Readers of this blog are probably well aware by now of the recently passed legislation in Arizona banning the teaching of ethnic studies in any public schools in the state.  As my colleague, Evelyn Nakano Glenn, notes in her excellent recent blog post, “the rationale for this gross intrusion by the legislature into school curricula is that ethnic studies courses promote ‘ethnic chauvinism,’ and racial resentment of whites.”

Now that this bill has passed—frightening both in its ignorance of what the field of ethnic studies actually is and what it says about the priorities and perspectives of our current state legislative leadership—imagine for a moment that Arizona (or some other state) would next ban ethnic food, ethnic music, ethnic art, and ethnic dance.  Inconceivable, of course! The citizens of Arizona would rise up against the government’s intrusion into their private affairs.  How dare the state tell them what they can and cannot eat – from Chinese pot stickers to Spanish paella, from Russian borscht to sushi to kimchee!  Indeed, if we give it some thought, what is ethnic food, but every other kind of food in the world besides meat and potatoes?  Now, that is real food!  But tacos?  Sauerkraut? You get the picture.  If we go out tonight for ethnic food, we all know what THAT means.  Good Indian restaurants abound in England, and somewhat less in New York, a direct consequence of the concentration of those relevant populations.  That is why the best Chinese food is in San Francisco, not in Arizona.  And that is why the best Mexican food is in Arizona, not New York or London. (But I digress.)

And so it is with ethnic music and ethnic art.  We all know what “real” music is… and thus the scholarly study of music at the university is called “musicology.” The field covers such things as Gregorian Chants and Palestrina’s operas; it teaches students about Handel, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Bartok, Schoenberg, etc. Then about fifty years ago, UCLA originated a study called “ethnomusicology.”  It was the study of the music of “the other” – and included the koto of Japan, the gamalan of Indonesia, the sitar of India, etc. Indeed, if one takes a look at the full curriculum of ethnomusicology, it is the music of all of the rest of the world outside the European-English traditions.  Funny thing, but that is also true of art.  We all know what the formal study of art is all about… from Rembrandt to Gaugin to Pollack.  And what, pray tell, is “ethnic art?”  Just like ethnic music, it is the art of “the other!” Aleut to the north, Gambia to the south, Ainu of Japan to the West (or is it East?).

So what then, are ethnic studies?  Are ethnic studies not to studies what ethnic music (ethnomusicology) is to music?  Was not the emergence of ethnic studies in the 1970s the moral and educational equivalent of the emergence of ethnomusicology at UCLA, namely, the new study of largely neglected, ignored, or even buried aspects of American society that were invisible in the rest of the curriculum?

If Arizona is to enjoy the fruits of a society or culture or people – fruits that are called their art, cuisine, dance or music, then does it not make some sense to STUDY the social forces at play that shaped that art, cuisine, dance and music?  Is it really possible to decouple the emergent phenomenon of a people from the economic, political, cultural, and social context? And, of course, all students should be studying these issues, not just “ethnic” students. Mexican Americans, in Arizona? Really?  Apparently so!

Tags: diversity, liberal education