Music, Sound, and Religion

viously noted features ofunpre)fwhat Jacques Attali has called.“ (Attali 1985, 42). They alsoer for culture to be sold it mustonomic system” (Toynbee 2000,r be autonomous, only “themto the impact of an aestheticoeconomic and problematizes

7. on the rationale of public support. Pp.I other victims. Edited by Ruth Towse.

nodernity: Arguments about the media and

p. 25—36 in Music and copyright Edited byess.ic industry. Pp. 17 1—194 in The business of)ool University Press.nagers, maestros and corporate murder of

and technology in North India. Chicago:

uction. New York: International General.London: Routledge.in symbol production: The case of populare written word. Edited by Simon Frith and

demand model for prerecorded music. New

small peoples: The music industry in small

CHAPTER 26Music, SOUND, AND RELIGION

JEFFERS ENGELHARDT

I take as my point ofdeparture here a set of commonplace observations: Thepervasive, profound relation between the sonic and the sacred is an essentialaspect of musical practice, thought, and discourse and an enduring themein music scholarship. Some of the first musicologies are sonic theologies—the Rig Veda, the Gitassara Sutta, the Psalms of David, the Epistles of Paul,the Surah 96 “al-’Alaq.” Long before the disciplining of music scholarship,texts such as these inspired the musicological thinking of figures likePurandara Dasa, Zhuhong, Maimonides, Augustine, and al-Ghazah asDharmic and Abrahamic traditions transformed into world religions.Within world religions, the applied musicologies of reform and renewalmovements like Sufism, bhakti, the Second Vatican Council, or Hasidismhave engaged debates about the propriety of sonic expression and auralexperience to clarify doctrine, meet the spiritual and social needs of specificcommunities, and situate the sacred in relation to a particular soundscape.And through their early modern encounters with non-Europeans, missionaries, mercantiists, colonists, and thinkers like Jean de Léry (Harrison1973) and Bernard Picart (Hunt et al. 2010) documented a developing senseof a universal relation between music, sound, and religion—a relationintensified through recognition, fascination, violence, ethnocentrism, andciviizational stereotype. In these ways, religion has become such an essentialpart ofmusic scholarship that to critically rethink its naturalness might seemunnatural.

300 • Jefters Engeihardt

Music AND RELIGION AS CATEGORIES

This universality and naturalness is emblematic of the emergence of religionas a sui generis, secular, Enlightenment category (Asad 1993; Masuzawa2005; Taylor 2007)—what Derrida famously terms the “globalatinization”(mondialatinisation) of religion (2001, 50). Religion becomes the same thingeverywhere, something people have that is distinct from other spheres ofexperience, action, and belief and, like culture, comparable across time anddistances. Similarly, the kinds and qualities of sound that are recognized,objectifled, and disciplined as music (Bofflman 1999, 25—26) establish musicas a delimited, universal category ofhuman expressive, affective, and sensoryexperience. Given the pervasiveness of these epistemological categories, thecoupling of music and religion in music scholarship seems intuitive andnatural when we speak of and represent Jewish music, music and Islam,Christian musical repertoires, Buddhist musical traditions, or Vedic musictheory, for instance.In these cases, music is something known that gives voice to, mediates,

and is fundamentally shaped by what is known as religion. Here, religionis circumscribed as doctrine, text, ritual, sincere belief, power, and transcendence, and music is the sound, style, and performance that religionlegitimates. The secular concept of religion makes Buddhism and Islam,Hinduism and Judaism, Christianity and Silchism discrete, comparabledomains of spiritual experience, ethical and moral action, and human beingthat subjects inhabit. And when musics are linked to religions, they toobecome comparable and metaconceptually the same; the -isms of worldreligions that suggest some kind of coherence, orthodoxy, and equivalencealso suggest that the musics of those religions are alike in terms of style andefficacy.For anyone attuned to the varieties of religious modernity and secularity

