Find below a brief draft of a theoretical background for the StreetBeat.
“Without music to decorate it, time is just a
bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bill must be paid” –
Frank Zappa
Music consumption plays an important part of everyday life in the modern
era, from entertainment to adolescent identity formation (e.g. Arnett, 1995);
from a method of making public transportation more enjoyable (Tajadura-Jiménez,
Pantelidou, Rebacz, Västjäll & Tsakiris, 2011) to aiding in the therapy of
various psychological disorders (examples given in the work of Höller,
Thomschewski, Schmid, Höller, Crone & Trinka, 2012). The positive effects
of music can be noticed in literature as early as biblical times (in the story
of King David playing a harp in order to rid King Saul of a “bad spirit”) and
are still being investigating today in many contexts and methods.
Although the prolific
and expansive work on the topic make any claim against the positive effects of
music a difficult one, the work of musical-science is far from over and ongoing
research attempts to further analyze the effects of music on the human psyche
in an effort to better understand the differences between different forms of
music and their effects on different people. True to this spirit, Höller and
associates (2012) showed that while most musical research uses
experimenter-selected tracks of music, people actually show a more similar
brain-frequency response to self-selected tracks. These investigators propose
that the effects and experience of music are highly personal, to the level of
brain reactions (i.e. the personal effects go beyond personal taste or a short
lived emotional reaction).
Apart from
brain-frequency, music consumption has several other measureable effects. One
of these is an effect on “personal space”. A working definition of personal
space is given by Sommer (1959): an emotionally-tinged zone that people feel is
their space. This is the space which others cannot intrude without arousing
discomfort. In two behavioral experiments conducted by Tajadura-Jiménez and
colleagues (2011) participants were asked (study 1) to either approach a
stranger (experimenter) or stand and wait while a stranger approaches them,
while listening to music via headphones or earphones. In the second study,
participants were asked to approach a stranger either while listening to music
via earphones or while music was played through speakers. In both studies the
type of music (positive or negative) played was associated with the comfort
distance reported by participants. More importantly, the music consumption
medium (earphones/speakers) was also related to this distance so that
participants listening to music with earphones were comfortable to be at closer
distances with strangers. Taken to an urban context, this finding could mean
that people are comfortable being around strangers in the street while
listening to music.
Another interesting
effect of music that is relevant to an urban environment is the cross-modal
transfer effect. Marin, Gingras and Bhattacharya (2012) cite several works that
indicate that auditory and visual stimuli are in constant interaction with each
other, especially in “real-world” situations such as walking in the street (de Gelder
& Bertelson, 2003). This interaction is at least partly conducted through
emotional experiences. Music in itself, has well investigated effects on
emotional regulation including: changing bad mood, raising energy levels and
reducing tension (Goethem & Sloboda, 2011) to name just a few. Marin,
Gingras and Bhattacharya (2012) extended this research by priming participants
with emotion-arousing music (previously validated) and measuring emotional
responses to specific pictures. Music had a considerable effect on measures of
emotional arousal in participants.
Based on this body of
research, it can be hypothesized that in an urban environment, listening to
self-selected via ear-phones has a positive emotional effect, both via smaller
personal spaces and via moderation of the effects of possible visual stimuli.
Due to this, we propose that any improvement to urban experience should not
expect people to avoid the use of personal music players or listening to music
through earphones on the street. We do propose to allow people to leave a
personal-musical “mark” or “heritage” in the urban environment, without
intruding personal space.
Research into the
concept “legacy” has shown that people of varying ages, demographic
affiliations and health conditions agree about the importance of leaving a
legacy for future generations. This legacy may take many forms, ranging from
financial and worldly possessions to other more abstract notions of “leaving a
mark” (Hunter, 2011). Hunter further claims that “the transmission of legacy
provides an avenue for continuity, as emerges from the past, develops in the
present and is given to the future” (p.37). Leaving a legacy provides a way of
leaving a part of the “self” that will remain even after death, a way of
feeling immortal and in turn a way of reducing the existential fear of death
and raising self-esteem. This innate seeking of immortality and leaving a
legacy is so strong that when reminded of their own death, people showed a
greater willingness to name their children after themselves (Vicary, 2011).
Research conducted by
Williams, Woodby and Drentea (2012) proposes that leaving a legacy has become a
social expectation, cultural norm and personal and professional obligation in
western society. This “legacy” usually comes in the form of financial assets,
social connections and human investment. But these forms are not the only ones,
Williams, Woodby and Drentea (2012) found, through unstructured interviews with
terminal patients that people from lower socio-economic backgrounds find other
“currencies” to leave their beloved ones, such as “ethical capital” (rules,
“wisdom of the elders” and various stories) that often comes in the form of
idioms and maxims.
Bibliography
Ana Tajadura-Jiménez, A., Pantelidou, G., Rebacz,
P., Västfjäll, D., & Tsakiris, M. (2011). I-space: The effects of
emotional valence and source of music on interpersonal distance. Plos one,
6(10), 1-7.
Arnett, J. J. (1995). Adolescents' uses of media for
self-socialization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24(5), 519-533.
de Gelder, B., & Bertelson, P. (2003).
Multisensory integration, perception and ecological validity. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 460-467.
Höller, Y., Thomschewski, A., Schmid, E. V., Höller,
P., Crone, J. S., & Trinka, E. (2012). Individual brain-frequency
responses to self-selected music. International Journal of
Psychophysiology, 86, 206-213.
Hunter, E. G. (2008). Legacy: The occupational
transmission of self through actions and artifacts. Journal of Occupational
Science, 15(1), 48-54.
Marin, M. M., Gingras, B., & Bhattacharya, J.
(2012). Crossmodal transfer of arousal, but not pleasantness, from the
musical to the visual domain. Emotion, 12(3), 618-631.
Sommer, R. (1959). Studies in Personal Space. Sociometry,
22, 247-260.
van Goethem, A., & Sloboda, J. (2011). The
functions of music for affect regulation. Musicae Scientae, 15(2),
208-229.
Vicary, A. M. (2011). Mortality salience and
namesaking: Does thinking about death make people want to name their children
after themselves? Journal of Research in Personality, 45(1), 138-141.
Williams, B., Woodby, L., & Drentea, P. (2010).
Ethical capital: ‘What’s a poor man got to leave?’. Sociology of Health
and Illness, 32(6), 880-897.
No comments:
Post a Comment