INSULTS, EGOS AND AGENDAS

Notes on a Debate About Music Research on the Internet

KARL NEUENFELDT

"This Neuenfeldt fella sounds like a real dick head! ... My words are my property."

"Almost everything about this makes me ill. To whom do I post my official complaint?

"For those who feel strongly offended by the book ... there is a remedy ... don't buy it ... don't even mention it in passing."

We, as a group, operate as if it is fair for us to examine and critique Aboriginal didjeridu, culture, recordings, artists, and even Aboriginal people. Who gets to critique 'us '?

(Quotations from the 'Didjeridu Book Debate' on the Internet mailings list didjeridu@eartha.mills.edu )

INTRODUCTION

Recently I edited the anthology The Didjeridu: From Arnhem Land to Internet (1997). The book, the first of its kind on the didjeridu, is intended for a non­specialist readership with various interests that include the instrument itself; the incorporation of indigenous instruments into contemporary music; and the impact of cultural politics on performance and performers. It has twelve chapters by Aboriginal and non­Aboriginal writers on the didjeridu's socio­cultural, economic and musical functions and uses, primarily in Australia. It also has two short chapters I edited which contain 'threads' (focused exchanges) taken from a worldwide discussion group of didjeridu enthusiasts (didjeridu@eartha.mills.edu) linked together by the Intemet. Such a mailing list allows list­members to publicly read and reply to each other's postings.

The threads in the book focus on two topics ('The Issue of Gender' and 'Notions of Authenticity') and are intended to show how the didjeridu has moved out of traditional Aboriginal cultural practice into the global cultural economy and cyberspace; and how information about the didjeridu and about Aborigines circulates in a discourse constructed on the Intemet. To me, the quotations used in the threads and the editorial comments on the nature of the didjeridu discourse are interesting but non­controversial, and the original postings in their entirety are readily available on the Internet in the discussion group's archives.)

1. THE CONTROVERSY

The book has been generally well received, especially by indigenous people and media (and luckily also by retailers and consumers). When compiling the book care was taken to include Aboriginal perspectives, not out of a sense of obligation or sycophancy but because Aborigines have a signficant claim to the instrument (directly or indirectly) and Aboriginal musicians are some of the finest didjeriduists in the world. However, controversy has arisen from an unlikely quarter. I say an unlikely quarter because the controversy has nothing directly to do with the didjeridu and only tangentially to do with Australian cultural politics. It is in the latter area particularly that one would expect controversy to arise because of the prominence of cultural politics in current debates within Australia concerning contentious race­based issues such as social justice, land rights and cultural copyright.

What has happened in the 'Didjeridu book debate' is that some members of the Intemet discussion group have taken offense (of varying degrees) over being quoted in the book and commented on generally in the analysis. They had made public postings, perhaps unaware or not caring that such forms of publication are generally considered to be in the public domain. Therefore the postings are available to researchers, similar to letters­to­the­editor in newspapers or letters­of­reply in academic journals, as long as they constitute 'fair use' (e.g. research purposes). The question of what would constitute 'unfair use' of postings on the Internet is unclear, given that there is always a lag between new technologies and restrictive regulations. At one level, the controversy involves conflicting interpretations about doing research on the Intemet. This is especially so when general comments by a researcher about a discourse are mistakenly taken as specific criticisms about individuals. At another, and perhaps more intriguing level, it also involves three common ingredients of interpersonal communication found in many sites of social interaction, be they 'virtual" or 'real'. The ingredients are insults, egos and agendas. The debate contained examples of all three, in an engaging, and at times bizarre and acrimonious, blend.

In order to make my own agenda as transparent as possible (and thus my ego involvement) my intention here is to describe and analyse the debate as an instructive case study of how discourse is constructed, how misrepresentation and misinterpretation circulates, and how the Internet as a research site provides both opportunities and challenges for researchers. Hopefully, I can do so without insulting anyone. The underlying question is: Was the controversy sparked by the quoting of the list­members in the book without their permission? Or was it because they perceived they were portrayed in an unflattering light, i.e. not quite as knowledgeable as they believed themselves to be? For example, my editorial comments in one thread pointed out that the words Aborigine(s) and Aboriginal are commonly capitalised in Australian usage. However, on the Internet they may not be capitalised, which is understandable given that the list­members are from all over the world and the term "aboriginal" has different national connotations. But rather than being taken on board as an observation arising out of the Australian cultural context, my editorial comments were misinterpreted as being disparaging. A curious reaction was to suggest they were an example of "political correctness" rather than the kind of information the discussion group had been ostensibly established to share.

