-
e o~flare are the tales currently cold: A lexander Graham Bell
anJ ThonasO'J.tson hail t leir h rs t t l ep l>one conversation
i n z 8 76 M' r . % ' a .csonC ome here l w an t to s e e i rou'"
ylied Bc.ll co %'ztson, and t)>e ~vorlds]snok. Thomas Eilison
first hearing his morals -'tr f.sry hail a little lanb"-returnecl
to hire crom che cylinder ot a plonoyrapl built by hIs assistancsin
rH78', anij suddenly the l>unan choice a ined a measure ot i
rnnortaj~tyGuplielrno t~farconi's wireless telipraph conquered tire
En cl ish c Iannl inI Hcp9. Unsuspecting navy personnel l i rst
heard voices cornin~ over chir ra-ilios in t9o6. Eac)s event has
been claimed as a turning point in huinan his-tory Before che
invent ion of souncI-repro@/uccion teelnoloyies t we are told,sound
wi t)ered away. It existed otly as it went out ct ex is tence Once
te le-phones, phonographs, and rJdios populated our world, sou.nd
hai lost alittle of its cphmerel chzrJccer The voice became a
little rebore unmooredfrom t}se boily, znr3 peopl's ears could cake
chem inco t le past or across vastcl ks tianccs.
These are pov ertul stor ies because tlcy tell us chic sonethin~
laplwnedto tlc nature, meaningani) proc.tices of sound in the la te
n ine teenth cen-tury. But t leyare inconpiete. I t s o u n i l -
re ! ; ro i luc t ion technolop ieschanyedthe ~vay ive hear. where
di i j t h>' cornc from.' ~ fan> of the pre
-
sible. desirable, effective, arIct meaning tul In ivhat rni l iu
Ji 0 chev d ivIl~Ffo fv and ivhy d id oUIicI-reproduccion
cechnolo~, souncI ics]t became an objeic anJa. domain ot t l i
oughc ani l p r i c c ic, ~vhefe It hkd p fevsoulv 6eell
CDrIccptU-z liztd in cerms ot par t iu lzr ideal ize..d instances
liLe voice or music k f e a r -i Iig svm rcconstrucced as a phd
siological prccess, a kin(I ot reef:pt i t ity aacfcdpacicv baseiI
on ph>'sic. biology. and ri>echanics. Throughtechnique otl
isteIiirip, pea@le harnsed, nio Litic:d, .Uid sh~pd t l iei r
powers of ~udi to typercepcion in theerv~ce ot rationality. In the
modern age, sourid and hear-iIig ivere reconccptuat ized. obj iwcit
id, im i u c ed , t r Jntorrned, reproducecl,comrnodified, n~s-
produced, and iaditscrialized. To be sure, che trznsfor-nszciorI of
sound and hearing, took iveIJ over a century. It is not tlirt.c
peoplewoke up one day and founcl everything suddenly dtiffcrent
Chan~es insoun~f, Iirenin8 t and hearing, h.-iplmrIcd 6it hy b~t,
pIme hy place, practicebi y,ractice t over a long, perianalof
tiJiae.
The golden z>e ot rhe ear never erIilcd," wr i ce Alan
LourI>cl . "It con-cinue, occluIcd 6y the visual hegemony." '
7'be .')ri'(ib/e err' te l Is zcorywliere soon J, hearirI~, an J
listrIiny, are central to tlat cultural ] iie of niaJ- rnity, w]
ierc soun i I , hear ing , nd I i s ccni Iig are fo u n i l a t
iona l co m o d rnmarlins of knowledge,culture. arId social
organizat ion. I t I~rovide an zlter-
THE b.UDISLE PA5T
Sterne, Jonathan. Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound
Reproduction.Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2002. p
19http: //site.ebrary.corn/lib/mcgill/Doc? id=f 01 98386&ppg=f
9Copyright 2002. Duke University Press. All rights Reserved.May not
be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher,
except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright
law.
Brent Smith
Brent Smith
Brent Smith
-
nar>ve to che pervasive riarracive chat says tlxat, in
becomingmoderri. %'esc-ern culrure moved @oval tron> a culcure
of bar ing co a. culcure of seein There is no doLibt char the ph.
losophical l iceratuce of the Eri l iyh tenmentas well a ri>any
people's everyday language i s l i c teredivirh l iphr andsighc
rmetzphors for t ruth and unt Ierstard i n y . ' B u t , even i t s
ight is in somexv.hays che privileged sensein European
philosophical JIscourse since the En-liglttenrnenc, it i s
t~llacious co think chat sight a lone ar in i t suppoet' Ji f
-krence from l>caring expja i r i moJerr t icy.
Tl>ere has ala,ai's beeri a heai)y aut)acicy to the claim
char vision is rhrsocial lurt of modernity.%'labile I Jo noc clair'
chat l isrening is(6 socialchare ofmodernity, it certainly charts a
sipnihcant fidel J at modern practiceThere is always more t han L
ne map for z t r r i t t i v , , anJ sound p r o v i des
a)Mrcicul.ir patiot hroLty,h history. In some cases as tliis bool w
i l l d e m o n -s trate m w3e r n ivays of hearing, prefigured
rnmlern evans Dt seein8. I3ur -ing ch Fn h y l x ter iraenc ani l a
f cenvart) . che serise al hear ing, became anobjecr ot contempla t
i o r i . It w as n~easuret). objecti f ied, iolaced, End sinu
-laced. Techrii~lues oE au Jition ctevelope J by doctors and
celeyrzphers ivereconstituci e cliaracteristics of scientific
mediinc aad early versions of rnod-ern bureaucracy SounJ was coair
ixocfified, ir Ibccarne something t lsat can hebotiybt and sol J.
These faces trouble the cl iche t in.c rnoilern sciei~ee nd
ra-tionalit fI, v ere out roxvths ot visual culture anJ visual
chinking. They uvreus to reth ink exact!y v,hat ive mean by the
t'~.r JkgL t'l vision and in>ages."To take seriously rhe role of
sounJ and hearingin modern life is to croublet he visuzlist deha i
t ion o t .ir'acct'srify'
Today. ic is un~lerscooJ acros the hutnu.n science that vis ion
ani l v isualcu I Cure are inlpGrtant Ma l ters. Wf uly concemporaf
y >fr'fl cl fs In cerete tcl Invarious aspects ot visual culture
(or, more properly, visual aspects of vari-ous cultural domains)
che arts. Jcsi~n, land4.ape, media, fashion u n-Jerstand thei r i
vork as cor icr ibu t i r i to a core set of cheoret ica], cu
lcural ,at>J historical t.luestions about i'isior f and
in>ages. %'hi!e wr i t e rs interestedin visual r i iedia have
for some t im e > es tu recl tov arct a conrepcual iz.i t ionot
> isrr.d Lu(tsrxe. ao sucli para)i t.l construct jorrn /
trrfrlrf'c or, sinxply, I6/rr>;)ushas has broadly intorrned
N:ork on heaririy, or the otlxer senses. %'hilesc)used is
coninhered zs a. uniheJ intellectual )problem in some science
andetl''.inccrilEg helds, it is less JLvelopcd as an incinerated
prob]rrn in the so-ciel and culture.l disciplines.
Sinsilarly, i isual conc'.ms populate many strains of cul t l t
ral cheory. TheclUest ion ot f>w gcj=i haunts sex eral schools
oE leaxinisrn., crit'ical r;Lce theory,
HELL 0! I
Sterne, Jonathan. Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound
Reproduction.Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2002. p
20http: //site.ebrary.corn/lib/mcgill/Doc? id=f 01
98386&ppg=20Copyright 2002. Duke University Press. All rights
Reserved.May not be reproduced in any form without permission from
the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable
copyright law.
Brent Smith
Brent Smith
Brent Smith
-
psychoanal.ysis, anil pustscru ro r s l ism T h e c u l t ura]
status ot 'hL reer age andseeinIIf; occupies great m i nds i n sem
i oc ics, f i lm s t u d i es, several schooh o t
literaryan J art-hiscorical interpretation. archicecture, and
communication.iVhilc sound may iil.teresc inJividual sclmlars in
rhese arras, it is stil l roo
otten considered a I iarochi.il or special ized concern. 6 ' h i
l e t I~ere are niariyscholars of sound act ive in con i rno r i i
cat ian, t i l rn sr@ Jiest music, and otherl>caiman sciences.
sounJ is not usu.ally a central rheoret ical prob lem for rma-
jor schools of cultural chu~; apart trom the priv. le se of the
voice in phe-r ioJllcnolop'r' and psyellatrlnalg's I s and irs nL
f'ation in de tconscnic rluA.
It xvoold be Imssible co write a JiHerent book. anc ttxac
ex~'Eains ~nJ crir-icizes scholars' preference f' or visual objecrs
anJ vis ion as an abject of stud fl.For noxv, it is nautchto note
their the eau/t lies wirh boch cultur;iJ tl|eariscsanil scholars of
sound. Culrural cheorists coe asily accept pieties about
thedorixinance ot v is ion an iI , as a resulc, have el iJeJ d i t
t e renccs between t icepriv:leg of v is ion ancI t Iie to ta l i t
y o l v i s ion . i~keanwlxile, studies of soundrend ro sh~ a~vay
from questionsof saunJ ct I l ture as su.h (w i t h a fe iv no
-cable exceptions! and prefc;r instead to ivark ivi rhin o t l ier
d isc:ipl i izarq or in-cei Jisci~>linar fI intel lectual dotr
ia ins. By! r r( gestur ing back r~ ivarJ a moregeneral le il af
guewcioriin~, chi~ i v a r k s oFer an inap l ic-.itly cunsul; ir
iv isrepistenaologi' ot tlute history, ot souixcf. The pronaise of
con>ulati i ist aj~-proaches is chat ane day v'e vrill ha ie
enauyh Isiscorical in format ion to be -gin general iz ing, aboUt
society. The I. roblen> ii'ich t lxis Iwrqective is tharsucli a
remarkable day is ala ays just aver che hor izcin.'-' It sauncl
anil hear-iixg are ini3cwd sipnihcant theoret ical prob lens, chen
naw is as ~aoJ a t ingeas any ra begin cIealing at" ich rhem as
broad i r i te l Iecroal rnJcters.
