III. Americans vs. Europeans
Christensen, Dieter. 1988. “The International Folk Music Council and ‘The Americans’: On the Effects of Stereotypes on the Institutionalization of Ethnomusicology.” Yearbook for Traditional Music 20: 11-18.
主讲：徐欣 专业：民族音乐学
作者简介与文章背景：
• Dieter Christensen：1981——2001年间任ICTM（国际传统音乐学会）秘书长， 美国哥伦比亚大学民族音乐学教授，1957年获得音乐学和人类学博士学位，长期关注土耳其及阿拉伯地区音乐。这篇文章是他在1987年柏林第29届ICTM大会开幕式的演讲。
• 文章结构
一、前言
二、正文
1、1954年：
2、1954年以前
3、1954年以后
三、结语
文章内容：
一、前言
• 学术历史不能仅仅根据观念构建，而远离了那些观念的持有者，接受者和是否依照其行动的人们。我们采取了在西方学术背景下的音乐研究这种理念来理解这一过程，有必要去考虑个人和团体对事件的过程所产生的影响。由学术协会的主管机构（governing body）作出的共同的判断及其过程，可以给学术机构的工作带来更深刻的见解。国际化的团体在探求知识的时候有着更广阔的范围，就像民族音乐学在“欧洲”的概念相对于“美洲”所给我们的暗示一样。
• 概述：IFMC是唯一的一个成体系的传统音乐领域国际性的组织，其产生的头二十年（1947-1967）被一系列关键性的事情威胁到了他的生存，其中，对于其经济利益的发展和意识形态倾向都有重大影响的是由欧洲所控制的这一机构和美国的关系。在1967年，这一问题才被将其总部迁至加拿大而被部分的解决和缓和，2年后这一搬迁得以实现。
• 作者在文章中主要讨论将欧洲与美洲并置的IFMC的产生过程，特别关注那些影响了协会主管机构做出决定的观点和偏见。
二、正文
• 1、1954年——对于美国团队来说有纪念意义的一年
• 1954年6月，IFMC执行委员会在Stuttgart会面讨论“协会的科学化活动”（the scientific activities of the Council）的问题。协会的名誉书记和精神领袖，Maud Karpeles，依据来自一些会员的批评“协会的运转work不够专业，其科学化的方面被忽略”做了报告，解释说这是由于财政的原因，和协会的联络员的不合作。她认为独立的科学化的操作是要去寻求赞助，找到依靠，因此希望与当时正在美国举行的专家会议合作，此会议是在联合国教科文组织，国际音乐学会和民族音乐学组织的赞助下举行的，但是并没有收到回应。
• 这是美国学者第一次以集体的形象被IFMC认真看待，而不仅仅是一个短暂的问题。在随后的IFMC的会议中，美国团队被给予了很大关注，计划开始制定，具体步骤开始实施。协会对于美国团队发展的强烈回应原因有三：一、IFMC的发展停滞不前：会员人数和经济状况不容乐观；二、对于那些想要寻求国际化知识媒介的会员来说，协会一般化的学术倾向使他们感到失望；三，经济基础雄厚且充满活力的美国学术团体被认为有能力对所有音乐进行研究——包括民间音乐，不仅仅在北美，而是世界范围内的研究。这个团体召唤全世界的学者加入进来。这似乎侵犯了IFMC在学术上十分薄弱的领地。
• 1954年会议之后的13年间，美国团队无论在思想还是行动上都在IFMC政策制定者当中扮演了重要角色。同时，在协会内外美国团队的活动，以及他们的观念都对IFMC的发展产生了巨大影响。【1954年美国团队初现端倪，随后强势介入到国际民族音乐学界。但作者主要目的不是对其作用和影响歌功颂德，而是回顾ICTM与美国团队艰难曲折的合作历程。但从行文中仍不难看出作者对自己的美国学者身份是多么的自豪。】
2、1954年以前：
• 作者回顾了IFMC在1947年建立时的社会及学术背景，正像Ringer在年鉴里所说，“IFMC建立的时候，整个世界仍然未从战争的创伤中恢复。政治上，几乎每一个地方的情况都是不稳定的。”IFMC的目标与UNESCO一致，那就是重建国际化物质与精神交流的桥梁，这一切在很长时间内都被破坏掉了。当时第一届ICTM的执行委员会中有一位美国人，Dr. Emrich，但除了在1953年辞职以外，他似乎并未对IFMC做出任何贡献。
• 1948年，协会邀请了来自35个国家的140位著名人士担任“通讯员”correspondents，来进行协会的运转。加拿大收到10个邀请，美国收到了除英国以外最多的16个邀请（英国30个），包括Alan Lomax，Curt Sachs，George Herzog和Charles Seeger等著名学者。之后这个名单一直没有得到扩充，直到51年才增加了四位美国学者，和美国民俗学会。
