!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
A Change is Gonna Come:
Music as a Vehicle for Social Change
by
Blair Robbins
TC 357: Snow Bridge
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!2
!
!
INTRODUCTION
!
Joan Baez, prominent folk singer and activist, once said that “music is probably the only
medium that really does cross all boundaries, and all languages, and all countries" (Gavish,
“Music has always been a tuneful force for political change”). Music is present among all
people, in all cultures, at all points in life: from the lullabies our caretakers sing to help us sleep
to wedding songs, funeral marches, birthday celebrations, and day-to-day enjoyment, music is at
the heart of much of what humans do. What is it about music that gives it this special ability to
affect vastly wide groups of people?
The question I will pose in this research paper is an adaptation of the question posed by
Ron Eyerman and Andrew Jamison in their sociological paper on popular music and social
movements from the United States in the 1960s. In their paper they ask: “How do large groups of
people transform their values and adopt new patterns of behaviour, or to put it in different terms,
through what forms of social movement do cultures rearrange their traditions and
resources?” (Eyerman and Jamison 449). Music seems to have more influence over large groups
of people than nearly any other cultural product. Therefore I will introduce music as the central
cultural focus of my examination by asking: “To what extent does music lead large groups of
people to transform their values and adopt new patterns of behavior, and why does music seem to
effect this change?”
!3
This paper aims to gain a preliminary understanding of music’s ability to effect social
change by examining the equally important intersections of culture and neurobiology. Walter
Freeman remarks in his essay on music’s neurobiological role in social bonding that “neither
conventional neuroscience nor aesthetics can explain the deep emotional power of music to
move humans to action” and Ian Cross writes in his essay on music as a biocultural phenomenon
that foundational categories of theorized musical practice are not adequate to explain the practice
and experience of music; therefore I will consult not musicology, but neurobiological and sociocultural evidence to arrive at an understanding of certain root causes of music’s deep emotional
power (Freeman 1, Cross 107). Because of its considerable influence and rich cultural history,
contemporary popular music in the United States will be the focus of my socio-cultural
examination. I will first discuss United States protest music from the 1960s as an exemplar of
music’s capacity to effect social change. I will then present neurobiological, evolutionary, and
psychological evidence that support my sociological findings on music as a potent social change
agent. Finally, I will discuss the state of music in the United States in the 21st century, combining
my socio-historical and neurobiological findings to propose that a return to a collectivist spirit of
music-making and music-listening in the United States will optimize music’s biological capacity
to engender social bonding and promote positive social change.
There are inherent problems with applying micro findings on a macro level; however this
paper does not aim to use neurobiological findings to develop a formula for how to write or
perform socially influential songs. Rather it aims to explain, neurobiologically and socioculturally, why music has the capacity to act as such a powerful force for social change and how
this capacity might be utilized in a positive way.
!4
!
!
!
!
SONGS OF THE SIXTIES: THE ABILITY OF MUSIC TO EFFECT SOCIAL CHANGE
!
We will now turn to the United States in the 1960s for evidence of music’s social power.
The 1960s was arguably one of the United States’ greatest eras of political and cultural upheaval.
Protest movements such as the Civil Rights Movement, the Free Speech Movement, the New
Left, the Anti-war Movement, the Anti-nuclear Movement, Feminism, Environmentalism, and
the Gay Liberation Movement emerged in full-force during the decade to cry out against the war
in Vietnam, environmental degradation, homophobic violence, sexist oppression,
institutionalized racism, and traditional modes of authority. The rapidity at which these
movements incurred change was unprecedented and fueled in part by music. As Eyerman and
Jamison note in their cognitive study of social movements at this time, the emergence of radio,
recorded music, and the pregnant mixture of acoustic folk, electric rock music, blues, gospel,
jazz, and classical music that led to popular music innovation in the 1960s played a huge role in
the collective will transformation of this new generation (Eyerman and Jamison 455). The
politically charged music of the 1960s helped create a new vision for American society that can
still be felt in American consciousness today.