Xfany aurhors I>ave i l ainaeil chat hearing is t lute
neglected sense in mai l -erriity, a novi I sense for analysis.'"
Ic eiulJ perl~ay be polernicaIIy accepr-able ac tlais poinc to
lan)enc t ire re]drive lacl o t sc l io larly x iork orI saun
JcampareJ iv ich images and v is ion, chart the p ioneers, and chen
claim t l>acthis book w i l t,' h'.I che gap I fu t rh rea] i ty
is soraeivh.ir ditTerenr. There is avast literacure an the history
and Iliilosophq of sounil; per ir rc.-mains con-ccptu.ally
trayrnentc4. For rhe i r i teresteJ r i i i Jer . chere is a v
eaItlx ot boaI sanJ arcieles availab]e on ditrerenr asI~rs of sounJ
wr i r rerf by scholars atcammunicar iori , music, art, arid cul tu
re . ' Ekut, ivit l>out some I ind of over-archinyshared sensihi
l icy about ivhiat canst i ru res ()lw his'iiy r( j'o'er.(. Jy!ran
(eric'(rare. or sr rra;) I irrdiLs, piecinp togetlmr a history ot
sound fram tlute bewil-dering array it stories about syp h , music
, cechnolci .y, aricI otlxer sounJ-rr]ared pract ices ]ms all t ire
promise and appeal at p iec ing coa..ethc.-r a pane
4 TH E b .UDISLE PA5T
Sterne, Jonathan. Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound
Reproduction.Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2002. p
21http: //site.ebrary.corn/lib/mcgill/Doc? id=f 01
98386&ppg=21Copyright 2002. Duke University Press. All rights
Reserved.May not be reproduced in any form without permission from
the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable
copyright law.
Brent Smith
-
ot shactered glass %'e knvN t ha t t h ; - parts l ine up
somhow, ~ve krio~v thatthey can cor inecc, hut we are un sure ot
how t l w y a c t u a l l y l i n k c o y echer.W'e h;v e histor
ies ot concrt aUJiences, telfy~lm ines, speeches, sound
f>lras,soumlscapcs, arid cheories of l.caring. But on]y rarely
do the ivricers ot his-tories of soun J su gest how t h e i r w or
k co r inects ~sich other, r].iced v'orkoc ~vith large.r
intellectual domains 13ecause schUlacship on souncl has
riotonsistencly estured to@, ar J more fundamental iind synchet ic
t lmarecical,cultural , arid h i s to r ical quest ions, ic has noc
beeri able to b r i ny , b roaderphilosophical ( luest ions to bear
on the 1arious intel lectual f i e l d t ha t i c i n -hibits. The
challenge. chen, is co iraa~ine sound as a p roblemthat movesbeyond
its iaxtnediace empi r i cal con text . T ' he history ot" sound is
a l reaJyconne tL te(l co the l arger pro j eccs ol the human
sciences; it is up to us co Heshout the cnneccioris.
lri posi tin a. history ot soun J, Tr'w'.>(rr Jr'bA' t '.uJ
exte nds a long tradi t i onot interpretive aad cricicxl social
thought. Some uchors have quote(l theyoung Marx oo i he i
iTi~mrcance at sensory history: "T i re form in~ o t che t 'esenses
is a labor ut the en t i re ls iscori o t t l a t xvocld Juwn t o t
h e p r esent . "hfarx's passage signals tlwc che vr) capacity to
relate co the N'orle throU~hone's senses is organized and learned
(l iR~rerit ly in di Arene s()cial settings.The serises are
culcivatal or brought inco being." A lan l>imself bcconxcsthe
object" to be sh.>pe(j and orienteJ through hist()rical and
social pro-cess.' ' Before the senses are real, ~wlpahle. con ' r c
te , ()r avai lable lo r con-tenaplatioix, thev are a l ready'
aRecced and etrecteJ th r ou8 ls the pan i c u l a rhistorical
condi t i ons chat iso ic e r i se to the subjecc who possesses
tliem%'e erin tul ly cor is ider the seriscs .xs l>iscorical
only i f w e co ns ider society,cUlture, techn(~logy,.u;d the
&oct a as t henaselves artifacts (!f hurixan history'A truly h
is to r ic ist understandi r iy, of thsenses a r o t a
particularsensethereforre(~urres a. commitriaeric to
chconstructionist anJ c()ntextualiststrairi of social and cul tu ra
l thou h t . C o n versely, a vigorous c(:nstcuct iv isn'1and a
~'igofous c()ntexc(ialisnl fet.luire a histoc)' of the seflses. It
Is l lo acci-dent char i~farx's discussion of the senses appears in
a sccciori ort cotr i tr iu-riisna iri the Ecorwrrrrr .rr;;r
Pbi(rabat'tr'.rr;>I;zrrrrJ'crJ" J >)~ r8$ ]. Even t( ) be g
inimagining i anocher) society, tice youn~ Marx htJ to consider the
historicalJ n.imics of sens;icion itself. As sve in';q;ine the
~possibilitieso social, cul -tura], arid histor ical change in, the
past, prserit, or futur e i t is al so ourtask co inaagine histor
ies of the senses. It is iiidely aceptLM thar -che indi-vi Juaj
observer kecarae an objecc of ir ivesstipati()n ani a locus of krm
ivledpebeginning in the fir. t tN' dc&a(les of tile I &Mes
an(l ihac, Juicing chat same
HELL 0! 5
Sterne, Jonathan. Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound
Reproduction.Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2002. p
22http: //site.ebrary.corn/lib/mcgill/Doc? id=f 01
98386&ppg=22Copyright 2002. Duke University Press. All rights
Reserved.May not be reproduced in any form without permission from
the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable
copyright law.
Brent Smith
Brent Smith
-
period, "che stacus ot t l>e obscrvin s ubject divas
tra.nsformeJ." ' ' 5o , t u o ,cransformat ions in souixid, hearin
, n J listenin ivere part ot no Jssive shiftsii~ the lan dsca>~
cl social and cuttural l ite of the last three centuries.
The en>erL;ence of so@i>8-repro Ruction cechnaloyy in th n
ineceentli andcwentiech centuries provides a particularly pood
encry inca che lardier IIis-cory ut souml. Ic is, one of che te~v
extanc sites in the human sciences v:l>erescholars have
acknuivleJ~cd anJ contemplated t he laiscoricit i o t h e ar in~
.As Theodor Adurno, KX'airer Bcnj taniin, and coun t less richer wr
i t ers h. iveaq;ucd. che problemut rriucl~anical r ip roJ uccion
is cent ral to un ' )erscanJ-imp the changing, shape ut" comniur i
icat ion in the late n ineteenth J.nJ erid:t iventiech centur ies.
Fur t l>erri, the curnp i l l i n g problemuf sounJ's
repro-ducibil i ty, l ike the rel~rodoction ot imaNes, xva ics
seemingabscractionC rom che socil ~vorld ven as i t Nas man i fesce
J more i lyr iarnically w i t h i nit.' ' Otlxer wvriters h.v, e
oA~reJ even stronger c la inxs for sou.nJ repruJuc-tiori: it
l>as been describe J as a 'niater ial to i in i la t ion" of the
changing sensesot space aniI tinie ac the turn ot the tv ent iech
century, part ot a ' perceptualrevolutiant" in the early twentieth
ccntur}. SounJ technologies are s.>iJ tuhave zrrip]ified anJ
extenJeit sound anJ our sense of hearing, across tingeanJ space." K
| /'e are told t l xzc te l rp l i ony a l r c reJ ' che cond i c
ions (i f da i t i 'life"; t l iat sound record.'in' r c
..presentLM a monument ivhen 'ever@thin suJ-ines. 5'et
LeMal>ieu's n>oresober prose stil l leaves rauri> lar
ivooJer noc at t ice revolut ionary >mwerot sound-repraJuctian
teel>nulopy, but at its banality It modernity, in part,flandres
the ex).'.ycriellcc of rapid social ani l cul t t ire.l
chancre,tl~en ics whack-ing emblems" may very wc] l have been taken
In st r ide by some of icsf)eu)'tlc
6 TH E b.UDISLE PA5T
Sterne, Jonathan. Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound
Reproduction.Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2002. p
23http: //site.ebrary.corn/lib/mcgill/Doc? id=f 01
98386&ppg=23Copyright 2002. Duke University Press. All rights
Reserved.May not be reproduced in any form without permission from
the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable
copyright law.