2. METHODOLOGY

In recounting and summarising the debate I make no presence of  "objectivity". After all, being called a "dickhead", a "peeping tom", and a "publishing whore", and being accused of"unethical" research and "anal" analysis, all in a public forum, is a bit bothersome. It was suggested I might be "an academic", possibly even "an anthropologist", which in the contexts in which they appeared did not seem to be terms of endearment. I also make no use of anyone's "real" name here because, in this instance, I have no wish to personalise the insults of people whom I do not know and conversely who do not know me. Consequently, what I will do is refer to all the contributors to the debate by the generic term 'list­member', in the sense of undifferentiated individuals interacting in a discussion group on the Internet; in this instance, individuals who produce a collective discourse which they think they are separate from but which researchers treat as a discursive entity. The use of a generic term is also appropriate because a reality of Internet use and research (musical or otherwise) is that those encountered solely on the Internet only exist as Internet addresses. They are 'virtual' people unless proven otherwise by 'real' socialinteraction unmediated by the Internet. Perhaps because of a sense of pseudo­anonymity and temporal and spatial detachment, Internet users may have less inclination to temper what they say or how they say it.

What muddled the debate and made it quite curious, and thus more interesting as research data, was that some list­members had not bothered to actually read either the book or the supposedly offending passages in context before commenting. Some also suggested they would never read the book and yet wanted to know to whom they could complain. Such comments struck me as peculiar (and inconsistent) coming from enthusiasts supposedly eager for information, especially given that the whole literature on the didjeridu (to the best of my knowledge) amounts to one other book, some brief instructional manuals and videos, and perhaps a dozen articles and book chapters. But then again, the chance to encounter the peculiar is part of the fascination of the Internet, for both users and researchers. A series of misreadings, distortions, and accusations was set in train which personalised an otherwise impersonalised situation.

3. THE CONTENT AND TRAJECTORY OF THE DEBATE

The didjeridu book debate was publicly instigated by a list-member interested specifically in the social interaction of affinity groups mediated by the Internet, a student researching how virtual communities of music enthusiasts can become real communities. I had previously had some contact with him; had sent him a packet of articles I send to anyone wanting in formation about the didjeridu, and had actually approached him to write a chapter for the book. Given his research topic, it struck me immediately that encouraging postings that then become part of a research data base was hardly a disinterested agenda. Encouraging what turned out to be a potentially defamatory postings also struck me as atypical ( and potentially unethical) agenda for an academic. Be that as it may, the debate the list-member instigated took on a life of its own for about two weeks, with repercussions resurfacing in public and private postings for months.

The reaction was rapid. the last pump-priming posting had been at 5:25 PM and by 7:40 PM I had been branded a "dickhead" by a list-member who had not been quoted in the threads and had not read any of the book. Within an hour a posting arrived from another list-member who said he felt that when something is published in a public forum it becomes public domain. These two early responses established the general boundaries of the reactions that followed. For several weeks list-members located themselves at different and quite specific points along a continuum.

There were those who felt the debate was a major issue, that they had been defiled, their Internet innocence betrayed, There were those(some with legal expertise) who felt that the copyright question (at least) was a non-issue, that anyone who posted to a public forum was naive in the extreme to think they could not, would not, or should not be quoted. Others had a mixed reaction, agreeing with or commenting on various aspects of the initial opinions. For example, some felt that although quoting without express permission was legal it might not be ethical, while others acknowledged that the ethics of Intemet research (versus its legality) were either unresolved or uncodified. Still others feared that some list­members might not contribute any more, afraid they might be quoted later.

A critical point mentioned by several list­members was that the first step in an informed (versus uninformed) debate was to actually read the allegedly offensive material and then comment. Without such a basic starting point, the debate could only operate in a vacuum. It became more about personalities and perceptions of process rather than the end product. How could it be about the book if most had not read it? After more postings, consensus was not forthcoming, but why should it be? Why should virtual communities be any less quarrelsome or less prepared to act on incomplete or erroneous information than real ones? They both deal in the actualities of social interaction and interpersonal communication, and the unpredictable interplay of personalities.