that take shape through different understandings of personhood, polity,and society, this conventional way of thinking music and religion is unsatisfying, however. What sense to make of the substantial sonic and theologicaldisjunctures between the Christian musics of Pentecostal Romani inHungary (Lange 2003), House of God sacred steel musicians in the UnitedStates (Stone 2010), women in the Church of the Nazarites (ibandlatamaNazaretha) in South Africa (Muller 2000), popular Catholic ensemblesin Brazil (Rely 2002), Tanzanian kwayas (Barz 2003), and Trinidadian FullGospel musicians (Rommen 2007)? What sense to make of the popular,marketable, public religiosity ofmusicians like Matisyahu, Arvo Part, ArethaFranklin, Mos Def, or Lupe Fiasco? What sense to make of spiritualized, deideologized religious musics at kirtan sessions in Moscow, Mexico City, andMelbourne or at the Fes festival of World Sacred Music (Kapchan 2008)?What sense to make of the foildorization of religious musics through tourist-

oriented performance (Ha1performance that precedes“real” trance and spiritual2007)? And what sense toproscription of music in thiPerfect sense, I would sa

are continually and criticssuspended. As spiritual life,converge in the secular inEngaging this, however, mcthe sui generis, secular, Enlacts that limit perforce the

SECULAR EPISTEMOLOGIE

Ethnomusicologists and hiinterpreting the musical te:in which religious musicsthe religious and the secuhtradition that shape religioreligious sounds, and the fare good at this because tIemerge quite easily from thiestablish our disciplinary ciing faith and the supernatulto Enlightenment reason, tFreflexivity, and the nonabsknowledge (Said 1983), whical musicology in the discopposed to religious discouand religion are about hunthat assertion might be cr11humanities). Perhaps nothireligion better than John Ireligious musics included—Yet the effects and affect

precisely because music imusicking body and subjespiritual presence, and cohuman agency in the efficawe reach an epistemologicand religion because we ye;

Music, Sound, and Religion • 301

oriented performance (Hagedorn 2001)? What sense to make of religiousperformance that precedes and enables belief (Engethardt 2009) or models“real” trance and spiritual ecstasy (Becker 2004; Jankowslcy 2007; Kapchan2007)? And what sense to make of the renunciation or coercive, violentproscription of music in the name of religion?Perfect sense, I would say, but only when concepts of music and religion

are continually and critically examined and their taken-for-grantednesssuspended. As spiritual life, ethical and moral action, theology, and the sonicconverge in the secular modern, music makes religion, and vice versa.Engaging this, however, means thinlcing, listening, and writing in terms ofthe sui generis, secular, Enlightenment categories of religion and music—acts that limit perforce the kinds of knowledge scholars can produce.

SECULAR EPISTEMOLOGIES AND Music SCHOLARSHIPEthnomusicologists and historians of music are good at representing andinterpreting the musical texts that establish religious repertoires, the waysin which religious musics enable ritual and devotion, the ways in whichthe religious and the secular interact sonically, the details of doctrine andtradition that shape religious musics, the ideologies and aesthetic values ofreligious sounds, and the far-reaching effects of religious performance. Weare good at this because these kinds of representation and interpretationemerge quite easily from the secular concepts ofmusic and religion that helpestablish our disciplinary commitments; we are able to stop short of invoking faith and the supernatural. Both ethnography and historiography appealto Enlightenment reason, the hermeneutics of suspicion, verifiability, criticalreflexivity, and the nonabsolute, nontranscendental worldliness of secularknowledge (Said 1983), which is what locates ethnomusicology and historical musicology in the discourses of the social sciences and humanities asopposed to religious discourses. As secular epistemological categories, musicand religion are about humanness and humanism (even, and especially, asthat assertion might be critiqued in the language of the social sciences andhumanities). Perhaps nothing gets at the secular epistemology ofmusic andreligion better than John Blacking’s rightly famous definition of music—religious musics included—as “humanly organized sound” ([197311995).Yet the effects and affects ofwhat can be called religious musics may arise

precisely because music is not humanly organized sound. Rather, themusicking body and subject may be a sonic medium for divine revelation,spiritual presence, and cosmic union, reframing (or effacing) the role ofhuman agency in the efficacies of religious musics (Friedson 2009, 9). Herewe reach an epistemological limit established by secular concepts of musicand religion because we verge on matters of faith, the veracity of experience,

