KYLE SHOCKEY INDIANA CAPAL ‘15 – 1 JUNE 2015 Resisting Neoliberal Aurality in the Academic Library

In Brief What this is Convergence of discourses, literature Reconceptualization of space Introduction of ethical framework What this is not A how-to A prescription A checklist

WHAT DO I MEAN? neoliberalism

(ENRIGHT 2013; ONG 2007, P. 3) “technology of governing”

(JAMES 2014, P. 139) IT “SETS THE PARAMATERS WITHIN WHICH SPECIFIC PRACTICES ARE MEANINGFUL AND FUNCTIONAL” (JAMES 2014, P. 139; WINNUBST 2012) “background epistemic or ideological context”

Economic governance Social epistemology Enright 2013; Harvey 2005 Privitization Financialization Management & Manipulation of Crises State Redistribution James 2014; Winnubst 2012 Deregulation Intensification Resilience (James 2015) Human capital How does governance map to epistemology?

ATTALI (1997) This has precedent.

Why sound studies? Deep listening as a critical lens makes us rethink (Bull and Back 2003): the meaning, nature, and significance of our social experience our relation to community how we relate to others, ourselves, and the spaces and places we inhabit our relationship to power

R. Murray Schafer Barry Truax The Simon Frazer Influence

(SCHAFER 1975; BLESSER & SALTER 2007) The Soundscape

NOISE! Noise is a value judgment. (Bijsterveld 2003, 2007; Blesser & Salter 2007; Hendy 2013; Warren 2014) Which contributes to: Power/political posturing in social space Branding of sonic capital Suppression of dissent Privitization of social sound space Classism through aesthetics of listening Noise abatement as political and economic efficiency

(WARREN 2014, P. 174) PSYCHOLOGICALLY NOT PHYSIOLOGICALLY. “there is no measurable amount of sound that is intrinsically bothersome.”

(YELENIK AND BRESSLER 2013) LIS literature is all about noise abatement.

This is unquestioned.

The framework (Warren 2014) 1. Consider not just what sound means but how meaning is made:  Study of meaning as inherent in music/sound  Study of meaning as arbitrarily applied by the listener  Study of meaning as biomechanical process  Study of meaning as a process of enculturation  Study of meaning as inter-relational The last one is what we seek.

The Framework (Warren 2014), cont. 2. Consider the framing elements of sonic experience.  “context and acquired knowledge that influences the manner in which music [sound] is experienced” (p. 67) You already have this knowledge. The key is to identify and consider it.

The framework (Warren 2014), cont. 3. Consider how sound creates proximity between people. Proximity: meeting an other (not the subjugated kind) in a shared place ; “a difference which is non- indifference” (p. 135) Proximity requires a shared space on which to have an interaction. Shared space is governed by norms about how we should listen to and interpret sounds.

Norms are common sense. Neoliberal norms are market sense.

So consider this, for example: Who gets to speak or make sound in your library? From where and why? Who doesn’t? Who gets to complain about noise in your library? Who feels comfortable doing this, and why? What assumptions do they make? What implications does your policy have for those who are sonically marked both literally (technology aids for disability) and figuratively (accent/tone/language of minority)?

KYLE SHOCKEY INDIANA Thanks for having me.

Photo Credits Barry Truax photo courtesy of Barry Truax & Simon Frazer University R. Murray Schafer photo courtesy of Wikimedia

References Attali, J. (1977). Noise: The political economy of music. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Blesser, B and Salter, L. R. (2007). Spaces speak, are you listening?: Experiencing aural architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bijsterveld, K. (2003). “The diabolical symphony of the mechanical age: Technology and symbolism of sound in European and North American noise abatement campaigns, ” In Bull, M. and Back, L., eds. The auditory culture reader, Oxford: Berg. Bijsterveld, K. (2008). Mechanical sound: Technology, culture, and public problems of noise in the twentieth century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bull, M. and Back, L., (2003). “Introduction: into sound.” In Bull, M. and Back, L., eds. The auditory culture reader, Oxford: Berg.

References, continued Enright, N. (2013). “The violence of information literacy: Neoliberalism and the human as capital.” In Gregory, L. and Higgins, S., eds., Information literacy and social justice: Radical professional praxis, Sacramento, CA: Library Juice Press. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harvey, D. (2007). “Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 610(1), Hendy, D. (2013). Noise: A human history of sound and listening. London: Profile Books. James, R. (2014). “Neoliberal Noise: Attali, Foucault, and the biopolitics of uncool.” Culture, Theory and Critique 55(2), James, R. (2015). Resilience and melancholy: Pop music, feminism, neoliberalism. Winchester, UK: Zero Books. Ong, A. (2007). “Boundary crossings: Neoliberalism as a mobile technology.” Trans Inst Br Geogr 32(3–8), 3-8.

References, continued Schafer, R. M. (1994). The soundscape: Our sonic environment and the tuning of our world. Rochester, VT. : Destiny Books. Schwartz, H. (2003). “The indefensible ear: A history.” In ” In Bull, M. and Back, L., eds. The auditory culture reader, Oxford: Berg. Truax, B. (2001). Acoustic Communication. 2nd ed. Westport, CT: Ablex. Warren, J. R. (2014) Music and ethical responsibility. New York: Cambridge University Press. Winnubst, S. (2012). “The queer thing about neoliberal pleasure.” Foucault Studies 14, Yelenik, K. and Bressler, D. (2013). The perfect storm: A review of the literature on increased noise levels in academic libraries. College & Undergraduate Libraries 20(1):