• 1952年，执行委员会通告，美国民俗学会委托查尔斯西格在美国成立IFMC的国家委会（a national committee），西格被任命为这一协会和IFMC的联络官（Liaison Officer），53年他被提名参加换届选举，但是他并未参加过任何执行委员会的会议，同时也未承担联络职责。他唯一的一次联络官报告是在1956年和他的辞呈一起递交的。
• 公平的说，1954年以前美国学者对于IFMC的兴趣只能说一般般，IFMC的活动主要还是集中在欧洲，唯一的一次非欧洲会议是1950年在印度举行的，这次会议对于IFMC来说并不重要。美国团队在IFMC的全球视野中并不是一个重要的实体。【1954年之前，美国团队的漠不经心与之后的积极参与形成了鲜明对比。】
1954年有两大发展改变了这一局面：执行委员会开始认识到，1949年在威尼斯和1953年在比亚里茨以及潘普罗纳举行的民间音乐国际庆典失去了在IFCM中合法性，对其成员们也失去了吸引力，由于演员难觅，同样的节目总是重复上演，使得会议参加者们审美疲劳。与此同时，由于美国团队在1953年写信给世界范围内的70位学者，并在1954年伊始给300位学者邮寄了他们的第一期《民族音乐学通讯》，这被IFMC看作是严峻的竞争，于是他们开始了行动。1954年春，IFMC表达了与美国团体合作的意向，但直到那一年的6月在Stuttgart开会时还未收到回复。一年之后，当IFMC考虑到要填补空缺的时候，出现了一个普遍的意见“应该首先选择美国的民族音乐学团队的会员”。在Miss Karpeles1955年秋天访美的时候对当时的形势作出报告之后，委员会采纳了上述意见，并决定在出版领域与美国合作，而且赋予Karpeles邀请美国学者作为通讯员的权利。
• 1955年12月，她又建议与哥伦比亚大学的Dr. Willard Rhodes任主席的民族音乐学学会建立密切联系。她还以个人身份与一些组织的成员，如刚发行民族音乐学通讯的美国的组织成员查尔斯西格和Willard Rhodes就IFMC与美国民族音乐学学会Society of Ethnomusicology的关系进行了讨论。西格建议“这两个组织应该联合起来成立一个国际民族音乐学协会ISE”。Karpeles与执行委员会争论这个SEM的研究范围要超过IFMC，因为它限制于研究民间音乐，包括非欧洲的民间音乐；另外，协会不愿意放弃“民间音乐”这个称呼。
• 地位被确定，两个协会的关系也应亲如一家，但是距离还存在着。当涉及到共同利益的时候合作将仅仅停留在想像层面：SEM，以美国为基础，是研究世界范围内音乐的专业性组织，而IFMC,是系统化的国际性组织，其意识形态限制在对于跨国家关系的兴趣范围上。
• 美国国家协会USNC于1962年成立，并于1963年正式得到承认。IFMC下属的美国国家学会发行了《民间音乐和舞蹈》通讯，致力于扩充会员，尝试收集资金，但由于IFMC的危机，USNC在两三年内都没有了动力。简而言之，在1966年，帮助资源的缺乏和管理费用的增加迫使IFMC重新为其秘书处选址，并经历一些戏剧性的转变，破产似乎成了唯一选择。
• 危机与应对：Maud Karpeles，这位创办IFMC，并为此付出大量精力、体力和热情的女士，由于身体原因和经济压力不得不退居幕后。直到1964年，三分之二的资金都用于支付工资；办公地址在伦敦不停变化，最终没钱付房租。1966年Barbara Krader上任后，努力争取美国的支持，并与东欧和UNESCO加强联系，执行委员会必须为协会的未来做出决定。
• 一波三折的选址门：1961年十月30号， Maud Karpeles提醒顾问委员会她作为荣誉书记即将退休，需要另外人选来面对经济上没有保障的状况，并建议把总部设在别国，也许是美国。1966年Barbara Krader上任，财政状况很惨淡。但顾问委员会的成员并未面对现实，有人认为把总部迁至美国“是最后的办法，因为那样将失去协会的国际性特征。”普遍意见认为伦敦是理所当然的中心。
• 同时，美国伊利诺伊大学谨慎的表示出兴趣，并开出了富有吸引力的条件，Alexander Ringer将兼任执行书记，或者执行理事。1966年的加纳会议，Ringer和Maud Karpeles、W. Rhobes就细节问题进行了讨论，并表达了他的经营理念。他还指望与他的同事，Bruno Nettl建立合作，并表示愿意将IFMC的期刊以年刊的形式在伊利诺伊大学出版社出版。执行委员会同意了这一提议并迅速行动起来。有人极力主张将总部留在伦敦，或欧洲。很多地方都表示提供总部地点和执行书记（比如德国）。顾问委员会开始权衡利弊： Ringer和Nettl这二位有着欧洲背景的人共同承担协会的管理职责；可以在伊力诺依大学出版社出版季刊；相对稳定的财政支持。由于上述种种吸引，他们于1966年9月13日接受了伊力诺依大学的请求。几天后，由于Nettl不满意他在协会管理当中的角色，人们开始质疑迁至美国是否明智，又开始重新努力将会址留在欧洲。
• 1967年4月，顾问委员会宣布将在伊力诺依和哥本哈根之间选择一个作为执行委员会的地点。尽管对选择美国还有很多异议，经历了种种争论，但最终伊力诺依大学以压倒性的票数胜出。反对票主要来自西德、比利时和斯坎蒂纳维亚。