Currents of dissent were prevalent in all forms of art and expression throughout the
1960s, but music was at the forefront of protest and change. Songs like “Woodstock” by Joni
!5
Mitchell, “The Times They Are a-Changin’” by Bob Dylan, “What’s Going On” by Marvin Gaye
(though recorded in 1971, the song reflects the times and sentiments of the 1960s), reflected the
general unrest of the era and became anthems of social upheaval. The Folk Revival played a
central role in the American Student Movement, just as soul music and ‘freedom songs’ were
critical to the voice and power of the Civil Rights Movement (Eyerman and Jamison 457). Songs
like “At Last” by Etta James, “A Change is Gonna Come” by Sam Cooke, “We Shall Overcome”
by Pete Seeger (though written earlier, it came to prominence in the 1960s), “Blowin’ in the
Wind” by Bob Dylan, and the folk song “Keep Your Eyes on the Prize” became anthems of the
Civil Rights Movement. Songs like “Bring Them Home” by Pete Seeger, “I Ain’t Marching
Anymore” by Phil Ochs, “All You Need is Love” by the Beatles, “With God on Our Side” by
Bob Dylan, “The Unknown Soldier” by the Doors, “War (What is it Good For?)” by Edwin Starr,
“Wooden Ships” by Crosby, Stills, & Nash, “Fortunate Son” by Creedence Clearwater Revival,
and “Give Peace a Chance” by John Lennon became cries for the Anti-war Movement. Many
note Pete Seeger’s performance of We Shall Overcome on public television in 1968 as a turning
point in shaping the public’s perception about the Vietnam War (Kot “Where are all the protest
songs?”). The impact of these songs was defined by the unique cultural context yet universal
applicability of their lyrics and the memorable melodies and phrases imbued through their
musical tunes. These songs united a generation of unrest. They became anthems, songs of hope,
and messages for peace. They helped groups stand together and stay strong in the midst of
violent opposition. These songs infiltrated the consciousness of a generation and continue to
exert their influence on popular imagination today.
!6
Singers and songs of the 1960s emerged from a tradition of collective action. Folk
musicians in this era song-swapped and participated in group music-making, with songs typically
performed at political demonstrations and collective festivals (Eyerman and Jamison 451).
Members of the New Left and Students for a Democratic Society remember that music helped
solidify collective identity and a sense of belonging in the early movements of the 1960s
(Eyerman and Jamison 456). Martin Luther King Jr. noted that music gave unity to movements
and invigorated them in a “most significant way” (Denisoff 243). Across the United States,
music acted as a resource for people in these movements by forming a basis for recruitment and
creating and sustaining a collective sense of identity. New mass media industries were receptive
to the commercial benefits of producing and distributing subversive music at the time, leading to
the development of a wide-scale form of social criticism (Eyerman and Jamison, 458). Though
music was only one component of collective action at the time, songs speaking out against
violence and discrimination reached the ears of millions in the U.S. and even across the world,
invigorating social actors to unite together under the common causes of peace, equality, and
freedom.
Though mass media was essential to developing a long-term, widespread air of collective
dissent in the United States, the initial benefits of these mass industries soon began to quell the
subversive nature of the music they distributed. Toward the end of the 1960s, Americans became
disenchanted by what they saw as the failed promises of their decade and the steady
transformation of popular music from anthems of idealistic discontent to laments of unmet
dreams (Eyerman and Jamison 463-464). Eyerman and Jamison remark that from the late 1960s
onward, “songs, with few exceptions, were turned into products manufactured for private
!7
consumption on a mass market rather than the vehicles for collective identity formation and
shared consciousness-raising that they had been earlier” (Eyerman and Jamison 451). With
newfound attention and financial support from record companies, musicians began to focus more
on their individual artistic identities than on any collective aim or cause. Performance steadily
altered from the often spiritual, collective group setting to a much more commercialized and
individuated form (Eyerman and Jamison 451). The partnership and idealism so easily observed
in American music from the early 1960s on through the end of the decade steadily gave way to
cynicism and alienated individualism, ultimately resulting in the absence of strong, subversive
music movements pushing for social change in the United States today. Despite failed promises
and shortcomings, social movements in the 1960s contributed to considerable social progress,
aided in no small part by music, which still influence and guide the sentiments of actors for
social change in America and around the world today.