c of the emergence of religiongory (Asad 1993; Masuzawaterms the “globalatinization”igion becomes the same thingistinct from other spheres ofcomparable across time and‘f sound that are recognized,i 1999, 25—26) establish music)ressive, affective, and sensoryistemological categories, theolarship seems intuitive andish music, music and Islam,:al traditions, or Vedic music

that gives voice to, mediates,vn as religion. Here, religioncere belief, power, and trantd performance that religionmakes Buddhism and Islam,ikhism discrete, comparableoral action, and human beinglinked to religions, they toohe same; the -isms of worldorthodoxy, and equivalenceare alike in terms of style and

ous modernity and secularitydings of personhood, polity,music and religion is unsatisstantial sonic and theologicalof Pentecostal Romani insteel musicians in the Unitedh of the Nazarites (ibandla, popular Catholic ensemblesz 2003), and Trinidadian Fullnse to make of the popular,Matisyahu, Arvo Part, Arethae to make of spiritualized, dein Moscow, Mexico City, andcred Music (Kapchan 2008)?gious musics through tourist-

302 • Jeffers Engelhardt

the possibility of ritual failure as nonparadoxical, and the reality of revelation and presence. When “faith may be the ultimate touchstone” (Becker2004, 34) for the kinds of questions scholars endeavor to address aboutmusic and religion, the answers that come maywell be beyond the privilegedknowledge of secular reason, and may therefore not count as knowledge atall. Or by speaking in the language of secular reason and stopping short ofinvoking faith and the supernatural, scholars may considerably limit thekinds of representations and interpretations they are able to produce.This is the epistemological divide across which the study of religious

musics must continually operate and translate. On one side of this divide isthe commitment of secular critique to continually reveal the worldlinessof religious musics—their contingency on forms of power, their stylisticaffinities to nonreligious sounds, their particular historicity, and theirmythic origins, for instance. In its strongest terms, secular critique concernsthe human creation of God and the place of religious musics therein. Fromthis position, scholarly discourse places implicit scare quotes aroundits representations and interpretations of religious musics’ efficacies andtruths: It is the “voice of a deity’ not the voice of a deity, “sacred tradition:’not sacred tradition, “divine silence:’ not divine silence, “authentic:’ notauthentic. The knowledge produced in critical secular ethnography andhistoriography is of the worldliness of religious musics’ transcendence.On the other side of this epistemological divide is the position of the

believer, the convert, or the practitioner. This is a kind of knowing thatcomes about by being present to the truth, mystery, or utility of transcendence in religious musics, and thereby relativizing the commitments ofsecular critique as anthropocentric. Like the native ethnographer or theperformer who deeply identifies with a style or genre, the religious subjectfor whom music is efficacious and true can produce knowledge of consciousness and experience precisely because of the selfness that makesarticulating that efficacy and truth a challenge. In its strongest terms, theknowledge of faith and experience is the provocation of no scare quotes:It is the voice of a deity, sacred tradition, divine silence, authentic. Period.This is the transcendence of religious musics’ worldliness.In reality, scholars continually mediate this epistemological divide in

their production of knowledge. Many, myself included, work with the language and paradigms of secular critique while remaining deeply empatheticto the truth claims and lived faith of those who practice and believe in waysdifferent than our own, and mindful of the epistemological limits of ourwork for those same reasons (Engethardt 2009, 51—52). This is not unlike therelationship of the ethnographer or historian to the category of culture writlarge. Many others are active participants in or become initiated into thereligious traditions in which theywork (see, for instance, Bergeron 1998, xi;

Butler 2000, 38—40; Hagedornare of a different sort, markedties, practices, and doctrines atand paradigms of secular critiqby drawing on the knowledgNorth American and Europearkind of mediation takes shape

MEDIATING ORTHODOXIES A

In this part of the chapter, I nthe study of music, sound, annorms, and vice versa. At theence—the fact that a sound thiis decidedly not music in a secof religious performance denyfrom its sonic qualities. This ifanbai and yinyue, chanting aenduring epistemological con(scholarship. The question ofculture” (Rollason 2008) is trand doctrine, bringing mattealterity to bear on the provocaIn Orthodox Christianity, f

sound of worship because ofcreation of God. But many 0;ofworship is ontically groundin a gendered subject disciplinphysics of the voice, in this casof the body and soul, and ma’generally, when anxieties andfessional musicians in any ;

difference is articulated in tcreligious practice. Despite thprofessionals may not be religThe concern is that their inte;by and reproductive of the relipresence is predicated on morOntological difference arti

true—when the power of relisincerity and purity of perfcthe performance of religious


