I’ve been realizing some parallels lately between the music theory of Steve Reich and the political theory of Noam Chomsky. Reich is of the most beloved and experimental modern American composers, a writer of systems music–sound continuums which evolve gradually, often over very long periods of time.

One of his approaches to writing systems music has been phase shifting, which Roger Sutherland, author of New Perspectives in Music, describes as something “recorded on two channels, first in unison, and then with channel two beginning to move ahead. As the phrase begins to shift a gradually increasing reverberation is heard which slowly passes into a sort of canon or round.”

The result is a type of rhythmic dissonance that invites listeners to become a part of the creative process. Reich has said that this essentially removes him, the composer, from the equation of the composition (in reference to using tape loops and recorded voices).

Here’s an example of such composition in Reich’s “Come Out”:

*Headphones recommended*

Similarly, Noam Chomsky’s political theory often removes the individual from the structures of government and big business. He is most certainly critical of specific people in power, but he often attributes most of the blame to the larger institutions, arguing that these are simply processes playing themselves out. In other words, it’s possible for nice people to be a part harmful institutions.

In this sense, individuals–be they our forefathers, lobbyists, or current government officials–set the parameters of our political system, as Reich has set the parameters of his systems music. In both cases, once these processes have been set in motion they move forward while remaining largely unchanged along the way. Unfortunately this is around the point where the analogy ends. Both processes can have a hypnotic effect on the listener/citizen, but the impact of music is much less tangible than the destruction doled out by the United States.

The significance in this comparison, then, is to suggest that the problems with our government and its vulnerability to corporate influence are derived not from individual candidates that happen to be running for office, or from corrupted CEOs who abuse their power. The structure is itself corrupted, and significant humanitarian progress can come only through systemic change, not through choosing the seemingly less barbaric of two candidates every election.