131 Seeger 's Unitary Field Theory Reconsidered notion of a properly musical concept in greater detail in the latter half of this essay; in my own work it has been fundamental to addressing the question of how it is we structure our understanding of music and for developing an account of the relationship between language and music. Charles Seeger wrestled with the relationship between language and music throughout his long life. In 1913, only a year after he took charge 6 of starting a music program at Berkeley, he wrote, "The term 'Musicol- ogy' comprises, in its widest sense, the whole linguistic treatment of Seeger's Unitay Field Theoy Reconsidered music-the manual instruction, the historical study, the music-research \ of the psycho-physical laboratory, the piece of mugc criticism. Mu- Lawrence M. Zbikowski sic is not founded upon language or upon language studies. But its con- duct in our day depends customarily on an extensive use of language" (Seeger 1913: n.p.). In later years Seeger situated the paradox of music's dependence on language at the musicological juncture. Speaking to the Society for Ethno- musicology in 1976, Seeger described the musicological juncture as "the situation we place ourselves in when we talk about music and particu- larly when, as now, we talk about talking about music" (lgna:180). The essays of Seeger's final two decades repeatedly explored this situation, As musicians, we are aware of a certain tension between making music- examining the way speech was used generally, how it was applied to through composition, performance, or ritual-and talking about music. music specifically, and the differences and similarities between the two Making music is immediate, absorptive, and consuming, a torrent that modes of communication. Again and again he worried the problem of sweeps us along in its path. Talking about music walls in the torrent, and the ways in which speech and language (terms he used interchangeably) the trickle that remains sometimes scarcely resembles that which has constrain an understanding of music. However, in his proposal for a enraptured us. This opposition is not all there is to the relationship be- unitary field theory for musicology, which first appeared in print in 1970, tween language and music-the two modes of communication are far and then (with slight revisions) in Studies in Musicology, he suggested a too rich to submit to such a simple reduction-but it is central to under- reversal of conceptualization that was telling. Seeger argued, "It is true standing the tension between making music and talking about music. that speech and music are very unlike in many ways, but they are very This tension stems from two problems of the application of language (i.e., like in others. One can try to use agreement on the latter to help agree- natural language) to music. First, language is not very good for describ- ment upon the former's account of the latter" (1977~:104).'That is, knowl- ing processes. Language can be part of a process, as in the case of a play edge of music should be used to refine the way one applies language to or a poem, but that is another thing. In general what one gets out of an music. application of language to phenomena is the fixed and immutable, even , In the time that remained to him Seeger was unable to take full ad- in situations where neither is to be expected. Second, it must be recog- vantage of the reversal he proposed. However, as part of the groundwork nized that there are some concepts proper to music and distinct from for this proposal he outlined a system of independent yet related con- language. To explain a little: sound images are part of the central busi- ceptual domains that together formed what he called a unitary field. ness of what we call music. Part of what it means to be a musician is to Speech was one such domain, music another. Conceptual domains of a try to express things in sound that cannot be expressed in words. And strikingly similar sort have played an important role in recent accounts for these things that cannot be expressed in words-what I call properly of linguistic structure and appear to be important for understanding musical concepts--language is simply inadequate. I shall develop the cognition as a whole. In this chapter I would like to consider briefly the 132 Lawrence M. Zbikowski i 133 SeegerS Unitary Field Theory Reconsidered main points of Seeger's unitary field theory as he developed it for musi- f number of subuniverses. For the purposes of this chapter only the first cology and then offer an interpretation of aspects of this theory based on five subuniverses introduced by Seeger need be considered; the sixth, the recent research in linguistics and cognition. I shall also draw on some of subuniverse of value, is introduced much later in the dialogue and is not my recent work on the processes involved in conceptualizing music. essential to understanding the basic outlines of Seeger's unitary field What I hope to accomplish is a revitalization of Seeger's essential vision theory. The discussion of value also engages a host of important issues by considering closely the cognitive and semantic issues raised by talk- that occupied Seeger throughout his career but that are not central to the ing about music. concerns here. The first subuniverse proposed by Seeger is that of the physical, phe- nomenal, external world, the domain of science and fact, represented by Seeger's Unitary Field Theory a P on figure 6.1. The second subuniverse is that of discourse, or speech, Seeger gave the first version of his unitary field theory for musicology represented by an S on figure 6.1. This domain includes all three modes in a paper read in December 1944. The theory was to have had a func- of speech recognized by Seeger: the affective, or mystical; the reasoned, tion analogous to that of Einstein's unified field theory: the explicit task or logical; and the discoursive, or commonsensical (1976,1977b). The was the definition and systematization of musicology. Apparently no third subuniverse is that of music, represented by an M on figure 6.1. typescript of this paper has survived. However, an abstract was pub- Seeger argues "if there is a universe of speech, which is one way men lished in the Bulletin of the American Musicological Society (Seeger 1947). communicateby mediums of sound, why should there not be one of the and it is this abstract that served as a point of departure for the 1970 other mediums of communicating by sound-music? As musicians, we version of the theory, which was written as a dialogue between Seeger, know that music communicates something that speech does not" Boris Kremenliev, and a student named Jim Yo~t.~ (1977c:106-7). The fourth subuniverse is a personal one, a sort of half- Seeger began his definition and systematization of musicology with conscious, experiential domain just prior to, or perhaps just beyond, the notion of a "world view." Each person, he proposes, has a worldview, verbalization or representation. Seeger summons this domain with a a highly conceptualized account of how things appear, the product of rhetorical question: "When you run into a snag in what you are writing reflection on the world without and the world within. Although a world- about or are composing, don't you ever feel that there is a fund of knowl- view is taken to be "highly conceptualized" it is not necessarily system- edge, feelings, and purposes rumbling around inside you that is atic; in the unattributed prologue to the 1970 version of the theory, a i definitely yours and no one else's . ,but it is not quite in the order you worldview is described as "that which is not language" (Seeger 1970:171). < could wish it to be so as to enable you to clarify the passage you are f This description, and the perspective that it entails, is useful for under- 1 working on; and that by exploring it a bit deliberately or resting and let- standing the unitary field theory, and in the following the assumption ting yourself dream you either solve the problem satisfactorily or give is that a worldview is unsystematized and nonlinguistic. up and make a fresh start?" (107) This subuniverse is represented by an Extending the notion of a worldview a little, we can think of each I on figure 6.1. The fifth subuniverse is that of culture, which in its social scholarly discipline as incorporating a particular worldview of its own (Seeger 1977c:log).Although the concept of a worldview is easy enough to grasp, coming to terms with its empirical referent is rather more difficult. To facilitate the process, Seeger suggests the heuristic of a struc- tural universe, a complex of empirical entities to which the worldview refers. In brief, each structural universe comprises the plurality hidden in the apparent unity of its respective worldview. The structural universe also permits a systematic account, through language, of the nonlinguistic Figure 6.1. Seeger's representation of the subuniverses of the structural universe worldview. Thus the worldview of musicology has as its empirical ref- of musicology (Reprinted with permission from Charles Seeger, Studies in Musi- ! erent the structural universe of musicology, a universe that contains a cology, 1935-1975, 108, O 1977 by the Regents of the University of California) 134 Lawrence M. Zbikowski 135 Seeger's Unitay Field Theoy Reconsidered organization and traditions provides an essential framework for the very complex plurality is that the structural universe is itself made up of a possibility of music; it is represented by a C on figure 6.1.