)xIcal, and the reality of reveultimate touchstone” (Beckerrs endeavor to address abouty well be beyond the privileged‘ore not count as knowledge atr reason and stopping short ofrs may considerably limit thethey are able to produce.which the study of religiouste. On one side of this divide istinually reveal the worldlinessforms of power, their stylisticrticular historicity, and theirerms, secular critique concernsreligious musics therein. fromtmplicit scare quotes aroundeligious musics’ efficacies and:e of a deity, “sacred tradition’[ivine silence, “authentic’ nottical secular ethnography andus musics’ transcendence.11 divide is the position of the‘his is a kind of knowing thatmystery, or utility of transcenativizing the commitments ofe native ethnographer or theor genre, the religious subjectn produce knowledge of conse of the selfness that makeslge. In its strongest terms, therovocation of no scare quotes:vine silence, authentic. Period.;‘ worldliness.this epistemological divide inIf included, work with the lanLe remaining deeply empatheticho practice and believe in waysepistemological limits of our9, 5 1—52). This is not unlike thei to the category of culture writn or become initiated into thefor instance, Bergeron 1998, xi;

Butler 2000, 38—40; Hagedorn 2001, 5; Summit 2000). The dynamics hereare of a different sort, marked by scholars’ self-distancing from communities, practices, and doctrines and empathetic engagement with the languageand paradigms of secular critique in order to address broad, plural audiencesby drawing on the knowledge of faith and experience. And beyond theNorth American and European scholarly traditions I have in mind here, thiskind of mediation takes shape in numerous other ways.

MEDIATING ORTHODOXIES AND SECULAR NORMS

In this part of the chapter, I note some ways this mediation takes shape inthe study of music, sound, and religion as orthodoxies encounter secularnorms, and vice versa, At the heart of this mediation is ontological difference—the fact that a sound that might be perceived and thought of as musicis decidedly not music in a secular, Enlightenment sense, or that the powerof religious performance derives from the metaphysics of sound rather thanfrom its sonic qualities. This is the difference between qira’ah and musiqa,fanbai and yinyue, chanting and singing, and this difference is one of theenduring epistemological concerns and ethnographic fascinations of musicscholarship. The question of whether ontology is “just another word forculture” (Rollason 2008) is transposed into religious practice, experience,and doctrine, bringing matters of subjectivity, materiality, ideology, andalterity to bear on the provocative question of sounds being sacred per Se.In Orthodox Christianity, for instance, the human voice is the privileged

sound of worship because of its capacity to pray and its perfection as acreation of God. But many Orthodox Christians would hold that the voiceofworship is ontically grounded where the aural and the spiritual convergein a gendered subject disciplined by fasting and prayer. The religious metaphysics of the voice, in this case, are directly linked to the spiritual conditionof the body and soul, and may not register in the realm of the aural. Moregenerally, when anxieties and debates arise over the performances of professional musicians in any number of religious traditions, ontologicaldifference is articulated in terms of how sincerity and purity matter inreligious practice. Despite the exemplary qualities of their performances,professionals may not be religious subjects who can perform authentically.The concern is that their intentions, bodies, and spirits are not disciplinedby and reproductive of the religious ideology of a community and that theirpresence is predicated on monetary payment.Ontological difference articulates just as forcefully when the opposite is

true—when the power of religious performance is not contingent upon thesincerity and purity of performers as religious subjects. In cases wherethe performance of religious repertoires and sacred sounds precedes belief


or is potentially efficacious in any context, it is the ontological strength ofthose sounds that unsettles and relativizes the secular norms of modernscholarship, since religion is not something private, but something peoplemight become vulnerable to. Similarly, in contexts of public performancewhere those who listen have different religious and nonreligious dispositions, listeners’ pleasure, affection, or pious engagement might be taken asresponses that reproduce religious meanings and subjectivities, when, infact, they mark an ontological distinction between the religious and thespiritual.The mediation of ontological difference happens in numerous other ways

