Ethnomusicology and Sociology: A Letter to Charles Seeger Author(s): Howard S. Becker Source: Ethnomusicology, Vol. 33, No.

2 (Spring - Summer, 1989), pp. 275-285 Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of Society for Ethnomusicology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/924398 . Accessed: 07/04/2011 20:55
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Illinois Press and Society for Ethnomusicology are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ethnomusicology.

http://www.jstor.org

VoL 33, No. 2

ETHNOMUSICOLOGY

SPRING/SUMMER1989

Ethnomusicologyand Sociology: A Letterto CharlesSeeger*

HOWARD S. BECKER UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN

As will be clear in what follows, I'm not an ethnomusicologist, although something of a fellow traveler. I did have the good fortune to be introduced to ethnomusicology in a serious way by Klaus Wachsmann, when he was at Northwestern, and through him I came to know Charles Seeger, although not very well. But even that slight acquaintance was enough for me to know what an honor it is to be asked to give this lecture in his memory. For reasons I don't fully understand, but respect, it seemed appropriate to put my remarks in the form of a letter to Charles.

Dear Charles: Perhaps you'll remember meeting me in Klaus Wachsmann's seminar at Northwestern, on one of those occasions when you came for a few days of heated discussions with Klaus and, in passing; enlightened the rest of us with your frighteningly encyclopedic knowledge of every kind of music ever made. I was also present at the 90th birthdayseminar your friends organized for you, shaping it in accordance with your complaint that no one read what you wrote and no one would argue with you any more. I'veseldom witnessed such concentrated attention and serious argument. You couldn't have asked for more. As you may remember, I'm a sociologist by trade, although I've also carried a card in Local 10-208 of the American Federation of Musicianssince I was 15, and spent a lot of time playing for weddings and bar mitzvas, in taverns and strip joints, and all the rest of the things a not too particular piano player used to do in such places as Chicago, San Francisco,and Kansas City.That was some sort of preparation for the sociological work I later did on the arts. My master's thesis was on the organization of the dance music

*Presented at the 1988 meeting of the Society for Ethnomusicology, Tempe, Arizona. I've benefited from the comments of Paul Berliner and Steve Feld.

275

276

1989 Spring/Summer Ethnomusicology,

business(Becker1963)and since then I'vetaughtthe sociologyof artfrom wrote a book on the social organization the of time to time and eventually arts(Becker1982). not That's to brag-if those are thingsto bragabout-but justto remind of where I'mcomingfromwhen I reportto you an outsider's observayou and on what my own field of sociology tions on ethnomusicology today might have to contributeto it. My observationsare based on the most superficialknowledgeof your field, and I hope you'll forgiveoccasional, or even frequent,gaucheries. done some home work-I've readall the I've with your own, which Don Roberts Memorial and Lectures, starting Seeger PaulBerlinercollected for me, and I've read your papers (Seeger 1977), and some other ethnomusicological work here and there over the years. But I can'tpretendto knowmuchaboutthe field and I certainly don'tknow what someone who has practicedit professionally knows. and thoughtson the contributions sociologicalapa My observations make deal with two different areas. In the first place, proach might as endeavor,has in some wayspainted ethnomusicology, a field of scholarly if on itselfintoa corner,theoretically notpractically. insisting thebroadest By of musicin context,it hasbravely interpretation the ideaof studying possible acceptedthe challengeto do what cannotbe done. Sociologymight have somethingto say aboutthatdilemma,and I will see whatI can producein that heirs. the wayof sociologicalthinking mightbe usefulto yourscholarly In the second place, and less globally,sociologists (who have their own problemswhen they try to studymusic) havedone a little very substantial work thatshows the utilityof studyingmusic as the resultof the collective of activity the people involvedin the musicalprocess. I'll reporton some of thatwork and discuss its implications the ethnomusicological for enterprise.
TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING

All the world's music

One thing sociologists look for when they study such a collective enterprise as a scholarly discipline is the way it draws its boundaries. Whatkinds of claims are made for the field? What is its jurisdiction?What is its competition? How do the claims mesh with the reality and what problems does the disparity between the two-there's always a disparity--create? Lest you think I'm singling ethnomusicology out for special abuse, I'll point out that my own field, sociology, usually defines its subject matter as the study of human association or collective action or social structure or some other such global phenomenon. In fact, sociology, as a practical academic discipline, consists of those social phenomena that were left to

Ethnomusicology and Sociology: A Letterto Charles Seeger

277

be made the objects of study after disciplines that were formed earlier, like economics and political science, took off with the good stuff like markets and the state. So we sociologists were left with the family, crime and delinquency, race relations, and the problems of urban life. We have had quite a time ever since trying to make sense of the disparitybetween the grandiose definition and the practical reality of what we do. An outsider approaching ethnomusicology can't help noticing the ambitious nature of the enterprise. To start with: all the world's musics. Not only that but, as the plural implies, all those musics to be treated on their own terms, not as degenerate forms of "our" music, but each entitled to be given an equally important place. We can't blame you for that, Charles. That'sbeen the nature of comparative studies in the arts since the beginning, and comparative musicology has always been omnivorous, collecting instruments and sounds and compositions and performances from anywhere a practitioner could get to with notebook, camera, movie camera, and state of the art sound recording equipment. It's true, of course, that this definition of the job is not completely honored in the discipline's practice. There seems to be a chronic highbrow prejudice, so that what gets most attention are the art musics of other high cultures, musical traditions that are thought to be as aesthetically worthy as our own art music tradition. That's an impression I can't document, not having put in the library time that would settle the question factually.And, in any event, what seems to bother the discipline as a whole is the obligation to go beyond that kind of parochialism, even if it doesn't get done. That's what comes through in the general statements about the field made on ceremonial occasions and in textbooks. So I'll continue as though ethnomusicology really accepts that obligation, even if it doesn't always act as though it does. Such a view of ethnomusicology's job certainly does make problems. Because it's not really doable, is it, Charles?I mean, you can aim at collecting all the music, but then collecting takes precedence over everything else, because there is so much music to collect. Is there to be a principle of selection? Is there something, anything, we might safely leave out? How about children's nursery rhymes?Well, no, we wouldn't want to leave those out. They're so important in understanding the socialization of children. And the way children learn music, their "mistakes,"the salience of one or another aspect of music to them, that's all interesting and important. Look what John Blacking (1967) did with such material. (And we can now look, too, at Antoine Hennion's study [1988] of the way French children are taught music in school.) Can we leave out what isn't "authentic"?It seems that authenticity has off and on been a problem for ethnomusicologists, at least some of whom

278

Ethnomusicology, Spring/Summer 1989

used to have that sort of bias, a predilection for what people used to do rather than what they're doing now, a greater interest, let's say, in the remnants of authentic Polynesian musics than in what Don Ho was singing at a Waikiki hotel. Ethnomusicologists have often wished that people wouldn't change that way, that they would keep their music "pure,"unadulterated by the inexorable spread of Western (mostly North American) rock and roll, jazz, and the rest of it. Ethnomusicologists have in that resembled those naturalistswho want to save endangered creatures so that the earth's gene pool will contain maximal variety. It's a noble idea, but the world seldom accepts such noble ideas as guides to action. People pick up on the music they like, the music that seems attractive to them, that represents, however inchoately, what they want represented, the music that will make a profit for those who do the producing and distributing,and so on. So it seems wiser, even more practical, if you're interested in the world's musics, to study what people are playing and singing, whatever bastardcombination of raw materialsit comes from. But that really opens the door. Should we study what every tavern piano player (the kind I was) plays in all the joints on all the streets in all the world's cities? No one would have thought it worthwhile to do that 90 years ago, when a definitive study could have been done, say, of the origins of ragtime. But don't we wish they had? And had carried that study through with the same care and attention that have been devoted to NativeAmerican music? Sure we do. Should we study, as we might study the similar musical occasions in a Melanesian society, every singing of "HappyBirthday"in the United States or, to be a little reasonable, a sample of such singing?And, if not, why not? I won't prolong the examples because by now the point's clear. We'd like, in retrospect, to have everything: it all fits the definition and all of it could be made the object of serious study. But we can't have everything, for the most obvious practical reasons: we don't have the people to collect it and we wouldn't know what to do with the mass of detail we'd end up with if we did. It'slike oral history thatway, isn't it?I mean, the new historians (see McCall and Wittner 1989) have convinced us that everyone's life is important, but we can't collect everyone's life and if we did we'd drown in the detail. And no computerized data base would do any good, because the drowning will be conceptual as well as mechanical. Sociology has no simple answer to this problem. A sociological approach might put it in comparative perspective and note that every global definition of a field creates such an undoable job, certainly in the social sciences. A sociologist of science and scholarship might note further that the practical answers to the unanswerable questions I've been posing-and in fact practitioners always have practical, everyday answers-do not come from logic or argument, but are based in solid social facts of organizational resources