The didjeridu itself all but disappeared from the debate's postings. It was as if it was immaterial to what seemed to be the real matter at hand: using the Internet to globally broadcast private opinions for public consumption surely an ego intensive agenda, with or without the insults. However, contrary to the erroneous assumptions underlying some postings during the debate, I had wrestled with the practical and ethical issues of Internet research.

4. SOME CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT RESEARCHING ON THE INTERNET

I will take the liberty here to reproduce an extract from an article I published recently about doing research on the Internet because it provides a brief overview and addresses the very issues raised in the debate.

"The Internet (literally, an "inter connected network") is a technologically facilitated site of computer mediated and enhanced communication and interaction ... it offers instantaneous and global access to millions of people, groups, businesses, private institutions and government agencies ... As a research site, the Internet offers both opportunities and challenges. For researchers in the arts and humanities it presents an opportunity to access a broad and ever­increasing range of information sources to facilitate a heretofore unattainable breadth and depth of data. For researchers in the social sciences and cultural studies, such as ethnographers, it presents a surfeit of potential inform ants, as well as yet another challenge in the on­going quest to come to grips with the collaborative, reflexive and contested nature of [academic] research."

"As a research environment, the Internet has potential as a means for researchers to experiment, reach new audiences and revolutionise the way data is gathered. While it presents the opportunity to transcend instantaneously the local and access the national and the international there remains the challenge to deal with critical issues common to all qualitative (and quantitative researchers. Ethical disjunctures and dilemmas are probably the most contentious aspect of Internet­based research. Some are commonplace to qualitative research, but some [are] particular to the Internet ..."

"Perhaps the most problematic ethical issues are deciding [1] whether, data is public or private ... and [2] dealing with matters of identity and by extension authenticity. I found it hard to consider data private given the context and manner of its global dissemination, and I felt no compunction to shield the identity of informants. I deemed it to be in the public domain and treated it accordingly, although not without misgivings ... The fact that Internet research is not face­to­face, but rather place­to­place or space­to­space, also raises the vexing ethical problem of making judgements on the authenticity of the sources and therefore the data itself ..."

" Regardless of the methodological and ethical dilemmas that arise, what comes across most clearly is that [research on and Via the Internet] can help reveal [its] complexity and ... in particular the meaningful relationships that inform the humanscape of cyberspace and cyberculture. In that sense [it is] an effective means to an end. The process of arriving at a somewhat problematic product is also valuable because it reinforces the notions that humanistic, qualitative research is inherently collaborative, and fraught with the dilemmas that inform day­to­day communication." (1996: 292 ­ 294)

What the above extract points out is that the kind of research dilemmas that inform Internet research are not extraordinary, although the issues of copyright and authenticity are noteworthy. However, at some point a researcher must make decisions. In the case of the didjeridu book, I decided that public postings to a discussion group are in the public domain in contrast to private postings, which would fall into another category (and possibly entail other legal and ethical considerations). I also decided that people were who they said they were. That some of the list­members reacted negatively to being quoted is a hazard of any research project, although this is balanced by the insightful observations of others. That some chose to counter imagined injury with uninformed insult is but another hazard (and an interesting research topic on its own).

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Although admittedly subjective, this article has not been intended as a diatribe, a self­serving rationalisation or a mea culpa, although it is only human to feel all those urges when replying to one's critics. Peer review is part of the process of academic writing and publishing and usually is beneficial. One expects criticism when writing in a public medium but at least there is the expectation that the critic has read what was written.

To be honest I have to say the didjeridu book debate has made me reflect in depth on doing music research on the Internet. However, the controversy has been of benefit. It has brought out in the open in at least one forum (and now another) the nature of the Internet as a site of discourse construction and social interaction, and the complexity of the research opportunities and challenges it offers. It also has out in the open how discussion group discourses on the Intemet can be appreciated as variations on the childhood game of "whispers". In this game, the first person whispers a statement to the next person who in turn whispers it to the next and so on, each person whispering it only once. Finally the last person speaks the statement aloud as they have received it. At this point the children usually dissolve into laughter at the absurdity of it all because only a few recognisable elements survive but are so out of context as to distort the meaning of the original statement. Although a somewhat similar situation, laughter as a resolution was not forthcoming with the 'Didjeridu book debate' on the Internet, if any resolution is ever possible given the nature of the medium and the messages it carries.2 The original statement (the book) and its context all but disappeared from the discussion and all that could follow were misrepresentations and misinterpretations, a situation analogous to how musical sounds are split from their sources and are incorporated into "escalating cycles of distorted mutuality between local and global practices" (Feld, 1992: 176).3

