Barenboim Essay

Academic Writing

“In music we are equal…Music says everything about unity and harmony...the orchestra is a symbol of democracy...” (Daniel Barenboim). To what extent is this statement true?

This essay will critique Barenboim’s statement using the West-Eastern Divan orchestra and El Sistema as case studies. It will also utilise further psychological and ethnomusicological sources as evidence for discussion. The topic of the orchestral hierarchy, its juxtaposition with perceptions of musical democracy, and music’s relation to equality, unity and harmony will be explored in detail.

The West-Eastern Divan orchestra deliberately uses music to resolve conflict and promote social harmony. It was founded by Daniel Barenboim and Edward Said in the late nineties to bring together young musicians from a variety of middle eastern countries, with an aim to promote unity through music in spite of the social and political divides of the Arab-Israeli conflict (Washington, Beecher, Sommer and Andrés, 2010). Willson (2009) suggests that the West-Eastern Divan orchestra provides an innovative interaction model for the relationship between Europe and the middle east; Barenboim himself has described the orchestral structure itself as an ideal embodiment of social harmony. However, Willson (2009) suggests that this relationship is not as simple as Barenboim describes. She describes the existence of the parallax relationship which fundamentally connects the Arab-Israeli conflict to the West-Eastern Divan orchestra. The orchestral project was formed as a musical symbol for peace and unity, but its mere existence reflects the driving global conflict behind its creation, which the orchestra continues to be influenced by (Willson, 2009). This implies that the reality is not as simple as music cancelling out conflict, but that there is a reciprocal relationship between the two. Considering this, alongside other factors, it is debatable to what extent the West-Eastern Divan orchestra achieves the goals of democracy, unity and equality that Barenboim claims.

Barenboim’s statement refers to the orchestra as a democratic social structure but, in the case of the West-Eastern Divan orchestra, the structure is one that he has devised and is the self-appointed leader of. Canetti (1984) argues that a conductor’s performance is a paramount example of how those in power behave. Barenboim's position within the orchestra itself suggests that power is not spread equally between the musicians because he exerts a certain amount of control over how the orchestra operates. This is partly reflected in how his professional hierarchy became part of the orchestral structure (Willson, 2009) and through his music choice; although the orchestra may have been formed in response to the conflict, it is far from unusual in terms of its classical Western repertoire (Willson, 2009), a genre which, according to Jorgensen (2003), is viewed as elitist and inaccessible by some. This suggests that, at least in musical terms, the social structure of the orchestra is not as groundbreaking as Barenboim argues.

A further criticism of Barenboim’s statement is the fact that music does not always achieve equality; it can be used to reflect and reinforce the hierarchy of the implicit hegemonic. For example, Martin (2012) describes how public music in the military corresponded to preferences of the officer in command, and Canetti (1984) compares the musical score to law, suggesting that a conductor’s analysis can be used to punish those who deviate from the preferred ideal. In the case of the West-Eastern Divan orchestra, this preferred ideal extends to a broader social ideology, which is encapsulated by the orchestra website. The West-Eastern Divan orchestra’s purpose and existence is described as an attempt to develop positive cross-cultural relationships and to “humanize the other” (West-Eastern Divan Orchestra, n.d). However, Barenboim fails to recognise how the use of music in such a fashion can also reinforce the narrative of the other instead of embracing social harmony (Willson, 2009).

There is a fine line between celebrating diversity that comes with equality and accentuating differences (O’Connell and Castelo-Branco, 2010), which is further complicated by Barenboim’s attempts to manufacture cohesion and force his political views upon musicians during sessions (Willson, 2009). For example, Barenboim exhibits a clear confirmation bias in seeking out external speakers who speak on social and political issues in manners which reflect and confirm his own views of the conflict between Israel and Palestine (Wilson, 2009). This can be explained in part by the concept of identity-protective cognition, where individuals accept information that confirm their identity and values while rejecting information that threatens these values; this pattern of acceptation and rejection is characterised by the individual’s social commitment to their cultural group (Kahan, 2017). Therefore, Barenboim’s speeches and the speakers that he invited often had the opposite effect of turning musicians away from the orchestra instead of promoting unity within it (Willson, 2009). In addition to his undisguised attempts at social and political engineering within the orchestra, Barenboim also possesses the ability to both conduct the orchestra and dictate which pieces will be played. Although he may describe the orchestral environment as democratic, he has, in effect, the last word on matters of controversy, be it musical or otherwise (Willson, 2009). This implies that the structure of the West-Eastern Divan orchestra is more of a musical dictatorship than the open democracy that Barenboim promotes.

A further criticism of Barenboim’s claim is that it is overly simplistic, idealistic and neglects the darker complexities of music. Kent (2015) recommends a cautious approach to the commonly accepted idea of music fundamentalism. While music fundamentalists, such as Barenboim, may believe in the insurrectionary power and consistent moral purity of music, Kent (2015) argues that it is not the music itself which achieves harmony, but the way in which it is used. For example, Beethoven’s ninth symphony was appropriated by Nazis and yet it was later adopted as the unofficial anthem of the EU (Buch, 2003). This is just one example of many which illustrates the universal adaptability of music in reflecting, reinforcing and challenging values. In the case of the West-Eastern Divan orchestra, it is Barenboim’s intent and active attempts to use music to unite which is the influential social aspect of the musical endeavour, not the inherent characteristics of the music itself. Music, in of itself, can be used by others with much darker intentions (Jorgensen, 2008).