1967年6月，作为整个事件的结束，Ringer和Karpeles还有其他执行委员会的成员相聚柏林，结果非常戏剧性。一些成员经过讨论认为Ringer的组织计划不可行，已被条例认可的伊力诺依的提案被取消了。在丹麦暂时落脚1年多之后，最终，1969年，协会落户于加拿大的皇后大学，并持续了整整12年。
• 三、结语
从那之后，IFMC持续的在发生着变化。原来的《民族音乐学通讯》在伊力诺依大学出版社出了几年，变成了由Ringer主编的《年鉴》。Nettl也做回了编辑，年鉴达到了很高的学术水平。美国团队过去不应该，也不再被认为是ICTM的威胁。（最明显的变化就是名称。）SEM和ICTM都扮演了与众不同的角色，并形成互补：
SEM是北美的区域性组织，代表了美国和加拿大的专业化，学术化的民族音乐学家的兴趣，并通过出版物为世界范围内的民族音乐学领域做出贡献；
而ICTM是国际组织，其主要学术领域是包括了民族音乐学的传统音乐，并致力于不同求知理念的相互认同和理解。其总部现在设在美国；协会的名称不再有民间这个词；最初的20年这个词在意识形态等方面限制了协会的研究工作；但它并未失去其国际化的特征。相反地，不仅仅在统计学和经济学层面，也在精神上，国际传统音乐学会比它最初追求的特征更加的强大：打破物质和精神的界限，在世界范围内进行独立的传统音乐研究。
接下来曹老师为大家介绍了他所熟知的ICTM历届主席的一些情况，以及1991年香港会议的筹办细节。建议大家应该上ICTM和UNESCO的网站，进行具体的了解，并希望同学们能积极加入ICTM成为会员，感受国际学术气氛，分享国际学术成果。
曹老师的点评：
Christensen当时是ICTM的秘书长。他从德国移民到美国，在美国Columbia University大学任教。基于身份的多重性，本文免不了要写得隐蔽圆滑，点到为止，对美国与欧洲学界（SEM vs ICFM/ICTM）的历史矛盾的回顾，既不能得罪北美民族音乐学的同行，又不能使仍然对美国具冷漠态度的不少欧洲会员和理事不满（当时ICTM的主席是德国人）。同学需要在此背景之中去阅读这篇文章。【文章后的一年，1989年我进入ICTM理事会，身历其境的体验了欧、美学界的矛盾。这种矛盾至今仍然存在。】
Structure of the Article
[Introduction]European and American ethnomusicology through institutional (IFMC) scholarship
Historical Account of Events Unfolding between the IFMC and the SEM
Present Status between ICTM and SEM
曹老师请同学注意文章中的以下段落：
[Introduction]European and American ethnomusicology through institutional (IFMC) scholarship
p. 11
…insights into the workings of institutional scholarship; those of an international organization add the dimension of national or even continental distinctions in the quest for knowledge, such as they are implied in the notions of “European” versus “American” ethnomusicology. 【从学术团体的组织来看欧洲与美国民族音乐学学界之间的关系】
The first twenty years of the International Folk Music Council (IFMC), the only structurally international society in the field of traditional music, 【至今仍然如此。相对来说，SEM从建立到现在，从来都是以美国学者为主体的地方（国家）组织。】are marked by a series of crises …. A key issue, both for the economic development and the ideological direction of the Council, was the relation of the then European-dominated IFMC to “the Americans”, an issue that was partly resolved or neutralized only when, in 1967, the Executive Board decided to move the headquarters of the ICTM to Canada, a move that was accomplished two years later. 【只能说是表面上“resolved”，因为欧、美的对立根本上仍是存在的。不少欧洲学者至今仍对美国的学术方向和学风不屑一顾（我曾是两届ICTM理事会上的理事，参加和组织过多次的ICTM国际会议，也曾在UNESCO“非物质文化遗产保护”“专家小组”等场合与不少欧洲学者有过交往，这种“对立”明的或暗的至今都存在。曾有欧洲学者对我说：“I couldn’t care less what the Americans are doing！”】