Brent Smith
-
Because sounJ-reproduction ceclinulogy's role in h istory is su
easilytreated as seff-evidentlyi /ecisive, ic makes sense tu begin
rexvri t in~ the h is-tory of sound by reconsidering the historical
si$nihcance of sound telx-noloyies. A. tous an sound-reproduction
teel>nulogy has an added advan-tage tur t l>e histor ian ot
souni l : dur>n8 t l>eir early veacs, tml inu]og ies
leavehuge paper crzifs, thus oui in' t hem especial jy rich
resuures tuc historicalresearch In early N ri t i ngs about the te
lephone, p.monograph,;snd rai l io, avefind a rich archive ot re
Hetiuns on th nature ani l meaning ot 'sound. I lear-inyand f i s
ten inL:. Doug las Viahn wr i tes thac, -as s historical object.
soundcannot f'urnish a pood scory or consistent cast ut haracters
nor can ic val i -date ani ersatz not :un of p ro~cess or generat
ional matu r i ty . The h i s tory i sscatterd. meeting,. and
highly mediated it i s s pc)oc an ubjecc in any re-specc as sound i
t se l f ." ' " P r io r co che tw en t i e th cen tu ry , very l i
t t l e uF thesunic past ii as pl~ysially preserved for lciscorical
an~lysis at a lacer J Jce. Saic makes sense to look instead at a
l)articular tIorn.tin oE practice associacdivitl> sound. The
paper trail left by sound-rl)fuduccioo technofugis pro-vi Jes one
ustul scart iny, quint fo r a h is tory of suLInJ
Like an exaozinacion ot che sense organs thmsefss, an exani
inacion ots()und reclean()logies also cuts to the core of tlat
niature,'nurture debate intlsinking about che causes of and
possibilit ies tor historical change Eventhe most basi m e c han
ical wo r k i ngs u t sounJ - repnx i u c t ion t ec t~nufopiesare
fsistorically shaped. As I ivill argue. t ive i iteratingdiaphrapnx
ch'ic al-l owed te lephones ani l p h o n og raphs co f u n c t ion
wa s i t se l t zn a r t i r ac t t ) tchanging Ltni lerstandings
of h u ma n harin So und - reproJuc t ion cchnol -opies are
artifacts of Iwrcicul;ir practices anJ relations al l cf>e xvay
down;they can be c()nsii jered arch.teul()gical li ; Th e l ) i
scury of sounJ techn .) logyotters a route inco a field of con junc
tu res mong mate r ial , e ionorn ic, tech-nica], idcital ,
practical, anJnvirL)nmental c) candies. Situacd as v,.e area mid
torrent ia l ra ins otfcapicafist developnxent and marke t ing t ha
t p t l t u sivitli new d ig i ta l mach inery , ; t i s both easi
and tenxpt in~ tu fo rget the en-during connect ion be tween any
techno logy and a l a r "e r cu l t u ra l con tex tTechnolu~ies
somet imes ento' a cer tain level ot Jei ficat iun in social
theorya nd ultura l h i s to ry, where t l>ey come to be cast as
d iv ine actors. In - i m -pdc.c narrat ives, ccflnoloj , ies ; lee
mystel l t )us bein>s wi t lx obscure or ig i nst]iac conae down
from ihe sky ca impacc" l~unaan relations Such narrativescast
technoluyis chmslvs as primary accents uf historical hanye; tecl i
-nologicaJ
-
as a tcirm ut technolog ical t leterm in i sm; they spr ing t
rum an i m p o v e r ishecIRutlon of causaljcl,".
Ac the sante t ime, techno log ies are incerestif ly, precisely
becaUse cheycan play a sipnificanc role in peupl s l ives.
Technologies are repeatable so-c ial. cul tu ral , ann tu tlzis
book. Atter q cars ofcondlcjonln~ to cespun J tu a fk n'' in/ ce
lel.'rlxone, Lt cakes some etrurt ro I g -nore it and tinish the
sencence or paragraph. To study teel>nuloyies in anym ezningl:al
sense requ i res a r i c l l se l lse ot t h e i r c u r Ineccion w
i r h h u m a npractice, lxabicac, and )tabir. It requires rrentiun
to tlat fsclds of cambineclculcural, soi i.tl. and phd sical actin
ity x v h at other authors have called >re t'-'c ~r'ks
or.u~~!r;bf.'Ignis from v;hich cechnolo ics enaerye ancl of v hich
cheyare a pa.rt.-
I he story presented in t lmse pages spirals out from an
anJly'sis of tlutemechanical anJ pl~ysical aspects ot che cechnolo
ies t l temselves to tlutecechrLiclues, practices, znJ institut
ions zssuciarncl erich tlxem. At c.-hach junc-ture in th e a rg u m
e I iC, I ShOW hue Sound- reprOduCtiun teChnOlu~r ieS ares hot
throogl> ~virh the t e ns io Its, tendencies, ani I cu r rents o
t che cu l t u r etron> i~ltich they emerL: eratriyhc on down tu
cheir most basic naechani-altunctio l ls . iOur mac cheris?lethal
pieties alRuc soUrIJ-repr(bluet!on tec)lllolo-gies for inscance, t
l tzr they selx>raced souItds from t h e i r sources or
theesooncl recording allcn is us ca hear the choices ut the deaJ
>vere not and arenut innocent empirical ctescriptions ot che
cechnoloyies' inipa,ct. They wereivishcc chat peu~ le ~rated oIttu
mund-reproduction techno]orgiescfishescllat bccarne pro +ranls for
J Illluvzr>oil and use.
8 THE b.UDISLE PA5T
Sterne, Jonathan. Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound
Reproduction.Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2002. p
25http: //site.ebrary.corn/lib/mcgill/Doc? id=f 01
98386&ppg=25Copyright 2002. Duke University Press. All rights
Reserved.May not be reproduced in any form without permission from
the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable
copyright law.
Brent Smith
Brent Smith
Brent Smith
-
F ur mani ' ot t he i r i n ven tors an(I eJ.rlI; users.
soun()-reproduct ion t n : h -nuloy,ies encapsulated a..vhule set
of beliefs ahouc the age arid place inwhic.h thei' lived.
Suond-repro(juctiun tecl~nuIugics represenred tlat prom-ise ut
science, rat ional i ty, and indus try and che pol i er of th(-
wlaite man toco-opt an(i supersede (Iornains c>f 1ife that v,ere
prei iously curisidered tu be
magical.Far their earl's' risers. sound t(:chixolopies wer i r i
a ~vora' r n O-em. ' . )fr~(Lrar(y is ut course a cloudy analy t ic
cate~or e, frau~br xvich inter-rul cori t radict iuns an(I i r i te
l lect t iz l c( in t l ic ts. I ts d iA icu l t y p r o ha6ly
scentsfrom irs usefUlness as a. heuristic terra, an(I my use t>t
it is deliberately hetir-istic. %''lien I claina chat
sound-repruduccion technologyindexes an acous-t ic trioderni ty, 1
du nuc mean qu i t e the sarge t lx iny as the subIects of m)h
istory ( h e Au ihb)e P.ui" explures the ivays ir i svhicl i che h
is tory ut soundcontributes tu MI develops fcorm tlat 'maelstrom of
naudern lite ito returntu Herman): capitalism, colonialism, and the
rise ut industry; the growthariJ deveIupnaerfc of the sciences.
chat s; in~ cosnaiio~r ies, n>assize popula-tiori shifts
(specitically migrationand Urbanization>, new form of
collec-tive and corporate poxr, socio.l n>ovemeritsclass scruple
i ield the riseut" new rn idd le c lasses, n>ass conanaunicvriun
t r iaciun-scates. bureaucra(q;conh(lence in progress, ia universal
a6scract lxunaanist stibjecr, an(l t ice worldniarl er; and a
reflexive contemplation of the cunsrzncy ot change.-'-' Inrnoderri
life, sound bcwumes z p roblem:ari object tu be
contemplated,re-constructed, an(I man ipu la ted. sum(.chin~ that
can b fragmented.indus-t riafiz(..d. and bought and so ld
But The A,z.fibA Pelf is r iot z s insp]e iTioclerriizzcion
narraci~e tor soundarid hearing,. ; l )~IA>' fbi=a(r iri~ can
too easily soy, est a br i t c]e k inJ o f L in iver-salisrn,
iv)iere tlat spccihc h iscorical devel(i l i rueists rferenced bi
or ; t.A>',irri",are transnaugriheil into a ser of h ist(Jriczl
st.x~es through ivt>ich alI cul tu resnousc pass In f ohar ines
Fabian's apt p)>rase, che idea of rno(Ierni t i as mo d -e
rnization ct ime relat ions (.k space re la t i on s becween cu l t
u res in t o re -lations of t inge, ii le I ariz n c r ari ex
poignant ol a development J I rhe(iry of niude rn ityas
'mocternization," i t i s su r ly a cncral element o f sonae
discourses aboutsound reprodt ic t iun that ice w i l l con f ront
i t re bore than once in che fol lo iv-
ing pQ~res. A l(iflg l inc uf invericors, scllolars, busi l
lcsspeople, phonograI>hicanthrop~)oi;istic, and castial users
thnupht ul chc:mselves as partakin~ in amodern wei r of life, as
Iivin" at the pinnacl~ of the wurld's progress. TheI,'belie f (;d
chat t lmi r e p och r o dt . che cresc ct rn odern i r 'at ion's
unstoppablewave. So, in addi t ion tu be ing a useful heur iscic
f()r dLmrib ing t he context
HELL 0! 9
Sterne, Jonathan. Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound
Reproduction.Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2002. p
26http: //site.ebrary.corn/lib/mcgill/Doc? id=f 01
98386&ppg=26Copyright 2002. Duke University Press. All rights
Reserved.May not be reproduced in any form without permission from
the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable
copyright law.
Brent Smith
Brent Smith
-
ot the pru jec:t as a Nhole, ry~Ar0i(i and i r s con jugates are
also i rnpur tanccacepozics to hc analyzeil ani l cartul ly caken
apart w i chin chis h istory .
The remainder o t t h i s i n t r o i l u c t ion p r o v i des
sonic cunccpcual back.-
ground for tlat history that fol]o~vs. TIDAL. ncxc seccion is an
excenJed Lon-sideration ot sound as an obj~ oF l i i s t o r i cal
scud@: ~vhat Joes it mean tuN'rite a history ut soniethiri~ so
apparencly natural and physical as soundanil hearing.' A nidor
dccaiIL-J map ut the borak's arpunicnts then fo l l u ivs.
Rethinking Sov nd's Nature :Df Forests, Fallen Trees, ahd
Phenornenologles
Al] this ta]k of muLIerni ty, h is tory, and suuni l t l i t "
qalchougli perhaps chishoul J), instead pre(err! n> to ~i richis
tor ies ut -v isu. il cul tu re ,~images,"iisuzlici." a nd rhe l i
ke . B rackLcing l i g l ic in t avor ut t h c v i s u a l " m . i
i b
a defensive n ianeuver since t l ic var ious v isual te rms
conven~encli b rackcci luescions ut" the nature o f na ru re . But
, bes ides sound ing g o od , hub ris ty(jozaril zlreaJ
t'ctTibodics a harI-tu-grasp buc necessary pzraJux of nature
andculcure central tu everyth ing thar fo l l ows in tl i ts book.
