There is no sound that is the sound of one object alone. All sounds are the result of collisions, abrasions, impingements or minglings of objects. (Connor in Kelly, 2011, p. 135)
There is comfort to be found in the idea that sound is essentially communal; that it takes two or more components; that it is an interaction of parts. However, it is interesting how Steven Connor’s description casts these relationships as negative and violent:
Collisions
Abrasions
Impingements. ¶ 1
There is an implication of damage done, force, obstructed will, at best a lack of mutual respect. These words seem to imply that the interaction is unwanted. It is only when he suggests mingling that there is the possibility of objects meeting in a more amicable, less combative way. This is, of course, assigning some sense of agency to an object, which if we are to entertain various aspects of speculative realism and object-oriented ontology is not wishful naivety. This philosophical path reflects the need to dethrone the human and reassess the damage the anthropocentric perspective has wreaked. However, if agency is too strong, then there is still the notion that objects are unto themselves and do not need us for their beingness. ¶ 2
So why this implied violence from Connor? Don Ihde manages to cover the same terrain with a rather different tone. He talks of surfaces (that cover shapes) as “giving voice” to each other: “there is usually a duet of voices in the auditory presentation" (2007, p. 68). Is it simply that Connor concentrates on how the meeting of two surfaces requires some level of energy to activate a sound—the more energy the louder and more aggressive the sound? But the soft caress of finger on skin also produces a sound, even if it doesn't propagate beyond the personal. ¶ 3
Or is it because he is trying to push back against the poesy of magical thinking about sound, which he suggests amounts to an "acousmania" (Connor, 2015). Is he playing devil’s advocate, balancing out the sometimes overly generous, permissive poetics that can be associated with a phenomenological approach to sound? The point to take from Connor is that there is no sound without relations. But I would add that they form a spectrum, from forced infiltration to consensual coalescing. ¶ 4
For more on Connor see chapter 3: “To Prick Up The Philosophical Ear”.
Connor, S. (2011). Ears have walls: On hearing art. In C. Kelly (Ed.), Sound (pp. 129–139). Whitechapel/MIT Press. (Originally presented as a speech in 2005.)
Connor, S. (2015). Acousmania. Retrieved May 18, 2022, from http://stevenconnor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/acousmania.pdf
Ihde, D. (2007). Listening and voice: Phenomenologies of sound (2nd edition. E-book.). State University of New York Press.