A and Sociology: Letter Charles to Seeger Ethnomusicology

279

and competition. Ethnomusicology's scope has, I assume (though I haven't done the work to justifysaying this), been determined by its position in the academic hierarchy and the resources for research and other scholarly activities that makes available. That'sa topic ethnomusicologists might want to confront directly, rather than continuing to debate the proper boundaries of the field, taking as a model the discussions of the effect of anthropology's position in the academy on anthropological work in George Marcus's "Ethnographic Writing and Anthropological Careers" (1986) and Paul Rabinow's "Representationsare Social Facts:Modernity and Post-Modernity in Anthropology" (1986, esp. pp. 253-56). All the theories As if having to deal with all the world's musics weren't daunting enough, ethnomusicology makes a serious effort to live up to its slogan of studying music in context, in a way that increases the undoability of the enterprise. I'm inclined to think, Charles, that you might deserve some of the blame for this, judging by the evidence of your writing and remembering that you were in on the beginnings. Look at those diagrams you were so fond of (there's an archetypal example in Seeger 1977:35). They mandate the study of linguistics, acoustics, history, otology, anthropology, law, religion, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and all the other ologies already with us or yet to be invented. As I read your work, you were obsessed with being comprehensive, with not leaving anything out. If someone knew something about the way people, societies, or the naturalworld worked, you wanted that knowledge included in the study of the world's musics. You were, of course, well aware of the traps in the building of knowledge, all the epistemological and theoretical bypasses that could lure the unwary off the right course, and you wanted them dealt with adequately. (No other discipline has been able to deal with them adequately, so there's no reason to think that ethnomusicology can either). And then there were all the musical theories, which needed to be taken account of in any comprehensive view of world music. It's a tall order. No one has filled it. It may in principle be unfillable. Yet the field seems, at least to an outsider, to live under this self-imposed sentence of having to try. That might account for a tone of guilt and self-justification or, alternatively, an optimistic feeling that we're on the way to actually doing it in much of the ethnomusicological writing I read in preparation for this lecture. Timothy Rice's "Toward the Remodelling of Ethnomusicology" (1987) and the extensive commentary that followed it embody what I've been talking about. And Kerman's (1985) review of the field both reflects its failure to accomplish all it sets out to do and provokes more such feelings.

280

Ethnomusicology, Spring/Summer 1989

Though no one can satisfactorily meet these specifications, what an ethnomusicologist can do is create ad hoc combinations of these specialties specially suited for the study of this or that problem in this or that setting. Some aspects of the context are more salient for us at some times than others. At each moment we find certain combinations of ideas and problems especially relevant. But not everything! Donald Campbell's image of the fish-scale model of omniscience (Campbell 1969) might be comforting in this regard. He used to feel bad when he noticed, pausing at the row of faculty mailboxes in the department office, that one of his colleagues was getting a journal he wasn't. It made him feel he wasn't keeping up with the field properly. Then he decided that his unease was based on an incorrect model of scholarship, one that insisted that everyone had to know everything. Instead, he decided, knowledge ought to be like the scales on a fish, each one covering a small amount, overlapping with others, but not identical to any of them. So each scholar ought to construct an individual combination of specialties and skills, not like anyone else's, none of them comprehensive; similarly, each special field, like ethnomusicology, would be some sort of mixture of such overlapping scales. If each scholar, and each field, did that, we might between us cover the whole thing without any of us personally or organizationally having to feel bad about leaving things out. They'd be there when we needed them. In fact, that's pretty much what people do, don't you think? They just don't like to admit it; it doesn't sound nice. If we accepted that that's what we're really doing, we could rest a lot easier leaving all sorts of things out, secure in the knowledge that somewhere, someone probably knows it and we can get it when we need it.
SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF MUSIC MAKING