In this essay, I shall consider the process that arose for the IFMC from a juxtaposition of Europeans and Americans, with special attention to the perceptions and preconceptions that influenced decisions of the Council’s governing body. 【文章的主旨】
Historical Account of Events Unfolding between the IFMC) and the SEM
pp. 11 – 12
In June of 1954…. With regard to the latter, she 【指的是Maud Karpeles，IFMC的开创功臣】had suggested to the organizers 【指的是当时在美国开始成形的民族音乐学组织】 “the desirability of cooperation with the IFMC but had had no reply”. 【美国学界的这种自大和不合作态度，是双边关系恶化的原因之一】
p. 12
It is here that, for the first time, American scholars as a group figure【SEM】 in the deliberations of the IFMC, and not just as a fleeting issue. At this and subsequent meetings of the IFMC Executive Board, considerable attention is given to “the Americans,” the “American group Ethno-Musicology,” “the American group which issues the news-letter entitled Ethnomusicology,”【“学会”的初期没有学刊，只有“通讯”】 etc. The Council’s strong reaction to the developments in the United States appears to have three causes. First, the IFMC, in its eighth year, seemed to be stagnating: unsatisfactory membership development endangered the fragile economic basis of the Council. Second, disappointment with the general direction of the Council was loudly voiced by those members who were seeking a vehicle for international intellectual exchange. Finally, an obviously energetic group of scholars in the economically strong United States was perceived as laying claim to the scholarly study of all music – including folk music – not only in North America, but throughout the World. 【美国学界的“文化霸权主义”是继政治经济的“殖民主义”后的一个值得关注的问题，但仍有不少华人学者甘愿做他们的传声筒，没有自己的主见。】This group was calling on scholars throughout the World to join them. It looked like an invasion into IFMC territory where the defenses were the weakest: in the scholarly domain.