Ac i ts cure, che I.lic-nunicnun ut soun J anil the I i tscory of
~ound rest at che in-between po in t o tculcure anJ nature.
tt i s >mpmsib le co r merely describe" the tacul t i u f h e
a r in~ in i t s na tu -ra) stare. Ever> co try is tu pretend
that languagehas nu figurJcive dimn-siori of its ov ,n. The l
anguage thac ~vr. use to Jescr ib sounil and hear ing,comes
~L'i~hted JuN n N'ich decades ur centur i ; -s uf cultu re!l bz~a ~
c . Con-sider che careers of twoadjwtivis associateiI ivith th ear
in the Lny l i sh Ian-
J(u'li'c T ILL remit !$1't''(( beL'an )rs liiscoc)' in I 8$ ~
nleanin' ' o f u f p c l tz in l l l p'to t lie ufp lli uf
nearinp", i t d id it ic appear in pr int Jnot in', soniet l isnp
"rc-cclve J or pcrccii e J by che ear" un t i l t H6a . P r io r co
that pc r io i l , ch termcAvfhtrI (r was used co describe
soniethirio t or p e r t a in ing co che ear" orperceived bi' che
ear. ' Th is, divas not a merc smantic d iRrencc. der.f
terr).'srcarried with i c connota t ions ot ti rzl crzdic ion and
I>earsaiy as well as tlix.-ccrrIal features ol the ear v is ib
le to che naked eye ( t l ie to lJd mass of sk inchar is ctten
synecd~lu l ly refcrrecl to as che car is tchnically citlicr che
zv-
lO TH E AUDIBLE PA5T
Sterne, Jonathan. Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound
Reproduction.Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2002. p
27http: //site.ebrary.corn/lib/mcgill/Doc? id=f 01
98386&ppg=27Copyright 2002. Duke University Press. All rights
Reserved.May not be reproduced in any form without permission from
the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable
copyright law.
Brent Smith
-
rii'A.. cheprnrzcs. or the uri'n L.ci ) . AfrrrzF. meanNhi le,
carr ied iv ich i t bio con-natations of oral craJition and refrred
specificallyco the mick3le ear, cheinner ear. and th i ierves t l
izc corn v ib rzcicfns inco ~vhat ch brain perccivsas sottnd IIas
in;orrz(.~urgciq ). The idea cff che aural and its Jecidedly
medi-cal i n tlection i s a part of t he li iscorical era nstt
irrnat ioti chat I rLlescri be i a chefol jc wiriu pai .es
Generally. wl ien v r i t ers invoke a b inary coup l i ny, bete
eeo cul tuce aridrecure. i t is wi th che i i l ca chat cul tu re
is char i ih f ch ch i t i y es cfvcr t ime ai idthee natuc is that
which is perriaaneac, timeless, anJ unch.uiyiny,. Tlirt
na-ture.'culture b inary cfEers a chin v iew ot na t u re, a
convenient s t rav ' t igu refor soc ial const ruc t ion" argun in
ts. " I i > che case of sound, che appeal tosoniethin stJ.cic is
ajso a tr ick of t l i l anguage. 8 'e c reat sound as a natu-ral
phenomenonexterior to ~~ p i c . bu t it s very dehn ic ion is
anthr
-
i8entihe J by physiciscs ati J physioloyists s universal nd
unchaaginIIf;. Byour Jeti i i i t i or I ot sound . rhe t ree m.i l
es a n t i ise whether or i io t an yone i sthere to hear i t . B u
t . e ven l i e re, ave are deal ing i n a n ch ropmceticric
del>-tiicions. 6'hen z 6ig t ree tells, t lie vibracions excend
oucside the audibleratiye Th e b o i I ndry be tween v i b racion
chat i souni l and v i b r a t ion t h . i cis noc-sound is noc
derived from any i luamicy ot the vihracioti in itself orthe air
thac conveys tl ie vibra t io t is. Rather, the bounJ r i ; be
tween sc>ulida nil noc-soutii l i s based on che u n d erstood
possib i l i t ies of che facu l t y c thiaririy, w het h e r w e
ate ta l l ; i n bcfuc a person or a si lu i r rel . Therefore,as
people anat squirrels chan~re, so too wril l sound b y dehni t i o
i i . Speciesllavc h l s tc>r J es.
Sound hister , i I i dexes cJianges in homan nature ancl lloivi
ii~ che it' i~ iI O'J.r. The cor foec-t iaris aniotiy, caii I i
in>, en lha ] ming,ancl sound r i c o r i ) in ' r e c l u i re
t l iac wecoilsldef pf i lc t ' ice ot soUnd ceproi luct Ion I l l
r e la t ion cD ocller b lx l i l y p l zc-tices. fn a plirase. che
hiscory ot soun,d irIiplies a history of che bcxly.
Bool.ly experience is a produi t o f t l i e par t i cu lar conJ
i t i ons of social l ; fe,r iot someching that is g iven pr io r
to ic . M ichel I nucaulr hashawt i t l i ac, inthe eiyhceench
arIil nineceenth ceticuries, the body became ar> ok>jere
ancetargec ot [)oxver" Th e m o d ern b oJy is c) ic body t h . i t
i s ' i s n i a r f ipu la t~d,shaped. trai t ieJ," t l izc "obeys,
responds, kiecm~a skill fUl and inc reases icsforces." Like z mac l
i i ne, it is bu i / t and r ebu i l t , ope ra t iona l izeil anil
f i iodi-fied.-" Beyond ard b e f o re Foucaulr, the re are scores
ot aut lmrs iv l >o reachsimilar conclusioIis. Already in t Sot,
a Dr Jean-~iarc Gaspard fczrd can-c ludei), on chi - basis of h i s
i n t e rac t ions w i t l i a y o u l i p b o v t o u n d l i v i
n ~' tvilJ" in t l at ivotxls, chat audi t ion is l earned. I t a l
ti a m e i l che boy V i c to r .Bein~ a ~i ild child, Victor dicl
noc speak a nd h is silence led to ijuescionsabout his abi l i ty
to hear. Itard slaJiamed doors, jingled keys, anJ made tJthersounds
co test Victor's lierin~ T l i e boy everI fzi l~4 co rect ivl ien
I tard shoeotra. p uti near his heail. Buc ~'iccor was not deaf:
the young Joctor surmisedtht tlat boy's Imari' ivas just hne.
~'ictor sinspl i hooved no interest in thesame sounds m,
"civilized" French people. ' "
%'hile che youn>er Mn a r g ued that the h is tory of t l ie
senses v zw corecomponent c >inhuman histor~, the o]der hfrx
argued thac the physical con-
I X TH E AUDIBLE PA5T
Sterne, Jonathan. Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound
Reproduction.Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2002. p
29http: //site.ebrary.corn/lib/mcgill/Doc? id=f 01
98386&ppg=29Copyright 2002. Duke University Press. All rights
Reserved.May not be reproduced in any form without permission from
the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable
copyright law.
Brent Smith
-
Jit ions under >which laborers " reproduced ' ch en isL-ivesi
voulJ vary t r o n>society to suLiet y t hat t he i r b o L l
ies and needs were h i s tu r iLz l ly Jecer-n')illd.-" Tlie
FreJiclir antliropolug ist M i r e l i l f kuss, ollc of FouciiLilt
s R')an/'
inHitences. overed t l iac "man's tirst and n iosc nacurt l
cechnical ab ject, andat che danie time reel>nical means. is his
body." %'h;tt lfa luss called,.wP; )Lcb-0;qveJ >vere -one ot the
tLjndaniental n io r i>eries ot history itself. ducat iuno t che
vision, educat ion ir i wa.lk ing @s c en( l i ny , descending. ru
nn i n g . " " ''To Al.iuss's list Ne could i i eld cheduc;icion
anJ sliapiny, ut;iudit ion. Phe-nornenolog}" alwa fI, s presupposes
cultic, power, pr~ccice, .tnd episcemol-ugy. Everychiny, is
kiio~wledge, and chis is tlie tirst reasin whi there is nosavL;e
cxperiencL t l l re ls r iot ll,ill/ Beneath or p r io r io k n o
Q'ledge.
The hiscoci uf sound p t ov ides surete af che best vidence for
t ( l ynz t r i ich istory ot che bodl,' because ic travrses chc
nature ''culture J i v i t le : i t dem -onscr~cs tliac che
tr~nsforra~cion uf peop le's pj iysical atcr ibuces is pact
utcultural history. I'uc e) mptL, indttstrialszatiun and
urbanization dcreasepeopl's physical capacities tu hear One ut t l
ie evans IIi ivhich adUlcs losethe uppc.f rJnge of thei r l i
ezcing is th rough encounters mich loud n i zchi n-ety A j
ackhammer here, a siren there, end che cop edge of herin be8instu
eco(le. Cant lie. cs over ~whse does aiid dues nut ct~nst icuce
L.nvirunrneri telnoise re tl>e'nisejves bticcles over svhat
sounds are admissible in the n i (x I -erri lan(escape.'- As
Nieczsche would h.ive it. ji>ahern;cy is a connie and placewhre
it becomes possible tur people Co he IiaeasurLQ." 1t is 'i lso a
placev;here the honu.n-bu i l t nv i ronm eac mod ihL.s the l iv
ing heel@.
lf our oal is co descr;be tlat hiscor>ca] Jynamisri> of
sound or toconsidersou rd t rom ch vance poinc uf cij lcur i l
chLory, we Ii>usc move just beyondics shifcing borders jusc o u
t s iLI soLinLl inca tli vase xvurld ot th ings chatwe chink ot as
inc bL'ing about souiid c all . Th h is tory ot sound is at ( l ' i
f:ferent moments s t r angely s; lent. strar i~cly y,ory. scrali I
I ,' vtsLia.l, zn() al-e ,zis ccntexcul This is because tlirt
elusive insie soci Jl anJ cul tu ral grounds of sonic experience.