Being a sociologist, Charles,I have a very limited interest in such matters as acoustics or the physics of music making. Other sociologists have found those phenomena interesting, but they've done that by locating them in the network of collective activity in which music gets made. One definition of sociology is that it studies how people do things together. That'sdeceptively simple. Because how people do things together is quite complicated, as you of course always knew. I have a vivid memory of you telling a somewhat bewildered student in Klaus'sseminar, who had mentioned that he might be interested in studying American "country" music, a two hour story of the first recording of that music ever made. You described the store keeper in whose store the recording was made, and said something about the financing and distribution of the records. You

and A to Etbnomusicology Sociology: Letter Charles Seeger

281

named the musicians and told us something of their careers, enough so that we could understand how they came to be there, making that recording. You traced the evolution of the songs they recorded from earlier models. You worked in a short and masterful dissertation on shape note notation, because hymns written in that form were part of the tradition the recording artists relied on to do what they were doing. I'm leaving a lot out here, mostly because I don't remember the details. Here's what's important. That impromptu dissertation on the first country music recording embodied the essence of a good sociological analysis. In this way: you included all the people and events that contributed to those first recordings being what they were and, in so doing, made it clear that they were not just the work of the people who were standing in front of the microphones, but were equally the work of all those others, right down to the writers of the shape note books, whether they were there in that Memphis music store or not. I think it was Memphis. I'm sure someone will straighten me out on that if it's necessary. (Judith McCulloh told me, after I delivered this lecture, that it was really Atlanta.She knew the names of the people involved too, so you weren't the only one with this kind of knowledge, Charles.) That sets the stage for the last thing I want to tell you about. I know you'll be interested in the work some sociologists of music have done with respect to the social organization of music. Before I get into that, though, I ought to say something about the sociology of art generally, because what I'm going to describe isn't exactly what most outsiders, or even a lot of sociologists, understand by the expression. For most people, the "sociology of art" points to a discipline as philosophical as it is sociological, in which the entities in play are societies (conceived as totalities) and art works (conceived more or less in isolation), a discipline devoted to tracing the way art reflects society, the reflections being found mainly in the congruence ingenious analysts can find between large cultural themes and the way societies and their subgroups are organized. The discipline, so conceived, has much in common with aesthetics. It'snot afraid,as a more anthropologically oriented discipline might properly be, to make ethnocentric judgments of value, to decide, for instance, that Mozart'scompositions are intrinsicallybetter music than Africandrumming. Adherents of this approach have often, though not always, had a definite preference for highbrow art and have often looked at the popular arts as expressions of mass society (which, believe me, Charles, was not a nice name to call anyone). The sociology of art, so understood, is as much as a branch of literary studies or art history or musicology, depending on the medium being discussed, as it is of sociology conventionally conceived. The names as-