Over the 13 years that followed the Executive Board meeting of 1954 in Stuttgart, “the Americans” maintained a prominent place in the considerations and actions of the IFMC policy makers. Only in 1967, when the headquarters of the Council moved temporarily to Denmark in preparation for its eventual relocation to Canada and when the Council’s major publication, the Yearbook of the International Folk Music Council, had been entrusted to Alexander Ringer 【Ringer是美国学者。你们将会在本课读到他对北美民族音乐学的严厉的批评】 and the Illinois University Press, did “the Americans” cease to be an issue for the IFMC. 【也算是一个对美国人的迁就吧】
…Alexander Ringer’s (1971:5-6) analysis, both published in the Yearbook for 1969, shed light on the social and intellectual climate in which the IFMC arose. As Ringer puts it, “when the International Folk Music Council was founded, the world was still stunned by the ravages of a war fought with unprecedented cruelty. . . .” (Ringer 1971:5). In keeping with the goals of UNESCO, the IFMC aimed, above all, at rebuilding the bridges across international boundaries, physical as well as conceptual, that for so long had remained in ruin. 【建立IFMC的历史背景和动机。不过，我们看到，当全世界在二战后的创伤之中重建、各国学界努力在联合国的精神中建构一个国际学界共享的学术团体之时，美国学界在忙于建立属于他们自己的学会。】
p. 13
In 1948, the Council invited 140 individuals in thirty-five countries to become “Correspondents” – personages of distinction who would carry on the constitutional work of the IFMC. Canada received ten invitations, but the USA received the lion’s share after the UK (30): sixteen. The list includes, among others, Bertrand Bronson, Percy Grainger, Alan Lomax, Curt Sachs, George Herzog (who did not reply until 1950) and Charles Seeger. The list did not grow much, even though in 1950 an IFMC conference was held in the United States when Indiana University rescued a meeting originally scheduled for Montreal. Only four USA Correspondents were added in 1951, among them Gertrude Kurath, Albert Lord, and the American Folklore Society. 【再次显示美国学者对此国际团体的不合作态度】
At the 1952 Executive Board meeting it was noted that the American Folklore Society “had entrusted to Mr. Charles Seeger the formation of a national committee [of the IFMC] in the USA”. Seeger was appointed a Liaison Officer in 1952 and also co-opted to the Executive Board; in 1953, he was nominated for regular election to the Board, but he did not attend any Board meeting nor did he apparently much liaise. His one and only Liaison Officer report was received together with his resignation as Liaison Officer and as a Board member, in 1956. 【！】
It seems then fair to say that until 1954, American participation and interest in the IFMC was hardly more than nominal; IFMC activities centered on Europe; the one conference held outside Europe, at Indiana University in 1950, saw little European participation, and was marginal to the IFMC. 【你来我往？】 “The Americans” as a group were not a significant entity in the world view of the IFMC.
【1991年的国际年会是在香港开的。我以该会“Organizing Committee”主席和“Program Committe”成员的身份邀请了30多位中国学者赴会，这当是中国学界首次具代表性阵容的，在大型国际学术会议上与西方学界的对话。有趣的是，国内学者在检视中国学术的发展历史之时，对此关键时刻只字不提。】
…the new “American group” 【Society for Ethnomusicology (SEM)】 which had written to 70 people internationally in 1953 and had mailed its first Ethno-Musicology Newsletter to 300 around the beginning of 1954, was perceived as serious competition. So the IFMC Board took action. An offer of cooperation with the Americans, sent in the spring of 1954, had drawn no response by 2 June of that year when the Board met in Stuttgart. One year later, when the Board considered filling a vacancy, it was “the general opinion . . . that first choice should be given to a member of the American ‘Ethno-Musicology’ group . . . ” … The Board also approved in principle Maud Karpeles’ plans to cooperate with “the Americans” in the domain of publications, and empowered her to issue invitations to serve as IFMC Correspondents “to such members of the American Ethnomusicology group as might seem desirable”….
