Klarinet Archive - Posting 000229.txt from 1999/02

From: "Paulette W. Gulakowski" <pollyg@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Women and orchestras
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:51:47 -0500

What blows me away in this discussion is what I read as the assumption
that "race/gender" is what makes the difference in how someone plays. I
think that the culture/instructor/exposure to etc would possibly make the
difference...this is all my opinion. Do you think a child brought up in
the culture(s) of a race different than the one they inherited would
still play according to their genes??? Something fishy here.
So, IMO, the audition judge is hearing the *culture* of the player in the
double blind test, his/her instructor, his/her playlist of exposures and
so on - not that individual's DNA.
Paulette

On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 17:21:43 EST DHmorgan@-----.com writes:
>In a message dated 2/4/99 10:32:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>bhausman@-----.com
>writes:
>
><< At 08:02 PM 2/4/99 EST, DHmorgan wrote:
> >In a message dated 2/3/99 5:43:07 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>dodgshun@-----.nz
> >writes:
> >
> ><< The system we use for auditions here works well in that respect
> > - we do them blind. Each candidate plays from behind a screen and
>is
> > identified by number alone; this way you don't get any prejudice
>creeping
> in.
> >>>
> >
> >Ah, but here's the problem. They've done studies that show that
>even in
> >double blind situations, evaluators will rank the performance of
>people of
> >their race and gender HIGHER than other races and genders. The
>examples I'm
> >thinking of have to do with writing, but I wouldn't be surprised if
>it
> weren't
> >the same with music. As long as you have humans in the equation,
>bias will
> >creep in. It's so subtly embedded in everything we do that we don't
>even
> >notice it. What to do?
> >
> If the audition is truly double-blind, the judges will be unable to
>execise
> their prejudices, since they won't know which person to favor or
>disfavor.
> In a writing situation, something in the subject matter may give
>clues, but
> do blacks/women/hispanics/whatevers really interpret Mozart
>differently
> enough that the distinction can be made on sound alone? >>
>
>In the study cited [forgive, but since I 'retired from race relations'
>I no
>longer has access to any thing other than my memory of it] the
>students
>subject matter was not subject to choice--they were proving a legal
>point
>assigned to them. The surprising, startling, unexpected and
>confounding
>result (and I think many people following this thread are in the grips
>of this
>surprise) was that, while the law professors had no OBJECTIVE way of
>knowing
>the race/gender of the student, nonetheless, they were biased towards
>their
>group. We are not talking about objectively poor English, the use of
>slang,
>double negatives, or one student writing a paper about a polo match
>and the
>other sharing their mother's recipe for Gumbo! :-) We are talking
>about very
>subtle hints--use of language, word choice, the way arguments are
>framed.
>
>While the search for objectivity is understandable, there is a great
>deal of
>research to support the conclusion that perception is always
>subjective--that
>is, we do not OBSERVE passively--we order the world, ACTIVELY, in some
>way and
>then LOOK FOR EVIDENCE OF THAT. In a very real sense this implies
>that
>PERCEPTION IS BIAS. If we order reality, we order it according to our
>biases
>and only then to we 'perceive'. Of course, we all have a large
>measure of
>control over how we order reality, as long as we use our mental
>facilities to
>analyze it and make corrections, which we all do constantly.
>
>What I am positing here--and it is just a hypothesis--is that, yes, in
>fact
>the way someone plays Mozart could have a race/gender 'coding' if you
>will
>that is unconsciously appreciated by those with a similar background
>and
>unconsciously overlooked, or looked down on, by those of differeing
>backgrounds. In a society where EVERYTHING is race and gender
>coded--colors,
>textures, TV shows, music, neighborhoods, products, etc., etc.--it
>might not
>be safe to assume that the simple act of playing Mozart on the
>clarinet is
>somehow exempted. Especially since, when we are talking about musical
>performance, we are talking about 'expression' within what is arguably
>THE
>MOST EXPRESSIVE art form. Rather than being somehow 'pure' or
>'objective,' it
>may be, given the infinite range of human expression possible through
>music,
>that race and gender clues which trigger bias exist in a GREATER
>abundance
>than they would in technical legal writing.
>
>Absent a well-constructed study, we can only conjecture. Probably,
>all anyone
>following this thread can do is keep it in mind--but the logic I'm
>bringing to
>bear on this point would argue in favor of not ignoring or dismissing
>the
>possibility of unfair race and gender bias in even the most
>meticulously-
>constructed, double-blind, auditions.
>
>Truly,
>Don
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
>Subscribe to the Digest:
>klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
>Unsubscribe from the Digest:
>Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
>Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org
>
>

You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org