atleast four ‘walls’ or sides (left, right, frontal, back [horizontal}) and the environment at large. This control is not limited to the reception of messages. They also produce @ large numberof significant sonic mo- tions to their human companions and supervenient ‘spirits’ and virtually talk—as they said and I did not study—with the animals. “We are powerful”, “Do not be afraid”, et., the Kamayurd say, with the appropriate signals, to the surrounding ani: mals inthe forests ‘As my knowledge of the Kamayurd language improved, I was able to gain a growing perception of the richness of its phono-auditory lexical repertory, a richness ‘hich is directly proportional to the profusion of daily life conversation about sonic topics: sounds from the forests and waters, voices of animals and of mama’, ‘spit-88 + theworld of music 41 (1)-199 stu" winds in the trees singing, playing, praying, crying, and so on Inti manne Pecae cach time clearer tome that not only hearing nd producing sounds are rle- a ecaapa the Kamayara but also the continuous possibility to skilfully refer to these weons, Soon after I was also able to lear that this lexicographic repertory had 2 ‘Tominsatly monolexemical constitution, a strong evidence of its potency, economy and agility ‘Of couse, in my culture (urban Brazilian) hearing is important as well. In the ac~ tion of driving acar, for example, its relevance is vital because itis largely due tothe Sonie monitoring ofthe car and ofthe environment at large that Tam able to know Whether Iam successfully driving or not. The adequate operation of the machine is Iargely controlled by myself through its sending “good” or “bad” noises, labeled spectively ruidos (r barulhos) and grilos literally, “rickets. As far as Tknow, iis impossible to go beyond this point inthe urban Brazilian Portuguese language, ex cept by using non-stable onomatopoeias (and thus non-consensual ones) and/or polylexemical descriptions of sound categories not monolexemicelly covered. Hers Teone point I would like to raise: a culture that develops a monolexemically const- tuted, specialized lexical repertoire does so because of the social—and of course 20» Togical interest thatits members have to parsimoniously, sufficiently and elegantly ‘communicate the contents ofthe repertoire in question. "The “perceptual” senses of the Kamayur verbs anup and cak are respectively shear’ and 'see’, Metaphorically—on the “conceptual” level, anup means ‘com prehend’, ‘conceive’ of ‘understand’ and ‘obey’) and cak points to “know, ident fy’ In terms ofthis ater content, cak is a close synonym of kwahap (a nominalized ‘verbal form), The difference between the “conceptual” senses of anup and cak is milar tothe differentiation made by Bloom etal. (1972) between two forms of their taxonomy of knowledge: respectively, the knowledge of ‘comprehension’ and of ‘knowledge’ proper. The first isa form of knowing with a high level of generaliza- tion and transference (and, forthe Kamayurd, wth a strong characteristic of intersub jetty), the second indicating empirical knowledge, tis being forthe Kamayurs typically subjective and even anti-social “There is much evidence to reinforce the idea that the Kamayuird verbs referred to here work axionomically, anup being the first axia ofthe correspondent scale of val- tues. First of all it is important to consider the Kamayurd self-attributed ethnony: “Apap tis very dificult oetymologically analyze this ethnonyr, Bu most probe bly it drives from the root -pi. This root means simultaneously “blow” (into thes) (this being cetinly the universal Kamayurd verb for ‘playing arophones’ {withthe exemption of the bullroarer]) and ‘hear’ (the resulting sounds). 8 The suffix -ap isa simple nominalizer (as in kwahap, above), the prefix a- being difficult to decipher is possibly amarker ofthe ist person singular. So probably Apiap—also a rominal ized verbal form—points to the sense of “I [7)) who blows and hears (aerophones)" Tote that this etymology has a profound “emic” signification for the Kamayur. "A second piece of evidence ean be taken from analyzing the eategory nanwyite. Exymologically, this negative form means “(hose) who are not able to hear’, or “dea. tis interesting to note that between 1969 and 1997 —the dates of my fis rece rans ta tome os te ee fa 5 he catty among them (though one ‘blind’ person, who was unable to see from one eye). Re- gang this itis wor ing within te pyctlogy of ean he eve on sensu on the statement that hearing disabilities present bly greater “handi- Teg aE Fc ca Fah ene Ba egg ito learning” (Garry & Kingsley 1970:166-67). 