"Affirmative Action" from a Different Angle

There has been a lot of chatter recently on NewMusicBox regarding the programming of female composers and whether or not an "affirmative action" approach is necessary. Amy Beth Kirsten's thoughtful and optimistic article on the state of gender in the composition world sparked an interesting debate about the subject of programming (with Kirsten making the argument that an affirmative action approach is no longer necessary). I disagree with this, but at first I did agree with Kirsten's idea that programming more new music in general would solve the gender disparity. On second thought, however, I just don't think this is true, especially since there are new music ensembles that don't program female composers in proportion to the demographic. Now, please bear with me because I admit this may be a bit of a kooky metaphorical argument for affirmative action, but here goes...

New music is underrepresented, right? I think we all can get behind that. We all can agree that orchestras and other traditional ensembles, for the most part, do not program nearly enough new music to satisfy the needs and talents of the contemporary composition scene. Furthermore, nobody in our community would say that the lack of representation of new music is due to a lack of quality compositions. We all know that the programming needs of orchestras and other groups are more complex than that. Presumably, therefore, new music is under-programmed for other reasons. Perhaps it would help to imagine "new music" as its own minority group in terms of general "classical" programming.

To me, this situation sounds very similar to the situation regarding the programming of pieces by female composers. We know from Rob Deemer's list (and all the helpful additions) that there are hundreds of living female composers, including many, many high-profile professionals. Yet we still have many ensembles (including new music ensembles) that don't program a representative amount of music by female composers (and some that hardly program any women at all). We know this is true from things such as David Smooke's article and his pie charts.

So this is where I get frustrated. Because I don't understand this difference: When it comes to programming new music everyone I know agrees that we need to force the issue and get more pieces programmed, while the community seems to be divided over whether or not to program more works by women. I have to think that there are other reasons (aside from quality) for why women aren't programmed at a rate that is proportional to the demographic, just as there are other reasons (aside from quality) for why new music isn't programmed at a rate that is proportional to the "demographic." And in terms of the lack of programming of women, I have a hard time imagining those reasons are far removed from a lingering sexism or are not in some way related to issues of gender. 

What worries me about this idea of abolishing "affirmative action" programming is that it assumes that we've reached a state of equality that does not match the statistics. Of course we all want "excellent programming," but do we really think that if we push ensembles to program more women (at least in proportion to the demographic of female composers) that we might be dipping into pieces that are "less than excellent"? I find that hard to believe and I certainly hope nobody would think such a thing. And, to keep the metaphor going, I don't think any of us would make the argument that pushing for general new music programming would somehow diminish the quality of a concert.

Why is it ok to push for an "affirmative action" approach with new music in general but not with the music of female composers (or any other minority, for that matter)? For those who advocate programming more new music, do you think that somebody is going to hear a new piece on a program and think, "Well, it's ok, but it's only on this program because they're just trying to program new works"? It's possible that somebody would think that, of course. But...who cares? I doubt very many in our community would think such a thought would outweigh the importance and power of getting the piece programmed and heard in the first place. Dissemination, presence, and representation are powerful tools for breaking down barriers.

As a woman and a student composer, I don't think that it's cynical to say that there will always be someone out there who will think that my achievements (large or small) are due to my gender. This kind of unhelpful thinking will exist, I'm sorry to say, whether pieces are chosen for artistry or for gendered reasons (or both). I think that, for the most part, I'm pretty good at ignoring any worries over this. What I'm not good at ignoring is my lack of community--my lack of female peers, role models, and gendered support. I find strength in numbers and in having a community. I'm so grateful for the presence of women (and, as a side note, the presence of men who are incredibly aware and supportive) in the new music scene, but the fact of the matter is that women still make up a very, very small presence on concert programs. And what doesn't make sense to me is why it needs to be this way, especially when we all know that it could be a much larger presence, given the number of wonderful composers out there who are women. 

So, to conclude, I think we should program more female composers just as we should program more new music--at least until we've reached a point where the programming represents the excellence that we know exists.

What do you think?

Posted by Natalie