as well. Within a normative secular modernity, the immediacy of revealedsounds—the Qur’an, the truti texts of the Vedas, the songs of shamanichealers—establishes forms of religious subjectivity and concepts of individual agency that chafe against the figure of the autonomous moral subjectof a liberal democratic order, thereby invoking competing discourses ofblasphemy and freedom as these sounds circulate within secular publics(Mahmood 2009). Immediacy also matters when hearing and listening tothe voice and its sacred utterances, which are forms of touching, requirea degree of proximity and presence. In these cases, amplification, broadcasting, and recording are mediations that ontologically transform the voicein ways that undermine religious doctrine and ritual efficacyMediation and immediacy bear on the materiality of sound and religious

discourses about its sources. Musical instruments are proscribed in manyChristian denominations, for instance, because only the voice is mentionedin the New Testament as being apt for worship—organs, drums, and guitarscannot be baptized. In Jewish practice, the Talmud lays out discrete guidelines regarding the kind of animal horn that can be used to make a shofarand the kinds of repairs that can be made without altering its sacredontology, ensuring that the mitzvah ofhearing the shofar is flilifiled. And inDharmic traditions, there is a wealth of interpretive tropes attending to theconch shell, its physical qualities, and the auspiciousness and spiritual powerof its sound. In each of these cases, material ontologies are the bases of sonicontologies, which are recognized and reproduced in religious practice.These understandings ofmediation and materiality take shape in relation

to religious technologies and media and the forms ofmediation and materiality attending to them. This includes traditional forms of notation andcirculation and conventional globalized electronic media (frishkopf 2009;Hirschldnd and Larkin 2008; Oosterbaan 2008) as well as satat apps formobile media devices, digitized manuscripts and recordings, remote ritualparticipation using Skype, other VoIP services and virtual studio technologies, electronic ruti boxes, online instruction in religious performance,or emergent broadcasting networks (Lee 1999). Whether old or new,

technologies elicit responses ]shape experiences and practicgious doctrine, transform msensory self-fashioning (Grecintensify discourses of religiouand schizophonia, and requircof how embodied performantioners function in the poeticmaterialities index the histormusics and sounds.Markets are another produc

the mediation of religion as trtion of the Soviet Union, formeans of conceptualizing theroot and took on new meaniWest” and sounds from the rpractice and identification inreligious renewal. following twere to be realized through chsonal freedom enshrined in tmany post-Soviet transitiomresonate with religious ethicin which religious forms andthrough acts of consumptionreligious truth, and exchange cwords.Markets are also indices of

ing. Pentecostal preachers I hainvest significant resources irturing contacts with studio oand promoting cassettes and \their religious charisma, and rrecognize the spiritual powercongregants, the market is a fneeds of listeners as prospectivof God’s presence and blessinAs indices of charisma, dh

may dramatically impact esiThe voices and practices thatand communities that obscurtraditions, laypeople and autisupposed secularity of mark


technologies elicit responses from religious subjects and institutions andshape experiences and practices. They may enable fi±ller realizations of religious doctrine, transform modes of pious listening and techniques ofsensory self-fashioning (Greene 1999; Hirschkind 2006; Schulz 2010),intensify discourses of religious power through repetition, standardization,and schizophonia, and require clarification or alteration of understandingsof how embodied performance, authorized voices, and specialist practitioners function in the poetics of religion. In each case, mediations andmaterialities index the historical specificity and worldliness of religiousmusics and sounds.Markets are another productive field through which to critically examine

the mediation of religion as tradition and ideology. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, for instance, the marketplace metaphor was ameans of conceptualizing the ways religious discourses and sounds tookroot and took on new meanings. Throughout Eurasia, sounds from “theWest” and sounds from the past presented new possibilities for religiouspractice and identification in a time of profound social dislocation andreligious renewal. Following the marketplace metaphor, these possibilitieswere to be realized through choice and consumption—hallmarks of the personal freedom enshrined in the secular liberal order that was the goal ofmany post-Soviet transitions. When ideas about individual autonomyresonate with religious ethics and theology, markets can become fieldsin which religious forms and spiritual power are authorized or producedthrough acts of consumption. Record sales can embody consensus aboutreligious truth, and exchange can become part of religious practice, in otherwords.Markets are also indices of charisma, divine favor, and spiritual flourish