'As there are no deaf persons amongst the Kamayrur4, the word nanteite is eur rently used only on the “conceptual” level to indicate a traly stigmatized identity Such individuals are judged as being anti-social due to their severe inadequacies in terms of the Kamayur form of being. As adults they are single and without descent: they do not cultivate gardens or build canoes or ather important ites of material cul- ture; they are not musicians (or even apprentices) or speakers; and they do not take part in rituals. To sum up, the nanuwite are ambiguously children in adult bodies they do not anup comprehend’ “understand, ‘conceive’ ‘obey’, follow’) what it is tobe a complete or mature Kamayurs 'A third piece of evidence supporting the statement thatthe Kamayurd verbs - ferred to here ean work axionomically comes from the complex of “sacred lates that are so widespread in the lowlands as well as in other regions of the world (c. New Guines), Among the Kamayurs, these aerophones (not onl ofthe ‘ute ype, but also ‘trumpets’, ‘clarinets’ and even “bullroarers’) are exclusively played by males. Women are systematically prohibited not only from playing them but also from seeing them (and, if caught, are usually punished), though they are allowed to hear them played. Here we must acknowledge that any serious approach to this group ‘must be founded on a comprehension oftheir basic distinction between these two forms of knowing that the verbs in discussion point to. Leaving a fuller treatment of this issue for other writings, [ would like to briefly suggest here that, forthe Xinguano and particularly for the Kamayurd, females ee- ing aerophones and/or their players makes it possible for them to “identify” (cak)par- ticular men, These men ae a that ime ina state of suspension due to the symbolical menstruation that this playing represents for them. Ths identification is absolutely disruptive as far as the Kamayuré form of being is concerned, as itis prokibited among them to let the women know, though words or other means, who specially is playing the aerophones. The women, through hearing, mast amu comprehend’ ‘obey’) that men are playing in the men's house andor in the cenral plaza of the vi- lage. It is adequate that they hear the music being played, a music that they them. selves can sing, typically as vocal transpositions, in their exclusively female reper- toite ‘Tha, ‘any sound! is generated when any two things come into contact with a min- mum of foree. When itis created, it walks through the air (a well as through the wa- terand ground), reaching the yapi, ear(s) [internal], through the nami, ears’ laps) and the yapiaikwar, ‘auditory canal’. For the Kamayurs it isthe yap which hears ‘hu, this organ being taken by them asa privileged place in mind, central in terms ofnot only hearing but also thinking. Note that for the Kamayurs thinking is something audible, one of the main skills of a good shaman being exactly that of hearing thoughts ‘So thu is the unique beginner of the Kamayurd sound domain, including any and all kinds of sound motions. The form though is also used on a second level of contrast to.construet the opposition with ye eng, ‘linguagic sound’, and tu, this form now be~ ing understood as any and all Kinds of sounds one could roughly translate as “nois- ce! Here I will represent the levels of contrast of categories by applying numeral indexes to them (€. hu, iu, ee). Ye'engs, linguagic sound’, i ereated when the air coming from the lungs reaches the idwat, ‘throat’, and comes in contact with the ye’engarirup, ‘vocal strings’, gen- crating ye"engs, ‘Voice(s)’, typically of animals. Inthe case of humans, birds and any kind of ‘spirits’, ye'engs (‘voice’) can be transformed into ye'enga, ‘linguistic sound’, or maraka, ‘music’. This is done when ye'engs is send to the mouth and is ‘awikite, ‘articulated’, by the tongue. The difference between ‘voice’ and ‘linguis- tic sound’ or ‘music’ marks the difference between the states of naturalness and hu- ‘manity/divinity amongst the Kamayuré: the first does not depend on the existence of thinking and the will to communicate, traits which for the Indians are present only in ‘humans, birds and ‘spirits’ This theory can be summarized by the following tee: hu (‘any sound’) a itu Cany noise’) ye’engy Clinguagic sound’) cae ye'eng, (‘linguistic sound’) maraka (‘musical sound’) “The ihu sub-domain embraces that which one could call