It is important to note that the didjeridu book debate is not the only controversy to arise among the list­members. Others have focused on issues such as: should there be "taboo subjects"; how to deal with accusations or actual instances of racism; what is an acceptable level of advertising; who has "authority" to speak for Aboriginal Australians; whether it is acceptable to publicly re­post private message' without permission; and, whether the dedication on a CD of list­members' performances ("With Profound Respect and Gratitude to the Aboriginal Peoples of Australia was respectful, tokenistic or even warranted.")4

The trajectories of the other debates tended to be similar to that of the 'didjeridu book debate'. Some of the same list­members said (and took offence) at the same of things and there was a quite similar display of personalities. Even though a heavily mediated medium, distinct personalities emerge on the Internet and, after a while, responses from habitues are predictable. What is fascinating to observe is how sometimes list­members pretend to talk about the didjeridu but actually talk about themselves, toting their world views and their personal and cultural baggage along with them on to the Internet. (Not unlike researchers in their public forums.) But eventually the discussions usually wind their way back to the didjeridu until the private once again intrudes on the public. It is the interplay of the private and he public (and of the ignorant and the insightful) within an allegedly "neutral" arena hat makes the Internet such an intriguing site for researchers. In the case of the 'didjeridu book debate' it was important to keep reminding myself I should not take the criticisms too personally. That is, 1 should take note of the issues raised (regardless of how uninformed the insults, how fragile the egos, or how transparent the agendas), take on board the insights, and move on. For the people who matter most to me (the musicians, the authors, the publishers, and those who actually read) the book has been successful. That, along with the chance to do interesting research and experience a steep learning curve, is sufficient reward. The book provides eclectic information that will be of value to people interested in the didjeridu's origins, evolution and global dissemination. Those on the Internet who are averse to what the book contains are an instructive example of enthusiasts who may display fascination with the exotic without necessarily wanting to be exposed to the nitty gritty of cultural politics or knowledge that challenges their preconceptions of the didjeridu, or Australian Aborigines.

I conclude with a concise comment from a list­member because it encapsulates what has been my overall argument here: "I would recommend reading the book before trashing the author".

ENDNOTES

1. The public debate is archived and accessible via the list server at:

<did jeridu~eartha.mills.edu> and the web site (Dreamtime W3 Server) on http:www.mills.edu/LIFE/CCM/DIDJERIDU/indexhtml. Demographically, the discussion group list­members are overwhelmingly male, non­Australian, and only one participant has ever identified as Aboriginal. However, some have had direct' contact with Aborigines and Aboriginal cultures and societies. A posting during the debate suggested the group may have 300 list­members, including 'lurkers' and others who access the web site without joining the discussion group.

2 A further development is that the compilers of the list­members' CD of their performances (Didjeridu Planet) approached the publishers and editor to purchase some copies of the book to include in an educational packet (which did not actually eventuate). The CD had made a small profit and (after on­line debate) it was decided to invest those profits in educational materials. This decision, however, was not unanimous. The incident points to the contingent nature of the Internet as a discursive site.

3 Feld (pg92) refers to this process as "schizophonia to schismogenesis".

4.Another point of contention that arose in the didjeridu book debate concerned comments in the book's introductory chapter on the nature of one particularly rancorous debate. It focused on whether or not an Aboriginal didjeriduist was representing his "race" appropriately by including a busking song on one of his albums. Although I was accused of having solely written the chapter, it was in fact co­written with Philip Hayward, the kind of important fact that would escape thosewho had not bothered to read the book.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Feld, S (1992) Voices of the Rainforest: Politics of Music, Arena v99/100

Neuenfeldt, K (ed) (1997) The Didjeridu: From Arnhem Land to Internet, Sydney: John Libbey/Perfect Beat Publications

(1996) 'Inter.view~ Inter.net: Southern Review v23 n3

Perfect Beat E~ v3 n3 July 1997