The field is having a moment right now about the lack of black and brown people in American orchestras – on stage, backstage and in the audience.
Some of the energy in the current moment can be framed as being about resources: if orchestras don’t become more connected to more people – different types of people – we will suffer for it.
At the same time, some of the energy is coming from people wrestling with questions of equity, trying to figure out what the right thing to do is, and how to do it.
Thinking about that latter part myself, I’ve found some help in Dear White Christians: For Those Still Longing for Racial Reconciliation by Jennifer Harvey.
In the book, Harvey (a white Christian herself) looks at past efforts to reconcile black and white separateness in American Christian churches and how and why these efforts have largely failed.
Orchestras and churches are different things, of course. They have different goals and different relationships between their missions, equity and racial justice. Still, I think some of the concepts Harvey talks about relate, particularly one of the biggest in the book: universality versus particularity.
According to Harvey a universalist ethic “presumes that the fundamental common denominator on which we should focus is our sameness – on what it is we supposedly all share.”
This, she says, is contrasted by a particularist ethic which “recognizes that there is no one shared standard against we might measure or interpret our experiences of race, nor one to which we may all be held similarly accountable.”
It is universalism, Harvey says that leads us towards “…approaches to race or racial justice that ignore the conundrum of whiteness by speaking in abstract, universalist platitudes about shared humanity. Obviously we are all human beings. But such discourse fails us in our attempts to sustain critical anti-racist, racially just work that empowers white people to attack white supremacy.”
In the orchestral world we gravitate towards a universalist view – that orchestral music is a universal art form. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard things like this. I’ve said some of these things myself.
Consider though, how taking a universalist or particularist view impacts our thinking about orchestras and cultural equity. (For more on cultural equity look here for Createquity’s piece Making Sense of Cultural Equity, and here for a previous post I did.)
Orchestral music is expensive in large part because of the forces that it requires. A Beethoven or Mahler symphony requires the players the score requires. Likewise, the years of training it takes for musicians to be able to bring the scores to life is a relatively fixed thing. But even allowing for that, it’s hard to deny that, within the ecosystem of nonprofit arts, orchestras occupy a position of privilege.
A universalist ethic inclines us to believe that orchestral music is, itself, a universal thing and our place in the arts ecosystem is related to that. It leads us to focus on how this music is True in some larger sense of the word. With that in mind we see our lack of diversity (our whiteness) as an injustice. Everyone should have access to this Truth.
On the other hand, the particularist ethic says that orchestras are certainly not universal and the music isn’t either. Recognizing that orchestras and orchestral music are not universal, a particularist ethic brings the whiteness of orchestras into view differently.
From a particularist view, we’re more inclined to see that the privileged position we enjoy as orchestras is not just the result of how True the art form is – our universality – it’s also because of our whiteness.
This is not to say to say orchestras were rewarded for our lack of diversity. It is to say that orchestras, as white institutions, benefit from the history and forces that privilege whiteness.
In the conversations about the lack of black and brown people in orchestras there are probably a few good reasons not to talk about whiteness, but that absence could also indicate a universalist point of view. Knowing that gives us the opportunity to ask ourselves: how would things be different if we were operating with a particularist point of view?
(Shout out to my mom Susan Laing who’s working to advance racial justice within her church and brought Dear White Christians to my attention.)
Could part of the problem be the way we define whiteness? The article below describes one meaning as: “‘White” has stopped meaning Caucasian, imprecise as this term has always been, and has started to mean ‘those racial groups that have made it.’”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/29/how-the-asians-became-white/?utm_term=.04271e2926b6
There are several books that describe how the Irish, Jews, and Asians all “became white.” How do we measure what is gained and lost in “making it?” How do we place value judgments on those losses and gains? How do we avoid racism with views that define art or even culture according to race? We now have the absurd situation where black classical musicians are sometimes castigated for betraying their race. By referencing art according to race, do we do more harm than good? Rhetorical questions. I know we have few answers. Thank you for the thoughts.
Hi William,
As always, thanks for your interest and comments, I really appreciate it.
I don’t think that defining whiteness as meaning ‘having made it’ does good for anyone really, but the article you linked to raises some interesting food for thought.
I think the conundrum you speak of ‘how do we avoid racism with views that define art or culture according to race’ actually relates to the universalist ethic I was writing about. I think it’s a universalist ethic in action when we place orchestral music (the art I’m talking about) in some raceless category. I get the value in doing that from an art making perspective. I get the idea(l) of pursuing with my music making some artistic, aesthetic truth that exists outside of time, space and race. Indeed, that was a major theme in my early training and it’s not absent as it relates to my music making or my beliefs about music today. But in the context of cultural equity, diversity and inclusion I think the universalist ethic could stand in our way, obscuring where orchestras are actually located and some of the critical work and views that a particularist ethic can reveal.
Our orchestras do not “exclude ” African-Americans . Very few of them have ever aimed at careers in orchestras . Furthermore, blind auditions behind screens make discrimination based on race or gender impossible . The reason for the many Asian and Asian -Americans in our orchestras is because of the many
of these who have been aiming at careers in orchestras from their early years .
Whenever an orchestra has an opening, and several usually happen every year , chances are no African-American musicians will even apply .
At auditions, they don’t care about your skin color . The only thing that matters is how you play .
There is a small number of African-Americans in American orchestras , and it would be wonderful to have more , but it’s unfair to blame the orchestras and the conductors .
Thanks for your interest and taking the time to comment, Robert. In terms of blame for the lack of black and latino musicians in orchestras – that’s not what my piece is about. I’m writing about the current state of orchestras, cultural equity, diversity and inclusion. How folks who consider these things and consider orchestras might think and ultimately, act about these things. You are right that, during the audition process, discrimination based on race, or gender or anything else we can see with our eyes isn’t possible as long as the screen is up. But I think that fact can simultaneously exist alongside the reality of where orchestras fit into the larger nonprofit arts ecosystem and its history. In that context I think examining the implications of a universalist ethic versus a particularist ethic is necessary.
I am responding as a member of the audience. My son and I invited his black friend to a performance by our local symphony. There was a pianist performing and I thought he would enjoy watching this performance. This teen has taken piano for many years. He composes his own music and plans a career in music. He also plays flute in the school band. The teen said he enjoyed the concert but he has not accepted any additional offers we have made to attend concerts.
At the symphony I have noticed that there are few blacks in our orchestra and there are few blacks in the audience. I do not think the orchestra discriminates in selecting musicians. I think symphonies are something that appeal predominantly to whites. It primarily reflects the culture of Europeans who at the time were predominantly white.
I think it is a cultural thing. Perhaps many blacks do not want to go to concerts of classical music. I think you can offer free tickets and not that many blacks will attend a symphony performance. I think you can offer free tickets to another music concert with a different genre of music and many white people will not attend that concert.. People go to the church where they feel comfortable. Churches have different styles of services that appeal to different people, It is the same with movies. There are movies that are attended predominantly by whites and there are movies that are attended predominantly by blacks.
Orchestras should not feel they are doing something wrong if their music does not appeal to the masses. If orchestras want to expand their audience base, they may want to hold concerts in more accessible venues to attract more people, hold children’s concerts, bring schoolchildren to concerts or dress rehearsals. Our community orchestra does all of those things. I give them credit for trying to expand their audience but the music is not going to appeal to everyone. Bottom line: It is not so much race as it is preferences in music.