the Kamayuré “auditive spectrum”, including an extremely rich universe of sound categories with, as men~ tioned above, a predominantly monolexemical constitution. These categories are constructed through an analytical matrix formed by the following dimensions and sub-dimensions: ‘4. extension: sounds are thought to have a volumetrical extension, being three di- ‘mensional and not linear (*high"/“low"), as among us. They are understood as ab- solutely material (‘things’). b. force: the amount of energy used when things that generate sounds make contact origin: the distinctive characteristics of such sound: generating things and of ac tions of sound generation. Tis dimension supposes thee sub-dimensions: ce. processes of sound generation: the ways (actions) in which contact between things generates sounds ‘¢2. consistency: the resistance ofthe resulting sounds. ‘€3. density: the amount of unitary sounds per sound motion. All the above dimensions and sub-dimensions, with the exemption of ¢.1, are ‘worked out through pairs of opposites and an intermediary (‘medium’) term. (When necessary, the pairs are suffixed or prefixed in order to make possible more complex comparisons.) Thus, extension is analyzed through the opposition ‘large’/'small’; force in terms of ‘strong'/"weak’; consistency through “hard''soft’; and density through ‘concentrated’/‘diffuse’. C.1 is constructed through a large set of verbs such as, for example, ‘crease’, ‘scratch’, ‘drag’, ‘beat’, ‘ratle’ ‘spin,’ and many others ‘The sound categories are established through the exclusive combination of values of these dimensions and sub-dimensions. So, for instance, the category ipang is defined as aihuy which is ‘small’, ‘weak’ or ‘strong’, ‘hard’, ‘concentrated’ and is derived from ‘beating’. atak, on the other hand, is ‘large’, ‘weak’, ‘hard’, and ‘diffuse* and is generated from ‘scraping’ ‘Though I am very far from having a comprehensive knowledge of ll the intrica- cies ofthis system of identification, classification and terminology, Iam sure thatthe Kamayurd do not have difficulties communicating elegantly, parsimoniously and sufficiently the sound phenomena of their world. In the Book of Exodus, the first revelation of God to Moses is received by means ‘of Moses’ hearing His voice (3:4ff). One should note that Moses intentionally does not look at God, Fearing to do so in this episode (3:6). In the Septuagint, the famous Greek translation of the Bible carried out by the Alexandrian in the third century B.C. this hearing experience, originally in Hebrew, is transformed into a visual one, so that Moses comes to “see” God’s voice.'! For the Grecks this is not simply an ab surd thought, as for them even the word for ‘idea’ appears to come from a root that ‘means ‘to see’ (ibid) Certainly, this Westem visual gnosiological passion—consideration of which ccan show how the Allegory of the Cave is much more than an episode in a book of philosophy, even if its author is Plato—does not imply that in the West hearing (as ‘well as smelling, touching, and tasting) is not important. OF course, Westerners are also Homo sapiens sapiens. What I would like to point out is that seeing in our cul ture is the privileged sense on gnosiological and cognitive grounds, the closest to the ideal (‘visual’) form of perceiving and knowing and the central sensory channel in terms of the training of the human bio-psychological structure, To recall Mauss— (1974 [1936)), seeing for Westerners is the privileged instrument of body technique as far as the senses are concerned. FFor the Kamayurd things work differently, as Ihave tried to show since 1978. For them, as well as for the Xinguano and other groups of lowland South America—but presumably not only there —hearing seems to supersede seeing as the first axi ofthe faxionomy of the senses, as the instrument par excellence of sensorial body tech- nique." I would even suggest—based on my studies about music in the region (see specifically Menezes Bastos 1998:15-21)—that hearing constitutes the pivotal sen- sory channel, a translating machine from visuality into tactility and vice versa. “To retum to the first topic of this paper—regarding the creative impact of culture on the bio-psychological structure of Man—I would like to emphasize that Man is not only an intelligent machine, but also a learning (and teaching) one. His body. his ‘most essential nature in bio-psychological terms, is thus atthe same time his first cul- tural instrument (as Mauss has showed since the 1930s), his primordial locus of cul- ture creation, I is within this point of view that culture is not only of a sym-bolical nature (one of the fundamental pieces of Geertz’s rhetoric), but also is dia-botical Notes 1 Sce Suhlins 1997a and 1997 for an up-to-date treatment ofthis question, including its ethical and political implications. Werer(1997:159-73) offers an analysis ofthe concept on episte- ‘mological grounds using a clearly Darwinist position. 