A further issue with Barenboim’s claim, and music fundamentalism more generally, is the implicit assumption that music is the most appropriate method through which to tackle inequality. Although music can be used to highlight the issue of inequality, as illustrated by direct references made in lyrics to exclusive economic and social divides (e.g: Bareto’s lyrical references to Asia beaches in Lima (Montero-Diaz, 2016)), few studies have compared musical endeavours to other methods that can be used in this area. Many musicians may claim that music is an ideal method for bridge building across societal divides (Cohen, 2015), but where is the empirical evidence that music is the most effective approach towards achieving this mythical social harmony? The effective altruism movement suggests that this is a criticism which can be applied more widely to government based charities as well as music itself, but such an approach also assumes that the aim of altruism is to achieve the best possible outcome for as many individuals as possible (Berman, Barasch, Levine and Small, 2018), whereas the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra is targeted at achieving social harmony between those affected by a specific conflict. Either way, regardless of the orchestra’s audience of impact, the assumption that the West-Eastern Divan orchestra inherently achieves the standards that Barenboim promotes through music alone has been challenged by very few; this is an issue which also comes to light in Baker’s (2014) study of the Venezuelan organisation, El Sistema.

El Sistema is a music education organisation which uses orchestral music and training to socially empower disengaged youths from poor backgrounds (Baker, 2014). Although El Sistema’s approach toward equality is not as directly focused on cross-cultural social harmony compared to the West-Eastern Divan orchestra, a comparison can be made in terms of how music is purportedly used for the purposes of granting privileged opportunities to financially disadvantaged youths, bringing such individuals on equal footing with counterparts of a higher socioeconomic status. Similarly to the rhetoric presented by the El Sistema mission statement (Baker, 2014), Jorgensen (2008) argues that classical music education can be used to enrich the lives of youths and goes on to suggest that this can be achieved through class structures that reflect the formation and maintenance of civil society. Jorgensen (2003) compares a lack of Western music education to illiteracy and argues that, from a social standpoint, excluding individuals from learning how to read such music is both racist and classist. Therefore, El Sistema’s attempts to assist and educate those in financially poor areas succeeds in including otherwise excluded individuals to create a more equal society.

However, from a more practical financial perspective, opportunities provided by organisations such as El Sistema and the West-Eastern Divan orchestra can also provide youths with an opportunity to escape their current situation and explore careers elsewhere (Willson, 2009). Although such individuals can hardly be blamed for wanting to explore their options in more economically sustainable climates, the impact of music evidently fails to tackle the root cause of inequality in the same way that alternative methods, such as implicating policy, might.

Baker (2014) references the overarching discrepancies between official, global narratives, for organisations such as El Sistema, and the day to day realities for musicians playing in the orchestra. While one overly idealistic view may be presented by the conductor or founder, those who play within the group may possess very different views on the matter of the orchestra’s democratic process and their so-called leader, whom Baker (2014) suggests is a God-like figure to musicians within the orchestra. Canetti (1984) proposed that the conductor of an ensemble, in this case an orchestra, can be viewed as ruler of the individual musician’s musical world, creating a museum-like environment where the individual is fully focused on the musical agenda. However, it is debatable how positive the museum presentation of the orchestra is in terms of achieving equality and social harmony.

Willson (2009) suggests that the museum can be used for both positive and negative purposes. It can be used to manipulate and to impose the influence of an external composer’s voice on individual musicians (Cone, 1974); a voice which is often communicated via the conductor, imbuing them with the power of melody. Canetti (1984) describes the conductor in a similarly negative tone as an arrogant, controlling individual who embodies the orchestral unit, suggesting that Baker’s (2014) pointed critique of such power holds weight. However, Cone (1974) highlights how the imposition of this external voice is an acceptable burden for many musicians and Willson (2009) references how personal grievances were forgotten when the musicians of the West-Eastern Divan orchestra played together. Although the museum may make individuals vulnerable to the imposing authority of the conductor, it also succeeds in sealing off musicians from the prejudices of the outside world (i.e: the political and social divides between Palestinians and Israelis). However, this does raise the question of whether the impact of social harmony continues outside of the orchestra. Does the artificial nature of the museum inhibit this?

Bakagiannis and Tarrant’s (2006) study provides some insight into this area from a social psychology perspective. They investigated how musical preference can affect intergroup attitudes and perceptions, and their findings suggested that the sense of social harmony via music that Barenboim describes may be a consequence of individuals within the orchestra focusing on the superordinate social identity (orchestra) instead of their own subordinate, personal identities (Arab/Israeli), which are relegated to a lower level of salience (Bakagiannis and Tarrant, 2006). Therefore, those within the orchestra may develop more positive attitudes towards individuals that they might have otherwise perceived negatively. This provides support for Barenboim’s claim that music can foster social harmony; however, Bakagiannis and Tarrant (2006) point out that further research is necessary to determine whether these attitudes will continue outside of the initial orchestra context. Willson (2009) notes that the anti-Israel sentiment in some countries has led several musicians of the West-Eastern Divan orchestra to feel alienated from their communities at home, which suggests that this is not the case. Although the act of playing in the orchestra does seem to bring individuals together on equal ground as Barenboim suggests, anecdotal evidence implies that this positive social impact does not extend to areas outside of this; music can be used to establish social harmony but only in an isolated context.