The-xcerioritI,'" of sound is this book's primary ohject ut scudy.
lf sourid in ic-self is z vtr iab)e rather chan a constanc, t l ien
che l i isc(ry of sound is of i ie -cessitq. an e)(ternalisc and
cantcxtua l iscnJc.-avor. Mund is zn ar t i i acc of chenaessy and
~~l. t icaj hum.in sphere.
H LLQ! I I
Sterne, Jonathan. Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound
Reproduction.Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2002. p
30http: //site.ebrary.corn/lib/mcgill/Doc? id=f 01
98386&ppg=30Copyright 2002. Duke University Press. All rights
Reserved.May not be reproduced in any form without permission from
the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable
copyright law.
Brent Smith
Brent Smith
Brent Smith
-
To borrow a p h r ase t ron> M i c lm l C h i o n . I air r i
t o " d i s e n gage suu l idchink.irIg . .. frora i ts nzcur i l i
scic n i t . " ' ' WfanI, cheurists snJ h i s to r ians ifsounJ. )i
' p r i v i / eyed t l )e static and t ranshistor i i a l . t hc
is, the.-nscurl,"qualities ut sound anj liearing as a basis for
sound liiscory. A sLirprisirilylar c propircioa Df the bvul s nI
artic les;wri t ten bouc sating] begin iv i thanargument ch;it
souiij is i n some Ni a ' s~~i a ] case" tur st . i a ] ur cul tu
ra lanalysis. The -specie} cas" argument is accomplished
throu@I> n ap[)c.a] tuche interior nat t i rc ut soinicl: it is
argi inl t h ee sound s natural or phenurac--nulogical traits
recluire a special sensibility and spc~ ill vocabulary iuse in
COnStru~tii i j If; a Culturl theory OtsouriJ. Ccrta in l ' , i t
sscrts a universal human si ih jm.t , buc ive iv i . l see thatthe
problem is less in the unii rsal i ty lmr se chan in the un iversal
izat ion ota set e t particular relip ioLis prejudices.itwut the
role uf hearin~ in salvation:n.That these ri l i > i i ius preju
i l i ces are embed Jcd at t'ai very center oF K('sternl l ite')
lcctU,'il hlsturl,' mal es thence all the n lo fe in tUf t ive,
ubvio i i s, of u the r -lv ise fwrsU'isive.
To otrer a gross generalization, assertions about the difference
betweenhearirig nd seeinq iLsu'il)y appear together in the fornax
of a list.'"' Tliey be-gin at the level of the individual human
being (both physically' anil psy-
l4 TH E A UDIBLE PA5T
Sterne, Jonathan. Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound
Reproduction.Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2002. p
31http: //site.ebrary.corn/lib/mcgill/Doc? id=f 01
98386&ppg=31Copyright 2002. Duke University Press. All rights
Reserved.May not be reproduced in any form without permission from
the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable
copyright law.
Brent Smith
Brent Smith
-
choloyical ly) . They move o l i t t f o f n c l lefe to conscAl
t a cu l t t i rJI theory o fthe senses These i) i ftL.rences betv
een hearing and seein are often consid-ere J as biologic'il,
psyclxologial. and p hysicaltee:ts, tive impl icat ion be ingthat
chey are a necessary startin point for che cu)coral analysis of
sound.This l ist st r i kes nie as z l i ta izy an i l I u s e t
hac cern> de)iberat : ly becauseof its rheology,i ial overtones
so I v i l I p r esent i t as z l i t any lmre.
hearing is spherical, vision is dircccional,hear lnL, iRinlerses
irs subject,vislofl GHefs a pefspi ccivc,soonds come to Us, but v i
s ion cravels ta its object ' .hearing is concerned ivich
interiors, vision is concerned ivith surfaces,hearing invo lves
physical contact iv i t h th e oucside ~world, v is ion re-qtiires
di stance trom i c,hearing, places its inside an event, seeing
gives us a perspccrive on rheeven c,hearinghearini;phd a.nd
hearini, is about;~tect, i ision is about io te l l ecc,hearing,
is a primarily remporal sense, vision is a pr imarily spatial
tends co ivarJ subjeccivicy. vision rends toNard ob
Iectivity,brings us inco che li~ in@, ivor)d, siylxc moves us cow
zr) acro-) earh;
sense:hearini, is a sense thzc inamerses us in the ivor)el,
vision is a sense thatremoves us trotri ic."
The audiovisual litany a s I w : l l hereafter call ic idcalizes
hearin (and,by extension, speech) as naanifescin8 a I iiM et( pure
interiority. It alcer-n.iceli' denigrates anil e levJces i ision:
as a lal)en sense, vision takes us outot the ivor)d. But i t a lso
bathes us in the clear l igh t o f reason (?ne can a.isosee the
sami kinJ of t l i ink ing at ivork in Romantic concepcua):rations
ofmusic.f ari I Flinn prices rhat nineteen:nchwentury Ronaanciciun
pronxoci4the belief thzc -music's imnxaterial ntacure lends it a
cranscenJent, mystica(c) lL3lit~', a Imprint thar chen makes it qu
i te d i 6 c u l t fo r m u s ic to speak to con-crete realit ies.
. . Like a)l g reat arc' so construed, i r takes ics place
outsideot history where it is considered cinaeless, universal,
tunccionless, o)wrac-ing hcion3 the m arke tp lace n J rhe scan
J.ird soi,il relat ions of consi imp-tion and production." ' O u t
l i n ing the ' ( i ( ( irevsies between sight ani) hear-in' beys
he prior quescion f ivhat ~re mean ivhen i ve t a lk a b o ut c he
i rn'~cure. Some aUthors refer b;ick to ph y s ics; others refer
back to cranscen-Jencal p)lenoll letMtlog'l' or even cog l l l t i
vc psyc) io lo i y . I n c aela case, choseicing the ticany do so
co demarcate tlat purporteJ)i special capacities of
H LLQ! I 5
Sterne, Jonathan. Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound
Reproduction.Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2002. p
32http: //site.ebrary.corn/lib/mcgill/Doc? id=f 01
98386&ppg=32Copyright 2002. Duke University Press. All rights
Reserved.May not be reproduced in any form without permission from
the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable
copyright law.
-
iach snse as the scart in@, point for histor ical nalysis l
nscead ut olTeri nI; usan entry inco che history ut the serIses,
che audiovisual l i tany posits historyas sonicthir Ii. that
happetis be t'ai~lj t he senses As a culture tnuves trojan
tlirtdominance ot one s imsc ta chat o t a n o t lmr , i c c h
anges. The ao d i uv i su ' i l]itarIy renders cbe t>istory ot
the senses as a zero-sum garne. >vlmre the cIutri-inanci- of one
sense bI,' necessity leads tu the dec l ine ot . inucher sense.
Butthere is Im scienti f ic basis fur assertin that chc use ot one
sense atrophiesanurher. fn add i r iun t u i t s s p ec ious
zero-sun>rezoningche audiovisual)itany carries wich it a ~rutxl
deal ot ideoloy ical ba i ;~aye. Even i t t hat we rcnut so, ic
ivouIJ sci l I nuc ke a very gouJ e tnp i r i ca l account ut
serisacioli orjw fcepciofl.
The audiovisual l i t any is ideolog ical in i lm u l i l e st
sense ot che xvurd: i tis derive J frcirii r i l i g i ous t)
ulema. It is essentially a rescacerjient uf i l ie luny,-stariding
sp i r i t ' l e t te r d i s t i n c t ion i i i ny, antj I
ife-giv ing i t lea J s co s;i lvat iun T l i c l i t t e r is dead
and iner t -ic leads tu darnnai ion S p i r i t a n t i l e t te r
have sensorI; analogues: heariIi l eads a. soul to spi r i t , s
igh t l eaJs a sool tu the l e t ter . A t l i eory t i t r c l i~
iouscommuni i-at iurI chat posies sound as li fe-p ivin sp i r i t
can bc t raced back tuthe hn anil the iv r i t i n~s c t Sa in t A
u g u s t i ne . These C.hriscianideas abuur speech arId hearing,
c'in in curn b trireme haik to Placo's dis-cussiun of speech aIid
writ ing in the Phrs')rural. "' The haring-spirit.~siyht-] etcer
lranaewurk f inds i t s n i os t coherent conceIi ipurarq scatement
i n c l i eIvurk uf l( ' a ] reer Onp, whose later iver itin>
I,especial ly Ores)if; r'Irz ( J r)c r;'ay) isst i l l iw id'. l y
ci ted as an au t liori cari ve dc. sc ripI ion af rhe phermmerIol
uy,y aridps) cho lordly ot sound. Because OrIg's later N'urk is so
ivi Jel}' ci ted I.usuallyin igj ioranci. of the connect ions
between l>is ideas on sound and h is, theo-]opica] v r i t i
ngs) , ani l because he mal es a pos.r ive starenienc of cl ic
audio-visual litany such a central part oi his aq;ument about cul
tural hi story;~3n 's 1vurk is arraIits some consi Jeracion
here.