p. 14
Maud Karpeles “had discussions individually with each member of this group [i.e., the “American group which issued the newsletter entitled Ethnomusicology”], which included Charles Seeger and Willard Rhodes, on the relationship of the IFMC with the proposed Society for Ethnomusicology . . .” Seeger had suggested “that the two organizations should amalgamate to form an International Society for Ethnomusicology.” 【没能成事】 …The positions had been staked, and the relationship between the two societies should remain one of civil, but somewhat distant co-existence. 【一臂之隔的往来】
At the Liege-conference of the IFMC in 1958, which for the first time advanced extra-Eurpoean themes, Alan Merriam proposed in the General Assembly a joint IFMC-SEM membership at a reduced rate, which was approved and implemented, but did not last. It did help, though, to raise IFMC-membership in the USA and Canada.” …The efforts of the IFMC to form a US National Committee, left first with Charles Seeger and resumed after Seegers resignation, were equally unsuccessful. In 1957, Maud Karpeles reported that “she had been given to understand that it was unnecessary to form a national committee of the IFMC in view of the formation of the Society for Ethnomusicology.”
p. 15
A United States National Committee was nevertheless established in 1962 and officially recognized in 1963, with Charles Haywood, Ruth Rubin, Nicholas England, Mary Gadd of the Country Dance Society of America, and Henrietta Yurchenco as the directors, all of whom then were in New York City.
On 30 October 1961, upon her return from another trip to the USA, Maud Karpeles … suggested “the transfer of headquarters to another country, possibly the United States.” In April 1966…reiterated this suggestion…. One member held that a move to the USA would be “a last resort as the Council would then lose its international character”; and there was general agreement that “London was the natural centre”.
p.16
There were urgings that “headquarters . . . remain if possible in London, or at any rate, in Europe.” Finally, in April 1967, the Advisory Committee presented the Executive Board of the IFMC with the choice between Illinois and Copenhagen. The recommendation of the Advisory Committee was for Illinois… the Board nevertheless voted overwhelmingly for Illinois. Opposition came mainly from West Germany, Belgium and Scandinavia.
pp. 16 – 17
To this end, Professor Ringer, Dr. Karpeles, and several Board members met in Berlin in June, 1967. The result was dramatic. On 22 June 1967, the IFMC advised Provost Lanier of the University of Illinois that “some members of the Executive Board have recently had an opportunity of discussion with Professor Ringer and have come to the conclusion that the scheme of organization which he has in mind is impracticable . . .” …the generous offer of Illinois, already accepted in principle, is declined. 【欧洲的回击？】
p. 17
Through all this and the years since, the IFMC has continually changed. The Journal did go to Illinois University Press for a few years, to become the Yearbook under the editorship of Alexander Ringer. Bruno Nettl had his turn as the Editor, too, and the Yearbook has gained in stature. “The Americans” are no longer perceived as a threat to the Council... SEM and ICTM are both unique in their roles, and they complement each other: SEM as the regional organization in North America that represents the interests of professional, academic ethnomusicologists in the USA and Canada, and at the same time, serves the field of ethnomusicology world-wide through its publications; and the ICTM, as the international organization in the domain of traditional music including ethnomusicology that serves scholarship with an emphasis on the mutual recognition and understanding of diverse inquiring minds. … the Council has lost the word folk from its title…the International Council for Traditional Music is stronger than ever in the pursuit of its original charter: to overcome the boundaries, physical and intellectual, that still separate those working in the global field of traditional music.
【阅读这篇文章，可以觉察到，二战之后的欧、美，在政治上是一个弱势和强势的关系。在学术上，早期IFTM对SEM的迁就，美国学者急于建立以他们为中心的团体的野心和自大，当能在这政治大气候里去洞察。】
