I brought some texts to our biweekly reading group, brainworms! The texts were an introduction to deep listening by Pauline Oliveros and Geopolitics and the Anthropocene by AM Kaangieser. These texts are part of my research to develop outdoor listening, navigation and exploration activities. I will record one this weekend for my audio paper!
I was really interested in people’s interpretation and feedback of these texts. In Sound Studies we tend to be isolated in a community that takes subjective truths for granted. Bringing people outside of this field to interact with these ideas can reveal subjectivites.
People immeditately found Pauline’s call for quietness and centeredness exclusive: what about neurodivergent people who have different abilities when it comes to sensory information processing? People also felt uncomfortable by Pauline’s call for Deep Listeners to be involved in urban planning. While most people agreed that the city is loud, some people find this consoling while others find this exhausting. Women in the group said that the noise can be a sign of life and presence which helps them feel safe at night. One woman mentioned that she has to tune out the harassment of beeping cars and yelling men. How do these realities meet Oliveros’ practice of Deep Listening? People were generally excited to think about sound in this way and said that it stimulated new ideas.
In the reading of Kaangieser’s text there was mixed opinions. People liked their politics and the recognition of subtle inequality. Kaangieser claims that activism is blindly driven by activity, and urges for more reflectivion and “passivity”. Some people found this to be reductive of the scope of activism and also priviledged. It is clear that many social movements in history have been highly active and effective, but also well planned and reflective. This tension between thinking/acting or rest/rebellion is a common discussion in contemporary activist circles and it was interesting to hear it play out. I believe everyone has their own place in what they find comfortable or meaningful.
People felt uncomfortable with the poetic aesthetics of Kaangieser’s text, which they thought aligns with the call for passivity. Who really has the agency to rest, or be reflective and even passive? Are these the only people who should be leading social movements? Listening to people’s ideas has been fascinating and reminds me to remain in discussion when I am doing my own research. Finding commonality and difference in opinion is clearly a way to keep making sense.
I noticed again that my own language and ways of communicating are becoming more niche and intellectual, making it harder for people to understand what I am talking about. I want to actively be clear and accessible, especially if I want to fascillate activities or group excercises. This must be an active process in choosing simpler ways of saying things.
I am also realising that themes of environmental destruction and social alienation are heavy and subjective. After my last presentation in uni, a classmate said my discussion of my project felt “condescending.” They didn’t mean to say I was cruel, but that these ways of looking at the world are complicated and need to be brought up lightly to not feel confrontational. It made me realise that lot’s of people are probably aware to a certain extent of these issues but also need their own way of coping with them. At the same time, confrontation is not always negative. I thought afterwards that when spreading certain ideas there could be a softness and something fun in it too. It has made me think differently about my listening activities. I imagine them to be fun and open to the magic around us too, along with those painful and neccessary truths.