To describe the balance sharc of the senses, Gng oseJ t l ie
ivordsca'sorrurir.a physiumupicat ccrm chat denoted a pa.rcicular
rcpian r>t the brain iliat wast hou h t co con t ro l al l pe
rceptual accivi ry. 5c!afrriir!!r fell out o l f avor in t h elate
nineteenth century as ph} 'siu/ugists l rarnecl th..it thtre Is l
lo s i lch cel l-t er in rhe brain ( ) a 's, Use of the term
shoul
-
senses is explicitly Jri ! en by theological concerns: -Th
quescion ot chesensor~un> rn the Chr is ti accords co che
>vora' ot GodanJ chus io some rnysccrious way co sound itself. a
primacy already sui;-gesced i' che Old Testmene pre-Clrriscin [sic)
cradition, " " For O ny, d i -vine revelacion icslt . . i s i n d
eed tnscr ted in a parcrcirlar sensorium, a par-t icLjlar nsixture
of th e sensory act i v i t y t y p i ca l o f a g i ven c u l t u
r e . " O n g ' ~blance-sheet h istory r>t che senses is clearly
nd u r e n t l y l i n k c J t u t heproblem ot" hoxv co hear rhr
>vore.l af Gud in the naodera age. Tlw sonic di-mension ot exper
ience is c losest to d i v i n i ty . V i s ioQ suj;Qescs distncc
tldw isent;agenaent. On@,'s hiscory uf the rnuve f rock sound-haseJ
ural cu l t u reto sir;ht-based l i terate cul ture is a history ot
-a certain si lencing uf God" i nmodern I.fe. On@,'s assercions
abouc the difference beret'een tlute world ot-oral man" and the "h
f j /percrophy ut t l>e visual" that nxarU che muderrr
ageprralli l pc.ftectly tice satiric.~fetter dist inct ion in C~t
lxolic spi r : rua l isna. tc isasophisticateand iconuclscic
antimodernist CuchrJlicisrm. Still, Ong wr-y,ups chat r.he
a.udiovisttal l i t any t r anscends t l~ log i c l d i t t e
renccs Iaichor no. !!'e nl lLi,c all cleal 9'ich the snlc l
id.ta.
(3f course, parts of th aud iov isu.i l l i t any I>ave conae
under lxeavy cr i t i -cism. The xvurk of Jacques DerriJz can be
read s an inversion ot Ong'sv alue syscem O n g h i m s i ] t
suggests s >much.'-' DerriJuses his well-k llo Ivn phra.iit (8'z
//)J'c ('fp'k)'fly r 3y p'czar )A' L' to cri chic I zc'land d i snl
an't li che con-nn.ciuns zn>orLp speech, suunJ, v r ) ic, nd p
resence in K( 'c.stern rhoug j i c .Altlmu8h De-rrida's mosc
celebrateJ crrtii lues ot l~resence tinsel ltim trry'-ing !!
it)> EcIn>und Flosserf's transcendental phenomerLolopy. I
erdinand deSzussuri-'s simiut ic c)>corp, anil i~lartin f l e i
Jegger's rincoli)pq; his cr i t i c i smsare certinly pplicabme tu
r.~ny,'s rhought as wel'I. On argues for exactlythe mctaplxysics o)
presnce chat Jacilues Derr ida t tzck as u n t o t l zeoloy,-icsl,"
as a creeping Christian spiri t~ l i srn chat inlxabics western phi
losu-l~l>y: -Tice livings art, the life-giving, acc
[l>ezrirrg oneself sp:ak), the l Lhn-Lhgkrit'. which animates
the bed@ of the signitrer nd transforms at into ameaningtul
expression, che soul of landau;iL:e, seen>s noc to seprace
icse]tf rom i t se lf , t rum i t s o !vn self-presence.' " E 'u r
D c..rridz, che elevat ion r>tspeecl> s the center of subjcct
ivstp rd che pornr uf access into ch div inei s -essential co the h
i s t o ry o t" the ' !Vesc, therefore to r necaphystcs in i c
s
encirety, even ivhen ic professes co be atheist." " Derrida uses
this positiontu argue fo r t h e v i s ua l s ide o f t h e u d i o
i ' i su.
-
anJ refusing boch speech-based metaphysicsnd presence-baseI
posiriv(..se f clons.
I)ere, I: ivanc co niake a slightly i l iHerenr rnov: che
auJiovisual litanycarries ivich ic ch tl icoloyical ivei~hr of che
durable ssociation amoriys oijniI, speech, and J i v i r I i ty ,
even in i t s sc ien t i f i c y i j i se R a t he r t han i n
-vercing t)ie aUJiovisual ticany, why noc redeemriscin Joctr ine, t
l tere is no law ilivine or othre ice
re(loir ini ; us co assunm the inter io r icy of sound and che
connect ion betweensound, subjective selt-presence, and
intersubjeccive experience. %'c; do nocneed to assume char sound
draws us inro the ivorld awhile vision separccsus trom ic '5'e ca@
r iopen the qoest ion ot che sources of ra t i ona l i ty andn
mdern ways ot k r iosx'in' . I I h i s t ory ex i s t s . r
,r(rbifj t ice senses as wi l l as k -t"riven' them, tlxen we need
not be8in a history ot sound with an assertion otthe
cranshist(Jriial cl inaensions of sound
MI,' crmticisrn ot chc audiovisual l:tang ~oes tar beyond the
questions otessencilistTI or socil construc t ion , w h ich u sua l
]y depenrace into p l t i l o -sophical hI, picnics Even if ive
prnt chc possibilicy ot a rranscendental sub-ject ot sensation, che
audiovisual I itny fl] s slxorc on its own t rrris Despici.all chr
appials co nacure in rhe nan>e of tlat ticany, the
phenosneno)ogy itri-I'liciI by the audiovisual litany is l>iyhly
selective i t s r a nds on sl~aky em-I'iridial (and cransienJncal)
ground. As RIc:I Al rnan has argued, clairrtsab(JUt t he trnsh
istori cal and trnscu I turzl chraccer ot t he senses ofcen de-rive
tltcir support f rons rul t i jrally and his t ( )r icI]y specit ir
evi Jence l i tr i -i ted evidence at chat. In t }xe auJio i isual
I.t nest -an pparencly oncclo~icalclaim about the role off soijnJ
[or vision) has been allowing to cake prec-Jence over zccual
analysis of souitd's funct ion ing. " " C o n s i i lr che
purpmrr-edly uni( IUe ceraporal ant i spat i .i l i ha ractel
(sties ot au()icory phenomeno l -
oyy. On~ argues t l~at -sound is more r e a l or e x i s tenc il
than o th er senseot j ets, despite che tcr t lxac it is also morc
ex anesc:enc Sound i tse lf is re-lated to present aicua l i ry ra
ther than to pa st or fU tu re ", sot tncIs exist onlfIas thiy o o
u t o t ex i s tence." ' 1)ut, srr iccl~ speal in' , O n p 's c la
i rIx is cru torany event z n y p r e .c~~ thac you can
possiblyexperience n d so ic is noca clualitI f speci.tl or uiiique
co sound. To say thar ephemerality is a specialgtl'll i t~' ot sou
ll&, rachef chafl a ()ua' leg' en Jc.mic to any f()rm of )pe rc
eptiblet riotion or event in r i me , is to engage in a verI,
select ive form o t non i i n a l -isra.' The same criticisrri can
be made of the litany's actribucion of a sur-face"-orierited
spacial it I,' to vision as opposecl to an ' i n te r ior" o r ien
tat>on tosounJ. it is s very selmr ive nocion of sul Alee. An f
l oRe who Ilas heafil t ingr-nails an a chalkboari I o r doorsteps
in a concret l ta l l~vaq I'or on a xv /(~Ien
I 8 THE AUDIBLE PA5T
Sterne, Jonathan. Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound
Reproduction.Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2002. p
35http: //site.ebrary.corn/lib/mcgill/Doc? id=f 01
98386&ppg=35Copyright 2002. Duke University Press. All rights
Reserved.May not be reproduced in any form without permission from
the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable
copyright law.
Brent Smith
-
Hour) can recognize chat lisceniny, has the l~ocential to yield
a grc.at deal otinformation abuser surfaces very quickly. The plris
BALl other sou n J-syn t hes istechnologies from che seventeerich
to che nineteenth cenruries. So whati diferent about telephones,
plaonoyraplxs. radios, and otlwr techno)u-gics common))'conjuredu p
as "soun~l reproduct ion . ' A n u m ber of w r i t c t sluve oRred
semiexper iencial de t in ic ions o t r n uderr i suunJ - reproduc
t iontechnologies based on their power co sequencea sound frorTi
its "source."
Hf LLO! I 9
Sterne, Jonathan. Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound
Reproduction.Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2002. p
36http: //site.ebrary.corn/lib/mcgill/Doc? id=f 01
98386&ppg=36Copyright 2002. Duke University Press. All rights
Reserved.May not be reproduced in any form without permission from
the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable
copyright law.
Brent Smith
Brent Smith
-
S ince che poNer to sp l i t s o u rces anJ cop ies is thc most
c o m mon d e h n i -t ion ot sound- reproduc t ion t echno logy, i
t w a r r ants some scru t i ny . P ie r reW ltzetTer. chc composer
wvho pionere J rrcJ'c~frJ'Be' ANi.i'~pe'. afyuc J chat soun J-
reproJuction technologis producd "acousmaric" sourids s o u nJs
theeoric I>ears N,ithout seeinp t h e i r sou rce. J .jhn Corbct
excends the l i ne o fthou ht by usiny, n explicit(v psychoanalyci
tran>ev ork co call about re-pM!Iuced soun J in terms ot visual
lack: " l t is t tm lzI of the v isual. endemicto reordd se)und,
that in it ibices desire in. relation co ch popularmusic ob-ject."