282

Ethnomusicology, Spring/Summer 1989

sociated with such sociologies of art are Arnold Hauser, Theodor Adorno, Lucien Goldmann, and so on. It's a sociology of art with European roots, although many of its practitioners are American. That'snot the sociology of art I'm talking about, Charles. I have in mind instead a discipline which is really a subfield of empirical sociology, in which the emphasis is on occupational organization, the development and maintenance of traditions, the training of practitioners, mechanisms of distribution, and audiences and their tastes. The basic imagery in this kind of sociology is of art as something people do together. Sociologists working in this mode aren't much interested in "decoding" art works, in finding the works' secret meanings as reflections of society. They prefer to see those works as the result of what a lot of people have done jointly. While the imagery of the older sociology of art emphasizes great geniuses working more or less in isolation--the studies are of great novelists or composers-the imagery underlying this other version is more likely to be drawn from one of the collective arts, like filmmaking, where it might even be hard to tell who to credit or blame for the work you see. This sociology of art is less interested in genius and in rare works and more interested in journeymen and routine work which, of course, most art consists of. You can see why I admired your description of the first country music recording. You can study literature sociologically without knowing how to write a novel. You can study film without knowing the details of scriptwritingand film editing. People do that by focusing on the subject matter of the works they study, analyzing Stendhal, for instance, as an analyst of social mobility in French society. But, because music doesn't have any obvious content, analysts must talk about it technically.As a result, most sociological research on music has been done by those few sociologists who are also competent musicians. Of course, since most sociologists study contemporary industrial societies, the sociology of music does not cover the range of societies ethnomusicology makes its responsibility. An excellent example is Robert Faulkner'sextensive research on music in Hollywood, reported in his books on Hollywood studio musicians (1971) and Hollywood composers (1983). Faulknershows how the details of musical composition and performance take shape in the context of the social organization of movie making.A score has to be tailored to the film it accompanies.

Where the film needs a climax the music must provide it, whether the developmentof the musicalideasthemselvescalls for it or not. Of course, a skillfulcomposerwill createa score whose musicallogic dictatesa climax
where the film dictates it, but it doesn't work the other way. Directors and

do cinematographers not createvisualclimaxesto parallelan effect in the

score. Similarly, the score must be written in a hurry, as part of the work to be done once a rough cut of the film exists and everyone is anxious to

A and to Seeger Ethnomusicology Sociology: Letter Charles

283

get it out where it can start earning back its cost. And the score must be written so that it will satisfy producers and directors who say they want "something modern, like Tchaikowskyor Bela Barstock"or who announce that "Now, since this story is set in France, we should hear lots of French horns." When the music is recorded, another set of industrial imperatives comes into play. Time is definitely money in a recording studio where a 60 piece orchestra is collecting union scale, and it's money spent on what hardly anyone in the industry thinks is very important. As a result, the contractors and leaders who do the hiring look for people who can rehearse a score once and then record it without an error. If a player makes a mistake, even once, the contractor has plenty of other names, of people who haven't given him that cause for worry, in his book. Many, perhaps most, parts can be played in your sleep. But you may turn the page and find a passage requiring virtuoso skill; play that once and then record it perfectly too. Such a system breeds and retains players of super-virtuosity,with nerves and stomachs of steel; if they have other musical talents that's fine, but optional. You might say that Faulkner'swork incorporates economics and psychology into a fundamentally sociological analysis of composition and performance. A different version of the effects of social organization on the content and performance of music is seen in Samuel Gilmore's analysis of the organization of classical music making in New York City,which focuses on the role of musical conventions in organizing concert activity (Gilmore 1987, 1988). New York contains three overlapping worlds of classical music. Midtown consists of the orchestras, chamber groups, and soloists who specialize in the standard repertoire. They all play the same music and master the same skills; they differentiatethemselves by their virtuosityin performing these standard tasks. Uptown, on the other hand, is organized to perform new works, in the tradition of the repertoire but innovative with respect to instrumental and compositional techniques. Uptown composers are, let's say, mildly radical and uptown performers have to know a greater variety of musical conventions and be ready to learn more new ones than players who specialize in the standard repertoire. Downtown composers usually play their own music, music that differs radicallyfrom conventional classical compositions. The three can be exemplified in the New York Philharmonic, Speculum Musicae, and the Philip Glass ensemble. Each of these constitutes a world characterizedby differing performance conventions, such that participants in each one already know how to do what that world needs done or know how to learn to do it quickly. That lets each world support its preferred style of composition and performance economically. The differing modes of organization make possible differing