Why was music a far more potent force for social change in the 1960s than any other
decade in the U.S.? The decade’s unique social context cannot be ignored: radio and recorded
music emerged alongside the development of mass media and pop culture, allowing for a
generation of well-off, yet dissident youth to unify and mobilize against the existing social order.
During the 1960s, social movements not only provided singers with an audience, but also a sense
of mission over and above commercial gains (Eyerman and Jamison 458). Protest music
continued to be made beyond the decade- artists like Neil Young, Marvin Gaye, Bruce
Springsteen, Patti Smith, N.W.A., Black Flag, Gil Scott-Heron, Stevie Wonder, The Dead
Kennedys, Rage Against the Machine, Ani DiFranco, Bikini Kill, Sonic Youth, Sleater-Kinney
and countless others made socially-consciousness music long after the 1960s were over- but this
!8
music of dissent has since come from individual voices instead of collective cries. After the rise
of a highly commercialized music industry, American lost the teeth it once had in music to move
large groups of people against systems of oppression. In the 1960s, music was the tool that
pushed subculture into mainstream consciousness. Nowadays, underground culture in the United
States stays that way until it is safe and commercially viable enough to be marketed as a fashion
statement: think ‘goth’, ‘hip-hop’, ‘punk’, ‘grunge’, and ‘indie’.
Music was central to the creative role of consciousness and cognition of collective action in
the 1960s. Though the rate of creative change in this era was remarkable, it was a feature not
limited to its time. Indeed, it may be the case that music plays a vital role in all social movements
in their formative stages (Eyerman and Jamison 451). Those in power have long recognized the
subversive potential of music. Plato said in his Republic that “Any musical innovation is full of
danger to the whole state, and ought to be prohibited. When modes of music change, the
fundamental laws of the state always change with them” (Trans. Jowett 112). Plato understood
music’s potential and banned all forms except for the orderly Lydian from his Academy in order
to discourage dissidence (Freeman 10). The Catholic Church long forbade syncopation and the
“Devil’s Interval” (an augmented fourth or ‘tritone’), instead favoring tightly regulated forms of
music such as Gregorian chants which were believed to encourage religious piety and obedience
(Freeman 10). In the United States today, the war over censorship rages on, with concerned
parents crusading against explicit lyrics for fear that their children will succumb to the evils of
sex and debauchery after hearing driving beats or a particularly loud guitar solo; even certain
religious sects still view music and dancing as an instrument of the devil (Cohen 1). How is it
that a certain musical melody or type of rhythm can incite either fear or excitement in entire
!9
groups of society? Why has music been recognized throughout history as tool of rebellion and
change? Cultural and sociological history can only go so far in attempts to answer these
questions. In order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of music’s pervasive influence
on social behavior in humans, we must turn to neurobiological and evolutionary explanations.
!
!
THE NEUROBIOLOGICAL AND BIOCULTURAL BASIS OF MUSIC
!
Cultural explanations for music’s social power are clear. Between radio play, concerts,
social media, and online streaming platforms, musicians have the platform to voice their
opinions to millions of people at a time. Why have musicians and the message of their music
been given such a wide reach in the first place? What is it about music that makes its messages
so readily accessible? Why has music played such a vital role in human social ritual for
thousands of years, possibility predating the inventions of fire, tools, and shelter (Freeman 10)?
These questions may be partly answered if we turn to the evolutionary and neurobiological
underpinnings of music as a social phenomenon.
!
How the Mind Hears: The Evolutionary Underpinnings of Music and Emotion
!
Music is defined by Ian Cross as that which “embodies, entrains and transposably
intentionalises time in sound and action” (Cross 108). In their paper on music and mirror neuron
systems, Molnar-Szakacs and Overy refer to the idea that music is a “form of communication in
!10
which acoustic patterns and their auditory representations elicit a variety of conscious
experiences” (Molnar-Szakacs and Overy 235). Music has far more dimensions than the sonic; it
involves the auditory, somatosensory, and motor systems (Freeman 3). Music is sonic, embodied,
and interactive, simultaneously deriving and conferring meaning on the variable contexts in
which it occurs (Cross 108). While some researchers argue that music has no survival value for
modern adults, others maintain that music entrainment-based bonds may be the basis for humans’
continually vital and uniquely flexible sociality (Trainor and Schmidt 310; Sievers et. al. 74).