2 See Harris 1989 for a strong example ofthis understanding culture as simply a “response” to ‘adaptive constraint. 3 The above-cited text by Werner (1997) is an important example of this tendency. 4) The Kamayuré pertain to the Xinguano area, They live in two villages inthe Xingu Indian ‘Park inthe north of the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso. See Basso 1973 and Gregor 1977 for ‘asic studies on other Xinguano groups (the Kslapélo and Mehindku, respectively). About the area in general, see the cited works by Gregor and Basso and my text of 1995p. On the spe- cifle topic ofthis paper, see Menezes Basis 1978, 1986, 1986b, 1988, 1990 and 1992. The ‘resent paper is largely based on my text of 1978 and others. From the Greek “axios ‘worthy’ +“nomy", ‘organization’. See Classen 1993 fora rcent study of the question. Zuckerkandl (1956) offers an excellent treatment oft as far asthe musical phono-auditor univers is concerned. This latter work is the basis of my own work and ofthe superb contribution by Basso (se 1985). 7) The diference in content can be illustrated by the following skis: “multiply any whole num- ber by itself” Ccomprehendy"muliply 5 by 7° know’), The J€-speaking Suyé make ast lar differentiation berween ‘hear’ and ‘see’ (Seeger 1973). 8 nthis manner pais verb of medium voice (as, for example, the French apprendre), indicat- ing at the same time the action and passion of musical blowing. See Beaudet 1997 for an important study of a close “workd heaving”, that is that of the Tupian-Guarani Wayapi of French Guyana 9 I have examined this Kamayurd complex of aerophones in the following. publications 1978:171-77, 1979, 1989:396-97, 1990 (passim) and 1999 (in prep.) Actually, inthe Xin- guano and particularly Kamayurd cases, the complex is established as an ego-centred kinship ‘group (kindred) whose ego is te yoku' lute. See Hugh-fones 1979 and Piedade 1997 for its Appearance in the northwestem Amazonian area and Murphy 1958 for a classic study of i ‘amongst the Mundurucu. In New Guinea, whose literature about this topic is extremely cop ‘us, se Herdt 1981 and Herth, ed. 1982. At some point ethnographers working on this topic (and similar ones) must comprehend—as their natives and of coarse audiences of the Magic ‘Flute —that ‘flutes’ are not ‘clarinets, which are not ‘trumpets’ or “bullroarers' and that all of them ae “aerophones’) 10 The neologism ‘linguagic’ is used here as an adjective to include all sound languages, not only spoken languages (Le, linguistic’) 11. For this passage onthe Septuagint, see Rahs 1935, vol 187. 12 For the other Xinguano, see Basso 1985 on the Kalapilo, For non-Xinguano refer to Seeger 1975, 1987 [Suya], Hill 1993:214, [Wakvéna), and Olsen 1996:404tf, (Warao]. The com- plete list of such references is quite extensive, which should not imply thatthe emphasis on hearing applies to all Amerindian societies. See Gow 1988 and Lagrou 199 and 1998 for ‘Studies about Western Amazonian Indian Societies, where visuality seems to be absolutely central References Basso, Ellen 1973. The Kalapalo Indians of Central Brazil. New York: Hot. 1985 A Musical View of the Universe: Kalapalo Myth and Ritual Performances. Philadel pia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Beaudet, Jean-Michel 1997 Souflesd’Amaconie: Les Orchestres “Tule” des Waydpi. Nanterre: Société” Ethnol- otic. Bloom, B.S.,etal 1972. Taxonomia de Objtivos Educacionais, Dominio Cognitiv. Porto Alegre: Globo. Cardoso de Oliveira, Roberto. 1998 “O Lugar— em Lugar—do Método.” In O Trabalho do Antropdtogo, R. Cardoso de Oliveira, ed. BrasfaSo Paulo: Prallo 1S/Edunesp, 73-98. Camero da Cush, Manuela 1978 OsMortos¢ os Outros. Sio Paul: Hucites. CCarmeiro da Cunha, Manuela, ed 1992. Histéria dos Indios no Brasil. Sio Paulo: Compania das Letras/PAPESP. (Classen, Constance 1993, Worlds of Sense: Exploring the Senses in History and Across Cultures. London, ROU- ledge, 1993, Descola,P. 1992 “Societies of Nature and the Nature of Society.” In Conceptuatizing Sociery. A. Kupe, ced, London/New York: Routledge, 107-26.