Sonic Realism and Auditory Culture: A Reply to Marie Thompson and Annie Goh
Sonic Realism and Auditory Culture: A Reply to Marie Thompson and Annie Goh
复制标题
声音现实主义和听觉文化：对玛丽·汤普森和吴安妮的答复
DOI：
10.1080/13534645.2018.1452448
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
0.3
通讯作者：
Christoph Cox
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Christoph Cox
在过去的几十年里，“声音研究”的出现标志着一个受欢迎的理论发展，视差的特刊“声音/思考”（第23卷，第3期[2017]）提供了新的贡献。然而，本期的几篇文章扩大了这个新领域中出现的一个不幸的裂痕，这是布莱恩·凯恩称之为“声音本体论”和“听觉文化研究”的两种倾向之间的裂痕。虽然声音本体论者声称研究声音本身的性质，但听觉文化的支持者在特定的文化和社会背景下探索声音。声音本体论的批评者（包括凯恩，以及在《发声/思考》中的玛丽汤普森和安妮吴）认为，声音的本质是不存在的，或者说，如果存在的话，人类是无法接近的，人类总是居住在特定的主体位置，并处于特定的听觉文化中，这些文化塑造和构建了声音的本质和作用。在2011年发表的一篇文章中，我对这一立场提出了挑战，这样做无意中加剧了声音本体论和声音文化研究之间的裂痕。在这里，我想澄清的是，我认为本体论和文化分析是互补的，而不是对立的项目。
The emergence of ‘sound studies’ over the past few decades marks a welcome theoretical development to which the special issue of parallax, ‘Sounding/Thinking’ (vol. 23, no. 3 [2017]), offers new contributions. Yet several essays in this issue widen an unfortunate rift that has developed in this new field, a rift between two tendencies that Brian Kane has called ‘sonic ontology’ and ‘auditory cultural studies’. While sonic ontologists claim to investigate the nature of sound itself, proponents of auditory culture explore sound in specific cultural and social contexts. Critics of sonic ontology (including Kane and, in ‘Sounding/Thinking’, Marie Thompson and Annie Goh) argue that there is no such thing as the nature of sound or that, if there is, it is inaccessible to human beings, who always inhabit particular subject positions and are situated within specific auditory cultures that shape and frame what sound is and does. In an essay published in 2011, I challenged this position and in so doing inadvertently fueled the rift between sonic ontology and cultural studies of sound. Here I want to clarify that I conceive ontology and cultural analysis to be complementary rather than adversarial projects.