ing. Pentecostal preachers I have done fieldwork with in Estonia and Kenyainvest significant resources into acquiring high-quality equipment, nurturing contacts with studio owners and music distributors, and producingand promoting cassettes and VCDs of their music. Recordings are media oftheir religious charisma, and responses to their voices, styles, and messagesrecognize the spiritual power they mediate. For these preachers and theircongregants, the market is a field for evangelism and gauging the spiritualneeds of listeners as prospective congregants. Market success becomes a signof God’s presence and blessing in the lives they live.As indices of charisma, divine favor, and spiritual flourishing, markets

may dramatically impact established religious orders and institutions.The voices and practices that circulate in markets create religious networksand communities that obscure conventional boundaries between religioustraditions, laypeople and authorities, or between private religion and thesupposed secularity of markets. Furthermore, markets may amplify the

II

I

t.

[t is the ontological strength ofthe secular norms of modernprivate, but something people:ontexts of public performanceious and nonreligious dispoengagement might be taken asgs and subjectivities, when, inbetween the religious and the

appens in numerous other waysilty, the immediacy of revealedVedas, the songs of shamanicjectivity and concepts of mdithe autonomous moral subjectking competing discourses ofirculate within secular publicswhen hearing and listening toare forms of touching, requirese cases, amplification, broadntologically transform the voicend ritual efficacy.ateriality of sound and religiousiments are proscribed in manyuse only the voice is mentionedtip—organs, drums, and guitarsTalmud lays out discrete guidett can be used to make a shofarde without altering its sacredng the shofar is fulfilled. And inrpretive tropes attending to the;piciousness and spiritual powerontologies are the bases of sonicduced in religious practice.nateriality take shape in relationforms ofmediation and matetditional forms of notation andctronic media (Frishkopf 2009;2008) as well as salat apps forts and recordings, remote ritualrvices and virtual studio techaction in religious performance,1999). Whether old or new,


charisma of star performers and the significance of sacred places, reinvestingsingers and shrines, saints and pilgrimages, styles and repertoires with theaccord of market recognition (Chen 2005; Kapchan 2007; Qureshi [1986]1995). This accord emerges from the forms of competition that marketsorganize (freedom in choice and novelty, freedom in orthodoxy and tradition), which are symbolized in competitive religious performances likeQur’anic recitation competitions.For scholars of music and religion, markets are essential fields for

understanding the dynamics of religion and its social surround. Marketscan afford performers, practitioners, and listeners a means of establishingreligious meanings in the world as they circulate sacred sounds in publicspaces, but their worldliness might also impinge upon the efficacy andpurity of those sacred sounds as they are decoupled from sites of religiouspower. My point is that markets mediate these extremes through theirdifferent forms of secularity. Believers make music for and consume musicwith their co-religionists, but not only, since engagement with religioussound is predicated on forms of exchange and labor rather than on thesincerity or expediency ofbelief, once again invoking ontological difference.In this way, markets make music and religion valuable and exchangeableacross multiple differences, thereby making the conditions for a secularepistemology ofmusic and religion.My final point about mediating orthodoxies and secular norms in music

scholarship concerns the complicated concepts ofhybridity and syncretism.Hybridity and syncretism are everywhere in the scholarly discourse ofmusicand religion, perhaps most notably in thinking about SanterIa, Candomblé,Vodun, and other Afro-Atlantic Orisha worship practices and the globalization of Pentecostal and Catholic Christianities. However, these interpretivetropes rely upon essentialized, secular concepts of religion and musicantecedent to the novel forms of practice they inspire. This privileging ofreligious origins risks reproducing the dynamics of colonial domination,missionization, and global power that scholars have long been committed tocritically rethinking (Engethardt 2006). Hybridity and syncretism are alwaysrelative, always for someone, in other words, and the orthodoxies, centersof religious power, and marginal, derivative practices that these conceptsnaturalize may create more problems than they solve. The banality ofhybridity and syncretism in musics and religions shifts scholarly attentionto religious performance as a form of consciousness and efficacy that isalways integral and historically specific.