Music is a highly cultural phenomenon. What were the reasons for music’s evolutionary
development in early humans, and why has music remained such a vital part of human culture
today?
It is commonly accepted that music is something of an evolutionary accident, resulting
from ‘neuronal recycling’ of pre-existing cortical, limbic, linguistic, and spatiotemporal functions
that were exploited to fill evolutionary and resulting cultural needs for social bonding and
affective engagement (Levitin, 106; Livingstone and Thompson, 85; Sievers et. al. 74-75).
Music’s strong sensory affect stems from a close evolutionary relationship with the auditory
system (Levitin 185). The human perceptual system is finely tuned to detect changes in the
environment in order to react to threats, but sounds typically trigger the greatest startle reactions
due to evolutionary pressure to react quickly to subtle changes in surrounding environments that
can be more easily obscured from the other senses (Levitin 185). This highly sensitive auditory
system was coupled with the emotional and motor systems for optimal evolutionary fitness:
strong connections between the auditory system, emotional, and motor systems allowed for
quick, thoughtless reaction to outside threats and stimuli (Levitin 185). Long after the
!11
connections between auditory, emotional, and motor systems were firmly set but possibly long
before humans developed culturally to the point of external, tool-based communication, music
emerged as a potent tool for emotional modulation and communication (Freeman 10).
Music has the power to induce and alter emotional states (Cross 108-109; Freeman 2,
7-11; Levitin 183-192; Livingstone and Thompson 87-94; Molnar-Szakacs and Overy 235-239;
Sievers et. al. 70-75; Trainor and Schmidt 310). The neural mechanisms of this process have
long been unclear, but recent research into the relationship between music and movement has
begun to provide even more evidence for music’s ability to control and modulate human
emotion.
Though theories on music and movement shift between music’s relationship with
embodied music cognition and mirror neuron systems to the importance of neurochemical
entrainment and the emergence of music from the theory of mind, research typically agrees that
music and movement share a dynamic structure (Sievers et. al. 70; Molnar-Szakacs and Overy
235; Freeman 11; Livingstone and Thompson 87). The initial relationship between music and
emotion may have resulted from music’s capacity to imitate certain biological movements tied
closely to emotional response, such as the heartbeat, gait, and voice, through a unique
combination of motor-sensory and auditory functions that led to the development of musical
devices such as rhythm and pitch (Sievers et. al. 74). Musical emotion relies heavily on metrical
extraction, or having a readily available beat and expecting it to occur at regular intervals, using
systematic violations of these expectations to communicate emotions strongly to listeners
(Levitin 169, 170, 172; Trainor and Schmidt 310). Research indicates that the cerebellum, which
is found to be closely involved with emotion, timing, and coordinating movements of the body, is
!12
strongly activated when people listen to music and may be the cause of metrical extraction
(Levitin 174, 175). Music has been shown to occur within periodic and hierarchically structured
temporal frameworks- such as those existing in the cerebellum- in the brain which are grounded
in bodily periodicities, possibly allowing for entrainment to isochronous repetitive pulses (Cross
108). It is this capacity for entrainment which endows music with the ability to unify and alter
the brain states of groups of humans.
!
Music’s Evolutionary Role in Human Bonding
!
In his essay on music as a biocultural phenomenon, Ian Cross remarked that “music is
properly not a characteristic of individuals but of communities” (Cross 107). Though the
experience of listening to and making music is highly personal and individuated, music’s potent
social power lies in its ability to be made, understood, and transmitted as a group. Walter
Freeman argues that music and dance have evolved culturally and biologically as instruments of
social bonding in response to environmental pressures in order to bridge individuals’ minds
together to form integrated societies (Freeman 1). Records of preliterate tribes note the extensive
use of music in rituals of change and transition (Cross 108, Freeman 8). It is observed that loud
and persistent rhythms, prolonged sensory overload, and strong emotional connections such as
those accompanying long nights of music in tribal ritual loosen synaptic connections and alter
brain states through a process called entrainment, clearing the way for new understanding and
trust through shared behavioral actions (Freeman 8). Music’s uniquely potent capacity for
entrainment also lends itself to more sinister devices. Music has proven to be one of the most
!13
effective instruments of modern torture due to its supreme psychophysiological influence over
the emotional and physical states of individuals (Cusick “Music as Torture/Music as Weapon”).