'" far Corbett. aur inabil ity co see che reordinalleaJs us to
avant i t ,to ~ccnial co it. Barry Truant aiid R. i~furray
&chafer have coined th termjcbi=rrpbtyn~.r to describe the
"spli t bet ivn an orig inal soUnd and its electra-acoustic
reproducion" enzblecl, by sounJ-reprUJuct ion cehnolo i es . '
TiceGrek pr ttx.hi=r.- mans -spl i t" nd a lso has a convenient
conr ioracion otpsst 'choloylcal &bc'rratlol l t o r t h ese
authors T r uax a l i t Sc.h Jtef also argue
that reprcxlucti()n removes sound from its, original context.By
my own h istoricization ot praccires and id allies ot sound,
ane
coulai seem intuit ivclq plaUsible romany people t()day. BLIt
thzcdos noc mal e it t rue-. Rtwzll, xvich Stuart I-fall . t l~ac
that xvhirl> is nmsc oh-vious ls mesc ideological: % 'hen pople
say to i 'ou Ot course chat's so,isn't it." thar o t cou rse' is
chi naost ideoloII;ical monaenc, because that's tiremoment ac w lx
ich you' re least airfare that yau are Using a par t i cu lar
idea-l ogical trznaework, and that i t" iou useI another framework
the th i n s t h a ryoi.l al'e w.lkin abc)ut
-
a Jisorientiny, Seer on. tlat senses tlmc are otlxenvise
orierited orgrounJJ iri coherenc btxiil i ex lw.rience. Tlzc
assumption ot priorsensory roberncc requires a not iori of a human
ho JI t t ltac exists euc-side hiscof)'. For In i cance, che c I
Jlc11 that solllld rcpfo JlKcioA l las"alieriated" rh vo ice f rom
th e i >un>art body impliesrhat che voiceaoJ the buJy existed
iri some prier hol ist ic, unalienacid, arid si.lf-prsent relation
As l h u ' e a l ready argued, phcnonienolo~ical unJer -staiAings
of sub jpr iv i t y r i eet.I not p r i v i l ege sele stnrI; l t i
n t e r p ersonal i n te rac.ciori isthe presumpt ive-ly pr imary o
r - a uchencjc" mode ot conarnunicat inn, t lmnsound reproduction
js doonaeJ ro cIeni~ration as inautheritic, disorienc-inp. and
possibly even Jangerotis hv v i r tue of i cs
'dcorircxtualizinp"sound trodi i t s p r o ~mr" i nceqx-.rsonal
context . But , co begin a theory andhistory ot snur i i l 's
reproduc ib i l i cy, v c Jo rw ' n eed h n a l , f u n darnenca1,
or
Hf LLO! 1 I
Sterne, Jonathan. Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound
Reproduction.Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2002. p
38http: //site.ebrary.corn/lib/mcgill/Doc? id=f 01
98386&ppg=38Copyright 2002. Duke University Press. All rights
Reserved.May not be reproduced in any form without permission from
the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable
copyright law.
Brent Smith
Brent Smith
-
t rzashistur iczl answers co quescions aboirc rim re la t ions
bccN,een ber i n g ,anil sec>np, bccween technolog ical rcp
roduccion anJ sensory u r iencat i i in ,bet tveen orig,inal and
copy; and between presence and absence in comImU-nicacion. XX'e can
pru~icle more robusc answers ca those quescions by re-considering,
them in rim course ut scudyiny, sound rcprcx3uccion. This IIis-tori
of sounil begins bq pasicin sounJ, hearing., and listening as
hiscoricalprehlems rarher chan as constants on xvhich co bu i l t j
a h is to ry .
So lec us cake a r ide on Oc k h a m's razor anJ ivorL t n i m a
s i n>pier def i -nicion of saunJ-reproduction technology, one
chat dues noc recluire us tupmsic a transcendental sublect ut
hearing' .naudern rcchnoloy ies ot sound re-pro J uicion use
devices calli il ( /r'I )fs )J'Fct'fs. l~'hich turn sound in co
sonxethin~ilsc anil thac soraethinp else back inco soun~l. All
souni l - r i p r o i l u c t i on. tech-nologies amur voicei ncu
electr ic i ty . sending i c d u gan a p h one l i n e anJ c u r n
in8 i c b ack i n t usuullJ ar chc othf. r enJ. Radio ivork on a
sim i lar p r i nc i p)e but uses ivavcsinsteail of iv i res. The i
l iapliragm anJ scylus of a cy l inder plxono raplichan e sound
chrouph a process ot inscription in rintoil,, avax, ur any num-ber
ur ocher surfaces Oa playback. the scylus and Jiaphrapni trans duce
tluteinscript ions bach into sounds. D i> ical
soxind-rcprtJJuccion teclsnotopies lluse cransducers, they simp l I
, mid another level ot t ransformat ion . conySICal prin i ipleS
thCy ate MISO Cul Cural Zrti f.u: CS. TlaiS iS chere? hL1.'7
rZ-:hb/. P,rsvp begins ics hiscor tI,' of sound
iLhapcer r takes as irs central exhihic the ear phonaucoyraph, a
machinefor xvr i t i n~ ' sound N'aves By t u i l o~wing around che
device, ics inc entors,anil che ii leas rhat i t operaciunal izeJ,
the chapter otTers z gene.-alogy ot neivconstructs of soi inJ and
hear ing . Th e ear p lx>nautu>raph used an excisedl>irman
miidle ear as a cransducer t anJ che tunct i r fn
-
the nineteench. The rynapinic tunc t ion emeryed at che
incersection of nxcxI-em aioustic.s, otology, and physiology and
rhe pedagogy ut the Jcat.
T}le xvays in wh ic l l the n l id die ear conducts v ib ra t
ion I ' l g ' seerTl l ike asin>pie mechanical function.
something. that ave teel is ~vichuut history. Butthe tyrnp i n i r
f u n c t i o n o p ens uLit i nco chang iny, cunsrrucr iuns ot
sound ,hearing ., and humanity. Sound reproJucriun is liisrorical
all the xvayduwn.'fn acoustics, plzysiolopy, anil otology. sound
became a waveforrn ~vhusesource was essentiallI; irrelevant;
hearing hecate a mechanical funct ionthat cauld be isolated and
bstractLM from che other senses Jnd the humanbody itsell Alchou h
these Jevelopnients may un their oivn s~~m nxinor ormerelymatters
of teclxnical discovery. theI, ramark a lary,er shift in the
his-tu+' uf soLlnil.
Prior to tlat nineceenrh century, philosoplaies of sound usually
consicf-iwe J their object th rou h a p a r t i c u lar , ideal
ized instance sLich as speech urmusic. %'orks ot ~r ranan>ar an
J logic J r i n p u i shed between sign i f icant ant iinsignihcanc
suuncls by calling all siynihcanc sounds rrrx v o i ce. '
Otherl'.rlEilosophers took @susie as an idealized theoret ical
instance of sound, lead-iny, to tlat analysis uf pitih ani l lu
rnxuny, all the wa f j, up to th harmonyut c)>e splices and, for
Saint A u g uscin, Gtxl In c o n t r a s t, the iun ceptp~ -
qrcr.rr;) p rev iously developed hy Descartes. hfersimne, and
Bernoull iuttered a ~vay tu chink about suun J as a form of motion
or i ibration. As rhenotion ol frequency took hold in n i
neteenth-century physicsacoustics,uco!ops, and phys iology, these
helds broke with the elder phiIusop!ries otsuuiM. O ' l>ere
speech or nausic had been the ge neral categor ies th roughwhich
suuaJ was um$ersrocd, th e. were nuw special cases c>t th
generalphenomenonot sounJ. Tlm emergenceol ch t 1,rripanic tunct
ion t hus, cu-inci~lc. d with an inversion of Ill-e ~reneral and
the spci hc in philosophiesotsound. Sooted icselt becarae che
general category. che ublecc of knowled e,research, anJ praccice."
C h a p te r t a l so i n ve rts a h i s to r ical conanaunplacethe
ubjecri t icat ion and abstr tct ion ut hearing, and sounil , their
construc t ionas bounded anil coherent objects, was a prior
conditionfor tl>c consrrucriunot sound-reproJuction
technologies; the objectificationot sounJ divas nuc as impl; e H
ect " t~r result Df sound-reproduct ion techno]ogy.
6 hile chapter t considers the construction or" sound anil
txiariiag, chap-ters an J > otTer histor ies of various prar r
ices ur l iscenin,du r ing che s'Une
period. They chronicle the Je~elopnwnt o t iu rc)iA 'ciheiqve. a
set of practicesut listenin~ that were articulated ro science,
reason, and instrumentalityand that encourage.ed rhe coding and
racionaIizacion of what was hearJ. By.
Hf LLO! 1 5
Sterne, Jonathan. Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound
Reproduction.Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2002. p
40http: //site.ebrary.corn/lib/mcgill/Doc? id=f 01
98386&ppg=40Copyright 2002. Duke University Press. All rights
Reserved.May not be reproduced in any form without permission from
the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable
copyright law.
Brent Smith
Brent Smith
Brent Smith
- crrfi'isiArvan from ] istenin~ to thei r pat ivnts' speechanil
began I is tcn i r iL., rmore closijy to p t i en ts ' boJ ies to
(dist ingu ish s igns~t health and il]ness. As it bicarme a
symbolof the medicI pr( f tessioiw, tlxiseetlxoscop si~nli J both
vi r tuusic anil highly cLchnical l istening ski l ls.Chapter q exp
lores hoiv Am e r i c n c (.leyraph o~~rJ.tors from t l i c ~ sq as
tut he ASS:s anJ e r l i ' u sers o t sound- repruducr ior i t
ecI>nulogirs f rom t i c eiSRos tu the t c j 2o s developsother
forms ol audile technique. Telegra-p hers started l isteniny, to
their nxzchinis instead ut reaJin~ thei r p r i n t uu t sI rf ~
cacophonous room, t h ey ivould focus un the no ise of t l i e i r
t r i . ich i i i ialone and take do~vs te l i g r aphic iTicssages
t ever- increasingspeeds. Lis-tLning ski l l w as a. mark o f p r o
t essional J i s t i n c t i on in s u u n i l t e l c g rap
l>yPhysicians' usi o I s te t lmscopes znJ sound t c l r 8 r
aphc~ ' v i r t u o sic messa~Ltakin~ prcfced a much ~iiower
disserixination of Judice tichni(~uwith t icetel(.-phone, p
honerph. an
-
q oker a genealogy' of those rechni( lues chat were cencral tor
conscruccingsoulMI fepf(i i l l lccloR as lv< kf low >t coJ
necworks as purely na tu ral , i ns t rum en tal , or t r ansparent
condu ics for
The idea char sound-reproJuctian cechnoloyies separated souoJs
tron>thetr sources turns out co kzse been an elaborate
conaruercial and cu l t u ra lp rojecc L'arly audicors of sound-
rcpr(x3u cajun technologies i l id no t a lwaysassume chat
reproJuccd sound reHecce() an -ariL;inal ' at t lat other enJfn
response, manufacturers ard rnzrketers af sounJ-repmJuction
cech-nolayies felt tha t t twy hai l to conv i nce audinces char
the neo' sounJ n te -Jia betongnl to the same class
of'communication as race-to-face speech6'hife ocher rhetorical
str~cep,ies may have been p(Jssible, chis rheroric of
Sterne, Jonathan. Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound
Reproduction.Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2002. p
42http: //site.ebrary.corn/lib/mcgill/Doc? id=f 01
98386&ppg=42Copyright 2002. Duke University Press. All rights
Reserved.May not be reproduced in any form without permission from
the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable
copyright law.
