Thinking decolonially towards music’s institution: A post-conference reflection

How do we talk about musical colonisation? How do we talk about this work of talking about it; that is, interrogating what we mean by colonisation and its counter-logic of decolonisation or decoloniality?

Codex Quetzalecatzin. © Courtesy of Geography and Map Division, Library of Congress
ByAnjeline de Dios, Phil Dodds , Sanne Krogh Groth, Xenia Benivolski, Hild Borchgrevink, Nils Bubandt, Yurii Chekan , Maria Rijo Lopes Da Cunha , Brandon Farnsworth, Rosanna Lovell , Caryl Mann, Ania Mauruschat, Ucee-Uchenna L. Nwachukwu, Ellen Marie Bråthen Steen, Yiren Zhao

Introduction: Talking about the (de)colonial

How do we talk about musical colonisation? How do we talk about this work of talking about it; that is, interrogating what we mean by colonisation and its counter-logic of decolonisation or decoloniality? What can and must we talk about in this particular moment – when talk of decolonisation is at an all-time high, yet without clear consensus and much misuse of the concept? These questions, and the insights that emerged from them, animated the two-day conference Music’s institution and the (de)colonial, convened by Sanne Krogh Groth, Phil Dodds, and Brandon Farnsworth, and hosted by the Division of Musicology at Lund University in early May 2023.

Early on in the conference, we unanimously acknowledged the necessity of decolonisation in music research and practice. We were also aware of the traps and gaps of our common discursive context, a context predominantly shaped by institutions. Some rightly pointed out how institutional talk of diversity, equity, and inclusion ultimately and problematically maintains the status quo. Others questioned the efficacy of decolonial research itself, given the systemic tendency of institutions in education, arts, and culture to reinforce the legacies of what Kofi Agawu calls musical colonisation.