The group bonding music incurs can lead to hatred of outsiders as it simultaneously engenders
selfless bonding within a community, though the universality of emotional expression music may
be capable of bridging this emotional gap between separate tribes or groups (Freeman 10;
Sievers et. al. 70, 74). Music is uniquely adept at communicating meaning, but its meaning
depends on its context (Trainor and Schmidt 310-311). For better or worse, evolutionary factors
have developed music into one of the most potent tools for group bonding, universal
communication of affect and meaning, and emotional modulation. Neurobiological and
biocultural evidence evidence supports the sociocultural conclusion that whether music promotes
wide-reading positive or negative social consequences depends on the context in which musicmaking occurs.
!
!
A CHANGE IS GONNA COME: A NEW ERA FOR AMERICAN MUSIC
!
Socials ills in the United States have not eased since the 1960s. The income gap is
widening at an alarming pace. Staggering debt saddles the nation. Institutionalized racism,
sexism, and homophobia are as pervasive as ever. The military industrial complex is still strong
and we’re caught fighting another unwanted war. Protest certainly occurs in the 21st century- the
Gay Rights Movement, Immigrant Rights Movement, and 21st Century Civil Rights Movement
have made all measurable progress for reform- but the collective air of dissent in the United
!14
States in the 21st century possesses an aura of cynicism and escapism rather than a passionate
will to change. Unfortunately, our music today is no different.
Contemporary music in the United States is experiencing a crisis of apathy. Mainstream
pop is uniform, escapist, materialistic, and over-sensational (Evans “Why Does Today’s Pop
Music All Sound the Same?”). Underground artists are cynical and ironic, driven to coyness by a
sense of disenfranchisement (Ashby and Carroll, “David Foster Wallace was right: Irony is
ruining our culture”). The emergence of a subculture of independent music - commonly referred
to as ‘indie’- in the United States in the 1980s offered the promise of a return to dynamic and
politically influential subcultures driven by music. Unfortunately, even this promising music
movement was eventually co-opted for commercial gain. The term ‘indie’, which once stood for
a Do-It-Yourself, anti-capitalist approach to music-making, is now a highly lucrative brand and
buzzword which instantly conjures up images of irony, cynicism, and hipness. ‘Indie’ artists are
now the mainstay of mainstream labels and advertising. Indeed, many of these ‘indie’ artists
profess that such commercial choices- often referred to as ‘sell-out moves’ in earlier eras- are the
only way they feel they can retain financial and cultural influence in the music world today
(Hopper, “How Selling Out Saved Indie Rock”).
The same commercial forces that dissolved collective music-making at the end of the
1960s are still in play today, marginalizing our artists and discouraging collective cooperation. It
has never before been as easy for so many people to communicate, spread information on a mass
level, and make music; however, due to the current nature of the U.S. music industry and
economic system, this only means that even larger amounts of artists are thrown into competition
with each other to vie for the small number of positions which afford economic profit and
!15
cultural exposure. As a result of this system, U.S. music has become generally defined by either
fierce competition from those musicians who isolate company in order to succeed, complacent
conformity to accepted norms by those musicians who aim to be secure, dejected isolation and
cynicism by those musicians who refuse to comply, and irony by those musicians who
understand the negative implications of such a system but are either unwilling or afraid to try to
change it. All of these responses retreat away from the collective spirit of music-making that
made music such a potent force for social change in the 1960s.
This is not to say that all music currently being made in the United States suffers from an
incurable sense of apathy. Artists such as Janelle Monáe, M.I.A., Peaches, Ab-Soul, Le Tigre,
Talib Kweli, The Legendary K.O., Tom Waits, Lupe Fiasco, Erykah Badu, The Thermals, The
Roots, and Tom Morello have made and continue to make protest music in the 21st century.
