Music is a Choice!

Sonic ecology can be defined as the interactions between sound, music, human perceptions, and the environment, where the understanding of sonic experiences both shape and are shaped by ecological relationships. Murray Schafer’s (1977) concept of the “soundscape” describes the total acoustic environment, including human and non-human sounds. Pauline Oliveros’ (2005) “deep listening” goes beyond Schafer’s “soundscape” and passive auditory perceptions. Deep listening promotes a relational and equal engagement with sound. Sonic ecology can be understood by deconstructing the two terms. In deep listening, the participant actively engages with all sounds within an environment, regardless of origin creating a heightened state of consciousness in relation to sound’s spatial and temporal dimensions. This practice disregards Western preconceptions and practices of sound, in favor of indigenous ideas of relationality and multisensory interaction.

Jonathan Sterne (2012) recognizes sound through the concept of “sonic imagination,” in which sound is mediated by historical and technological concepts, and shapes the ways in which we understand the world. Knowledge of sound requires reflexivity. Where does one stand in relation to the historical, cultural, and political systems of power that influence the conception of sound? Ana María Ochoa (2016) expands this reflexivity into an analysis of colonial knowledge and Western-centric considerations of sound, where indigenous sonic practices are framed as uncivilized. This influences where the line between music and noise is drawn within the cultural imagination. Ochoa emphasizes that sonic environments are actively constructed rather than passively experienced, and she foregrounds indigenous ontologies as challenging Western sonic traditions.

Merriam-Webster defines “ecology” as “a branch of science concerned with the interrelationship of organisms and their environments” or “the totality or pattern of relations between organisms and their environment.” Heather Davis and Zoe Todd (2017) attributes the current ecological crisis and the concept of the Anthropocene to colonial and racialized origins. They argue that the Anthropocene must be understood not as a neutral geological epoch, but as a framework shaped by colonial histories of resource extraction, displacement, and indigenous dispossession. This dispossession of land is accompanied by the suppression of Indigenous sonic practices, reinforcing a settler-colonial logic that marginalizes non-Western forms of listening and musicking. Jim Sykes’ The Anthropocene and Music Studies (2019) intertwines the current ecological crisis with sonic practices. He critiques the separation of sound studies and ecological thought, urging scholars to recognize how music and sound participate in material and environmental processes. This reveals how musical practices, whether through material instruments, performance venues, or digital infrastructures, are inextricably linked to environmental transformations. By acknowledging the role of sound in colonial histories, sonic ecology can serve as a tool for decolonization, bringing attention to the ways in which listening practices, music, and soundscapes contribute to both ecological harm and resistance. Thus,  sonic ecology can be defined as a transdisciplinary framework that critically examines the interconnections between sound, listening, and ecological relationships. Sonic ecology, as a study, must embrace a broader ecological framework that includes social, cultural, economic, and historical dimensions.