In addition, Brinner (2009) highlights the limitations of musical action when faced with a conflict entrenched as deeply into society as the Arab-Israeli conflict. He illustrates that, in spite of the globally known divide, individuals from different sides of the conflict do not categorise themselves as simply as Arab or Israeli as outsiders do; many might identify as an Israeli Arab or Arab Jew, for instance. Social identity theory would suggest that these different personal and cultural identities vary in salience depending on the context of the situation at hand (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Therefore, music does have the potential to unite individuals from different backgrounds under the salient identity of musicianship. Theoretically, this can be achieved but, as Bakagiannis and Tarrant’s (2006) findings suggest, this may have little impact outside of the ensemble context and further empirical research is needed to confirm the hypothesis.

At present, the sociological study of the relationship between music and social harmony is often complicated by the human tendency to idealise the arts (Baker, 2014). One can argue that context, in addition to in-depth research, is key to understanding whether music alone can be used to achieve equality and social harmony. Barenboim, for example, has significant personal reasons to make claims about the social impact of the orchestra, similarly to Jose Antonia Abreu, the leader and founder of El Sistema. Barenboim’s enthusiasm for music as an enforcer of social harmony, combined with the need to market the organisation to maintain its existence, provides further context to his precarious position as leader and businessman (Willson, 2009). Similarly, Baker (2014) describes how Abreu in particular has “ambushed” politicians with youth orchestra concerts, in an attempt to maintain a public narrative of awe at the spectacle. Both orchestra leaders are famous for, and have staked their reputation on their musical endeavours, and an emphasis on the positive social impact of orchestral music can act as a persuasive political marketing argument for external funding, regardless of the evidence behind such claims (Baker, 2014). Although there is some evidence to suggest that music can play a role in the adolescent construction of social identity (Bakagiannis and Tarrant, 2006), there is little research to support the idea that using music for such purposes is any more beneficial than other forms of social activity (Baker, 2014). On top of this promotional bias, many critiques of El Sistema are written in Spanish, and the language barrier often has the effect of making these unique critiques of social harmony via music inaccessible to others (Baker, 2014).

Wald’s (2016) discussion of the limitations and potentials of youth orchestras provides one example of such a critique. She highlights how the more positive perspectives of these musical-social endeavours are accepted and promoted by organisers of the projects (e.g: Barenboim), and by academics in various areas of art and education, without dwelling on the causes that necessitate such projects; whereas criticisms of such approaches categorise the orchestral structure as an unequal power structure and uncritically dismiss such projects for reinforcing these structures (e.g: Baker, 2014; Willson, 2009). Wald (2016) argues that viewing music’s power to unite in such a polarised fashion is not helpful for the progression of study in the area and instead proposes that the academic focus should be placed on the ambiguities and tensions produced by such organisations. Willson (2009), for example, notes how local perceptions of the West-Eastern Divan orchestra are often dramatically different to global perceptions of the orchestra, as the orchestra’s funding is seen to divert resources away from the local area. If anything, the orchestra could be said to further inequality in this way.

Wald (2016) also touches upon the issue of identity-protective cognition (Kahan, 2017), posing the question of whether art itself is a cultural reflection of social power. If this is the case, is it possible for equality to be achieved via projects such as El Sistema? Wald (2016) suggests that such issues can be better explored by utilising a bottom up approach. Power structures that construct the context of the orchestra are difficult to fully understand when viewed from the outside. Therefore, in order to understand the impact of the orchestra’s social endeavours fully, we must first understand the different perspectives surrounding the orchestra’s impact from within the orchestra and the orchestra’s home country, an area that research tends to neglect in the wake of international media praise (Baker, 2014; Wald, 2016).

In conclusion, orchestral music can be used to achieve equality, unity and social harmony as Barenboim suggests, but an understanding of the context and psychological mechanisms involved in such processes is vital to doing so successfully.Barenboim, as an orchestral leader, can use his musical leadership powers for good and bad, to include and to exclude, albeit unintentionally doing the latter (Willson, 2009). Taken as an instrument for equality in of itself, the orchestra can be used to promote social harmony and equality within the orchestra, but it is important to fully consider the validity of generalising such claims to music outside of the orchestral context. While music may prove effective in uniting individuals under a salient social identity, further research is needed to determine how this social impact can be maintained and extended to communities outside of the orchestra itself (Bakagiannis and Tarrant, 2006). Music may simply be a stepping stone towards achieving social harmony and it should be used in conjunction with other methods that tackle the root causes of inequality.

References


Top

Back to Academic Writing

Back to Archives

Related Pages: 2018 Archives