284

Ethnomusicology, Spring/Summer 1989

kinds of artistic expression, innovation, and creativity.Each kind of artistic expression, in both composition and performance, is supported by a sytem of conventions that makes it possible. Gilmore concludes that: The degree of conventionin each subworldinfluencesthe extentof emphasis on virtuosity innovation. Whenconcertactivity highlyconventionalized, is and as in Midtown, are constrained fit their musicalideas withina to participants form. Because musicalideas are restricted, aesthetic the very circumscribed when musical emphasis is on virtuosityor "doingthings well." In contrast, as activityis not conventionalized, in Downtown,there are fewer constraints on musicalideas.Concert have participants moreleewayto createnew musical ideas and the emphasisis on innovation "doingthingsdifferently." or Uptown a lies in the middle,seeking to maintain balancebetween limitedinnovation skills.(Gilmore1988:217-18) and virtuosic You might say that Gilmore has shown the social bases of collective innovation, and turned what might look like a problem in psychology into one in sociology. Stith Bennett's work (1980) is a lesson for anyone who thinks you have to learn to play through face-to-face interactionwith a teacher, as in so many of the musical traditions we study, or through participationin a performing ensemble, as I was always told Gypsies learned to play. He studied the way young rock musicians learn to create music with none of the elaborate context described by Gilmore and Faulkner. These novices have only the most attenuated connection to a music world: an electric guitar or bass the industry has created for them, a stereo system, the records they want to learn to imitate, and a place where they can make all the noise they want without the neighbors calling the police. They learn by banging away at the instrument (you'll recognize in these phrases the prejudices of an old jazz player) until, through trial and error, they get something that sounds like the record. They eventually team up with others who have learned to imitate the same records in the same way. In this way, as Bennett says, a recording becomes a score, an alternative way of preserving an idea for study and performance. Well, Charles, that's just a taste of what this particular sociological approach provides in the way of questions and answers. I don't say that they are better questions or answers than another approach might generate. The point, rather, is that one way to deal with the multiple facts and approaches you always wanted to include is to subordinate them to one particular approach-as the people whose work I've cited subordinated everything to the question of collective action-and let them operate as the conditions under which whatever you have made the focus occurs.

Ethnomusicology and Sociology: A Letterto Charles Seeger

285

not. I don'tknow if thatwould satisfy you. Probably Yourmindwas too content with any solution to a problem,which is why you restless to be to were such an inspiration,and such an irritation, anyone whose path I'mglad mine did. crossed yours. Best, Howie Becker
REFERENCES Becker, Howard S. 1963 Outsiders. Glencoe: Free Press. 1982 Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bennett, H. Stith 1980 On Becoming a Rock Musician. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Blacking,John 1967 Venda Childrens'Songs. Johannesburg: WitwatersrandUniversity Press. Campbell, Donald T. 1969 "Ethnocentrismof Disciplines and the Fish-Scale Model of Omniscience." In Interdisciplinary Relationships in the Social Sciences, ed. M. Sherif. Chicago: Aldine. Clifford,James, and George Marcus 1986 Writing Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press. Faulkner, Robert 1971 Hollywood Studio Musicians. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. 1983 Music on Demand New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction Books. Gilmore, Samuel 1987 "Coordination and Convention: The Organization of the Concert World."Symbolic Interaction 10:209-27. 1988 "Schools of Activityand Innovation."Sociological Quarterly 29:203-19. Hennion, Antoine 1988 Comment la musique vient aux enfants: Une anthropologie de 1enseignement musical. Paris:Anthropos. Kerman,Joseph 1985 Contemplating Music. Berkeley: University of California Press. McCall,Michal, and Judith Wittner 1989 "The Good News about Life History."In Symbolic Interaction and Cultural Studies, ed. H. S. Becker and M. McCall.Forthcoming. Marcus, George E. 1986 "EthnographicWriting and Anthropological Careers."In Writing Culture, ed. J. Clifford and G. Marcus, 262-66. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rabinow, Paul 1986 "Representations are Social Facts:Modernity and Post-Modernityin Anthropology." In Writing Culture, ed. J. Clifford and G. Marcus, 234-61. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rice, Timothy 1987 "Toward the Remodelling of Ethnomusicology." Ethnomusicology 31:469-88. Seeger, Charles 1977 Studies in Musicology: 1935-1975. Berkeley: University of California Press.