Hackett, Rosalind. “Sound, Music, and the Study of Religion.” Temenos 48, no. 1 (2012): 11–27.
In this article, Hackett discusses “historical biases and methodological challenges” (11) in studying religion and sound/music. She notes that her perspective is rooted in the turn to materiality and lived religion. By engaging in the literature, Hackett hopes to identify topics that are crucial to further development of this field of study.
Hackett recognizes that modernity is based on the visual rather than the aural sense. She acknowledges the value of disciplines such as ethnomusicology, cultural anthropology, and some types of history in re-emphasizing the importance of sound and music. In particular, these disciplines have recognized that sound can take many forms – from Western liturgical music to Muslim recitation and the many cultures that emphasize drums and rhythm.
That being said, Hackett sees a number of challenges in this new turn towards sound. Firstly, sound is difficult to capture and (especially in traditional publications) transmit. In addition, many forms of music have highly developed technical requirements to fully understand and participate in them. These are certainly not insurmountable obstacles, but they do require commitment and sensitivity from the scholar.
Hackett next provides examples of research that she finds particularly successful. First is Steve Feld, who made sound recordings in Papua New Guinea and developed the concept of “‘acoustemology,’ a sonic way of knowing place” (14). Another example is given by Charles Hirschkind, who investigated the influence of recorded religious music and sermons on moral attitudes in Cairo. Guy Beck criticized traditional scholarship for underestimating the importance of sound to Hindu theology. He had the advantage of writing as an “insider” because of his extensive training in Indian classical music.
Hackett attempts to categorize these investigations in a few important areas. For instance, she names “Linking Sounds and Spirit Worlds” (16) as a broad field that emphasizes the importance of sound as a gateway to the spiritual realm. A completely different area is “Traditions and Compositions,” which encompasses among other studies the considerations of how religion has shaped the creation of music. Hackett gives as examples three Johns for whom religious experience was a profound influence on their compositions – Cage, Coltrane, and Tavener (to which one must certainly add Sebastian Bach). Yet more examples of areas Hackett finds are “Soundscape(s),” “Experience and Healing,” and “Sound and Music in Relation to Power and Conflict.” The final area Hackett discusses is “Sound and Music in Relation to Power and Conflict” (20). One example of this kind of study is the consideration of how bells and muezzins “intrude” in public space – responses to which are determined by “attitudes toward the sound-producers as much as by the sounds themselves” (20, citing Weiner 114). Hackett also points to the work of Anne Carson, among others who highlight the role of gender in “the control of sound, who produces the sounds, and who is capable of or is allowed to hear or interpret them” (21).
Hackett’s paper is remarkably well-organized, clear, and enjoyable to read. This article is also an excellent springboard from which to explore further any particular area of this important and rich area of study. Even a quick glance through the six-page bibliography (almost two-thirds the length of the actual article!) will reveal a wealth of fascinating scholarship.