CONCLUSION

I have meditated here on theof music and religion whenquestioning the essential plaor writing off the universalis meant to clarify what weScholars often turn to debavation in religious performadebates clearly bear on howsubjects, act ethically and iistyle out of expediency. Onembodied experiences of sacpracticing subjects that aresecular categories of musicconcept of culture, establisharies within which musicnonsecular ways of knowincritical imperative is to listesound, and religion bring in

FURTHER READINGAsad, Ta1a1. 1993. Genealogies of relig

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UniAsad, Talal. 2003. Formations of tin

University Press.Bakhle, Janaid. 2008. Music as the so

50(1): 256—284.Becker, Judith. 2004. Deep listeners: A

Press.Bohiman, Philip V., Edith Blumhof

experience. New York: OxfordCsordas, Thomas I., ed. 2009. Tran

Berkeley: University of Califor:Hirschkind, Charles. 2006. The ethics

York: Columbia University PrcMahmood, Saba. 2005. Politics of p

Princeton University Press.Sullivan, Lawrence, ed. 1997. Encha

Harvard University Press.Taylor, Charles. 2007. A secular age.


ice of sacred places, reinvesting;tyles and repertoires with the:apchan 2007; Qureshi [19861of competition that marketseedom in orthodoxy and tracc religious performances like

irkets are essential fields forI its social surround. Marketsteners a means of establishing:ulate sacred sounds in publicLpinge upon the efficacy andcoupled from sites of religiousthese extremes through theirmusic for and consume musicce engagement with religiousand labor rather than on thewoking ontological difference.on valuable and exchangeable; the conditions for a secular

ies and secular norms in musicts of hybridity and syncretism.he scholarly discourse ofmusicig about Santerla, Candomblé,up practices and the globalizaes. However, these interpretivencepts of religion and musicley inspire. This privileging ofimics of colonial domination,cs have long been committed toidity and syncretism are always;, and the orthodoxies, centerspractices that these concepts

n they solve. The banality ofgions shifts scholarly attentionsciousness and efficacy that is

CoNCLU SI ON

I have meditated here on the critical urgency of thinking about the secularityof music and religion when we think about music and religion. far fromquestioning the essential place of religion in musical thought and discourseor writing off the universal associations of music, sound, and religion, thisis meant to clarify what we talk about and know through these concepts.Scholars often turn to debates about reform, fundamentalism, and innovation in religious performance and aural piety, for instance, because thesedebates clearly bear on how people inhabit the world musically as religioussubjects, act ethically and morally through sound, or invoke religion andstyle out of expediency. On the other side of these debates, however, areembodied experiences of sacred sound and the consciousness of listening,practicing subjects that are incompletely addressed through the bounded,secular categories of music and religion. This is the alterity that, like theconcept of culture, establishes the disciplinary and epistemological boundaries within which music scholarship takes place. Short of imaginingnonsecular ways of knowing that are not reducible to belief and faith, thecritical imperative is to listen for voices across the differences that music,sound, and religion bring into being within secular modernities.

FURTHER READINGAsad, Talal. 1993. Genealogies of religion: Discipline and reasons ofpower in Christianity and Islam.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Asad, Talal. 2003. Formations of the secular: Christianity, Islam, modernity. Palo Alto: Stanford

University Press.Balthle, JanaId. 2008. Music as the sound of the secular. Comparative Studies in Society and History

50(1): 256—284.Becker, Judith. 2004. Deep listeners: Music, emotion, and trancing. Bloomington: Indiana University

Press.Bohiman, Philip V., Edith Blumhofer, and Maria Chow, eds. 2006. Music in American religious

experience. New York: Oxford University Press.Csordas, Thomas J., ed. 2009. Transnational transcendence: Essays on religion and globalization.

Berkeley: University of California Press.Hirschidnd, Charles. 2006. The ethical soundscape: Cassette sermons and Islamic counterpublics. New

York: Columbia University Press.Mahmood, Saba. 2005. Politics of piety: The Islamic revival and the feminist subject Princeton:

Princeton University Press.Sullivan, Lawrence, ed. 1997. Enchanting powers: Music in the world’s religions. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.Taylor, Charles. 2007. A secular age. Cambridge, MA: Bellcnap Press of Harvard University Press.

Documents

Music, Sound, and Religion