Groups like Outkast, Bright Eyes, Green Day, and System of a Down wrote songs of protest
against the Bush Administration and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the mid-2000s. Artists
including Merrill Garbus of Tune-Yards, Amanda Palmer, Kimya Dawson of The Moldy
Peaches, Dan Deacon, and Jeff Mangum of Neutral Milk hotel lent their hearts and voices to the
Occupy Movement in 2011. Passionate songs are still being sung, but change is not following in
the United States in the mass sense with which it occurred in the 1960s. This is largely due to the
reality that the current norm for music in the United States is escapism and cynicism. Artists such
as those previously listed are fighting against strong currents of commercialism and isolation,
faced with the task of playing passionately at their own risk with little promise of mobilization or
observable change.
!16
Fortunately, advancements in technology present opportunities for positive change. The
internet is beginning to put power back into the hands of artists and those who participate in their
creations by decreasing past expenses of music recording and distribution, thereby abolishing the
once dire need for major record labels and professional management. Social media has opened
up seemingly endless opportunities for collective communication and collaboration. The
neurobiological and historical evidence shows that music is uniquely tailored to incur social
change. Though American music has experienced a crisis of apathy in the 21st century, the
promise of change through collective empowerment and collaboration is beginning to stir once
again.
!
CONCLUSION
Music has the biocultural power to spread positive emotions, carry meaningful messages,
and unite large groups of people under a common cause. Evidence shows that it is possible to
utilize music’s abilities in a powerfully positive way, but in order to do so, social actors must turn
away from the corporate, individuated, and alienated way of experiencing music in the current
age and return to a more collectivist effort. If our current generation wishes to push for positive
social change, we can and must look first to the music we are making. Our music serves as an
indicator of social progress as much as it incites calls for unity and action. Music has the power
to ignite a fire in people that calls for change and powers rebellions; it has the ability to light this
flame in thousands of souls all at once. Let us not forget the power in music. Here’s to hoping
change will come once more.
!17
!
!
!
!
!
WORKS CITED
!
Ashby, Matt and Brendan Carroll. “David Foster Wallace was right: Irony is ruining our
culture”. Salon. 13 Apr. 2014. Web
Cohen, Ronald D. “The Delinquents: Censorship and Youth Culture in Recent U.S. History”.
History of Education Quarterly 37.3 (1997): 1-2. Print
Cross, Ian. “Music as a Biocultural Phenomenon”. New York: New York Academy of Sciences,
2003. 106-111. Print.
Cusick, Suzanne G. “Music as Torture/Music as Weapon”. Trans. Revista Transcultural de
Música 10.0 (2006). Web.
Denisoff, R. Serge. "Protest Movements: Class Consciousness and the Propaganda Song".
Sociological Quarterly 9.0 (1968): 228-247. Print.
Freeman, Walter J. “A neurobiological role of music in social bonding”. The Origins of Music,
(1998): 1-11. Print
Evans, Hannah. “Why Does Today’s Pop Music All Sound the Same? Because the Same People
Make It”. The Independent. 10 Nov. 2012. Web.
Eyerman, Ron and Andrew Jamison. "Social movements and cultural transformation:
!18
Popular music in the 1960s." Media Culture and Society 17.0 (1995): 449-465. Print.
Gavish, Eitan. “Music has always been a tuneful force for political change”. Daily News.
10 Oct. 2009. Web.
Hopper, Jessica. “How Selling Out Saved Indie Rock”. Buzzfeed. 10 Nov. 2013. Web.
Kot, Greg. “Where are all the protest songs?”. BBC. 4 Feb. 2014. Web.
Levitin, Daniel J. This is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession.
New York: Penguin Group, 2006. Print.
Livingstone, Robert S. and William F. Thompson. “The emergence of music from the theory of
mind”. Musicae Scientiae 13.83 (2009): 83-101. Print.
Molnar-Szakacs, Istvan, and Katie Overy. “Music and mirror neurons: from motion to
‘e’motion”. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. 235-239. Print.
Plato. The Republic of Plato. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1888.
Sievers, Beau, and Larry Polansky, Michael Casey, and Thalia Wheatley. “Music and movement
share a dynamic structure that supports universal expressions of emotion”. PNAS 110.1:
(2013). 71-75. Print.
Trainor, L.J. and L.A. Schmidt. “Processing Emotions Induced by Music”. The Cognitive
Neuroscience of Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Print.