-
LquivalerIce al foN e J ad vertisers co ren der sou
ntd-rc-produc cion technologiesin tami!iar cLrnas. Throu')> an
evan>inacion of the w-ried t h-,S- > Ly qa), chapter q
arL;uis chat early skept ical l is teners essenriallyhail i t r i g
h t : s o u n d - reprodt ic t ion t echno log ies are i nseparable
t rom t l u tesources" al reprotLju;ed sound. To pot i t a no ther
way, the soi i s l o rya n i za-
tiorI c>t souI>d-reproduct ion tLchnotlogy cond i r ione J
che possibi l i t y for hathoriginal" ani l " copy" sounds.
Performer~ haJ to i l evc lop ~vhole Izc~v per-
ForrI>ance techniilus in order co produce 'originals"
suitablL for repfoduL-tiarI Even che very grounds on which the abil
ity ot sounJ-reproductiontL'chnalo8ies "faithful ly" to repro J
ucL' sound coul J be tested in l aboratorishail to be escablishLd.
The ever-shifci ixy, Fiyure at sound t>clL]iti c ryscal l izeda
whole set ot problemsaround the LxpLriencL. of reproduci6i]ity, rhe
aes-thetics af t echno log i . a l l y r L p r oJ uced sound , an J
t h e r e l a t i ons be tweenoriginal and copy. Consider ing
sounJ- reproduc t ion technolog ies as artie:u-lated to parcicular
cechniilues nJ as media Farces us co ctou6le the sup-posed Qb
jetccll' icyot zcallsIllJcic descf ipcions, i t shows t l lLm co 6e
h i s to f l -cztl y m ot i v aced.
Chapter 6 otrers.t history oF the audibl; past icsi lf. lc
cansidL.rs t ter can-dicionc under xvli icl> recori l inL;s came
to be t Inderscood as hiscorical docu-nxents, yiLld in I t n s i
L;ht inco the past . A l t h a ugh ca r ly recordtn s w ere fa
rfrarI> permanent tecords, early irmzpes ot and overtures to
souncl recoiling's~wrmanence and che newfound abil ity to hiar th e
vaices of the dead"pfonloced ani l rad u , t l l ' t,' pral&
HCJtechnologicaland Inst i tUcio lMl I f lno-vation. Nexv, innovat
ive rLLardinp equ i p m en t and m ed i J. ivere devLlopeJi vith
che speci fic aim o f p r o d u c in> l o n g e r - last ing,
recordings. ln t h i s r e -spect, soun J recof J) n~r ' fol
loN'el) innovJ cions in ocher nba jor n inetcenth-
centur> induscries like carIning anJ embalming.I nscitut ions
p re~ t h a txvere dedicatei l t o t h e c o l l eLciorI xnJ l ) r
eservat ion o l s o un d r e c o rd i ngs .Chapcc:r 6 argues
tlute,t through tl>e historical process of making
soundrLcordiny, niore -pern>ane-nt" fvhich be~an as noching
naore chan a V iL -torian tancasq about a rnachine t l a t h i
scorical process was itself altcrexl.As beliefs surrounding death,
the preservation at the dead body, transcen-dence, and tern)~ra(icy
shaped ar explained sound repro
-
Atter t.lccadcs of pursuing genoa:ideal polieirs cuxvarJ Xative
Amer~cans, cheLt.5. goo crrtmenc anil other a cnc ics benin che i
Sgos co employ anchru-~mlogits, Nho ivo i i l i ) use sound record
ing tu ' c ap t ure and score" chr rnu -sic and language of their
native subjects. Embedded in. this anthrupulugi-cal projectv rrc
lol led concept iuns oF Anic. rican cu ltu re zs embuil> i riga
universal tendency coxvaril 'progress" thac N:ould simpIy enpult
YsciveAmerican lite mais alon che way. As fohanrics I'abian has
argued, the ideaut modernity and its r 'o ;c r ine of progress
divas utren caken io in>ply the h is -torical superioriti 'of
"modern" civil izacion(generally urban. cosiriopiilican,largel
>'xvhice, rnidJJ'e-class culture in t)ie Uniced Scacrs and
%'cstern Eu-rope! ovrr o ther cu l cures hy cxst in~ t h ose d
i&'ercnt iyec accuaIIi ' conccm-
poraneous) cultures as if chey exist% in t he col lec t i ve
)~ast of che muderr isThe mil i tary and economic duminacion ut
ocher cultures by the t. nickedScates aiMI 5 'cstern Eu ro' ~ anJ t
he la r g e r ~)rujec:cs ct racism and co tu -nialisrn b e came
explain.ible in che l.ue nineteenth cencury as the prod-ucc ut z
JiRert'nce between chat ivhich is modern tM chat N'hich is nmc
(yec)modern. Relat ions uf space become rr l zcioas ot t ;me. ' '
The d r ive co bu i l danJ hll phonoyrapliic archives ~vith che
sounds uf dying" n.:iciuns ai~J cul-tures, the desire tu m ; :i l e
sound record ings pe rmanenc, Na incxcr icablyl inl cd to early .
incI>roIx>loyiscs' ambivalent rc.lat ions to h i s tory and
che i rsub jKcs P l l onog faph i ' s Gluch-coute J pu'iver co
capture Ihe vo ice.s ut chedead divas t)aliis nzcconyrmicaI/i
connecced tu che dr ive co Jeh iscoric izc analprese+ e cuft i icrs
chat ch U.S. govcrismenc htaJ actively suUght co destcoI;only a
~eiierat ion ear l ier. Permanence in sound record i r iy was much
m u i 'ethan a mechanical face, it divas a thorou hip ci ilt i i
raI and po l i t ical y ro ran>To a great J c 8 r ee, i n v c n
t i ny , rep ruduc i6 i l i t i d i vas about rewonscrucciciy,sound
and hearing and dcvejopin~ technologies tu fic and promote
thesenevi construct. The idea af suund record ing,'s pecnianence is
a str ik ing ex-ample of che muvemenc fcurri ~wish co practice tu
technological form
A note on my approach conf.lucles chis incruduccion. Given che
scope o) mytaL, I otri.r nu pretense co hnal.tI,' or catalicy in
the account chat I ot ter Tr 'w:'iraqi)it'A. P.
-
we make i i l . Jescribiny, human nature. T/h AzrLhbk P.al o
tTers a, s)wcolativeforay into nzomencs xa hen the m' ugly natures
of sounding ancl hear in wereobIeccs al practice and rifi .at ion.
It is not a complete staternnc on humannature itsrll. nor is my pr
inaarI, boa.1 threcovery of lived experience. al-thou h cer ta in
ly i ~ )~ l e 's own accounts of thei r exper iences carI pro~ ide
in-sight inco t)>e hiscory ot" saund.
Like any intel)ectuJI pnxli jct. this book bears che newark of
its zurhorsbiases. Nfy own distaste for che cult of Edison in
phonograph hiscori But , more im p o r t a r i t , the h is tory of
sound n>Usc move heyoridrecoierin experience to i r i terrogat
in~ ch coridi t ions under wh ich chat x-pericnce bccam possib)e in
the hrst pl . ice. Experiences are chriaselvcs vari-ahles shaped by
che contexts th rough w h i c ls t lxey thea help the i r sub
jectsnavii;ate
28 TH E AUDIBLE PA5T
Sterne, Jonathan. Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound
Reproduction.Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2002. p
45http: //site.ebrary.corn/lib/mcgill/Doc? id=f 01
98386&ppg=45Copyright 2002. Duke University Press. All rights
Reserved.May not be reproduced in any form without permission from
the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable
copyright law.
-
Of cours th question ot experience sril) jin~ers. %'hile
acknovrle dyingthe plurality of passibl auJibl p aints, this book
ou t l i nes some con>monbases tor n>odern sound cUl ture in
the XX'st es~~ ia l l y a round p rac t i cesot sound repracluct
ion. Ic is doubi tul that they are tru lv un ive rsals, but
they'are sut'calcic:ncl}' general to be ' orch considering. Tl|ere
are rercainli ot l ierdominant. rnergeoc, or subjugated conscnic.ts
ut soun(), l isteninp, andhearing, beyond the ones coosiJered in
these pages. I) iscories nt soundcou]d contribuc co .a much wi Jer
range oF then>es in cultural and p(il i t icalhistory than I
cover in chis book. As zlxvzys. there are other l>iscories co
bewritcen. %'c a i l ] h ave co tvric ch(:rn in order to l . norv i
t t h } ' Fundamen-tally lsallenge roy conclusions l>ere
This is noc to succun>b to the Iucal isn>, curnu!Jcivism,
and noposi t iv -ism that has r . iyayed much con tern~mrary cu l t
u re] h i s to r iography:. Eventsor pl>nomena naercly need to
exist to carry' some int l lectuz l sinai>ihcanc,they Jo noc neJ
co pass a test oF universa3it}'. Sound history; howevr par-tial.
must continually move beteen th immediate aAJ che genera],
theconcrete and che abstract. There is a burden ot sounJ history,
just as thereis a bur Jen of I~istory, to borrow a p)arm trom
I-leyden %~hite. To oFer acompl ling ~ceont of humanity,soon
-
Sterne, Jonathan. Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound
Reproduction.Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2002. p
47http: //site.ebrary.corn/lib/mcgill/Doc? id=f 01
98386&ppg=47Copyright 2002. Duke University Press. All rights
Reserved.May not be reproduced in any form without permission from
the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable
copyright law.