Table Of ContentCOMPLICATING, CONSIDERING, and 01
02
CONNECTING MUSIC EDUCATION
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
S40
N41
L42
01 COUNTERPOINTS: MUSIC AND EDUCATION
02
Estelle R. Jorgensen, editor
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40S
41N
42L
COMPLICATING, 01
02
03
CONSIDER ING, and
04
05
CON NECTING MUSIC 06
07
08
EDUCATION 09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Lauren Kapalka Richerme 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Indiana University Press 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
S40
N41
L42
01
02
03
04 This book is a publication of
05
Indiana University Press
06
Office of Scholarly Publishing
07
Herman B Wells Library 350
08
1320 East 10th Street
09 Bloomington, Indiana 47405 USA
10
11 iupress.indiana.edu
12
© 2020 by Lauren Kapalka Richerme
13
14
All rights reserved
15
No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any
16 means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by
17 any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing
18 from the publisher. The paper used in this publication meets the minimum
19 requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—
Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992.
20
21
Manufactured in the United States of America
22
23 Cataloging information is available from the Library of Congress.
24 ISBN 978-0-253-04737-3 (hardback)
25 ISBN 978-0-253-04747-2 (paperback)
26 ISBN 978-0-253-04749-6 (ebook)
27
1 2 3 4 5 25 24 23 22 21 20
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40S
41N
42L
Contents 01
02
03
04
05
06
Preface vii 07
Acknowledgments xv 08
09
1 Rhizomatic Journeying 1 10
11
2 Who Are We? 22
12
13
3 Where Are We? 43
14
4 Considering Deleuzian Ethics 67 15
16
5 Reconsidering Considering 84 17
18
6 Musically Connecting With 101
19
20
7 When Is Music Education? 127
21
8 Rhizomatic Journeying 150 22
23
Bibliography 163 24
25
Index 175
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
S40
N41
L42
Preface 01
02
03
04
05
W 06
illiam Ayers writes: “To be human is to be involved in a quest, a funda-
07
mental life project that is situated and undertaken as a refusal to accede to the
08
given.”1 Similarly, I understand all philosophizing as a journey, one simultan-
09
eously personal and public. To focus on end points rather than paths minimizes
10
the process of philosophizing, robbing travelers of the voyaging that, while at
11
times arduous, often gives increased meaning to their temporary destinations.
12
Undertaking such wandering demands a sense of adventure and a welcoming of
13
the emotions that accompany sustained uncertainty.
14
While philosophizing may involve ephemeral resting points and momentary
15
clarity, it inevitably reveals additional questions, confusion, and untraversed ter-
16
rains. A nine-year-old boy whose philosophical musings went viral on the internet
17
explains, “You never really know for sure if there is anything in the search. It’s an
18
endless quest without knowing what your quest is.”2 His statements illuminate
19
that if one’s philosophical journeying can be said to have a beginning, it is perhaps
20
with a child’s innate and at times relentless curiosity, wonderment, and creativity.
21
Through their words and actions, teachers can extinguish or fan these dispos-
22
itions, fostering or inhibiting students’ traverses within and beyond the classroom.
23
Situated in my own ever-evolving narrative, the part of my philosophical
24
wandering explored in this book began when an undergraduate mentor asked
25
me: “What should be the relationship between music education and society?”3
26
While the intervening years have not necessarily brought me any closer to an
27
answer, the question has fostered what poststructuralist philosophers Gilles
28
Deleuze and Félix Guattari might explain as an “I do not know that has become
29
positive and creative.”4 Inspired by their work, I have stumbled on routes initially
30
obfuscated by the weight of tradition and by my own previously unquestioned
31
habits and values, at times finding joy in the vulnerability of being lost.5
32
The term “music education” is neither monolithic nor stagnant. It can refer
33
to practices ranging from sight-singing with a professional choral conductor, to
34
playing fiddle through observing and participating in a community group, to lis-
35
tening critically at a rap concert, to composing privately with help from an online
36
forum. It can include the work of an elementary music specialist who sees hun-
37
dreds of students a week, private teachers who prepare students for standardized
38
performance exams, professional music ensembles that undertake community
39
outreach, and music enthusiasts who create online videos teaching everything
S40
from accordion to Pro Tools.
N41
L42
vii
viii | Preface
01 While practices such as the master-apprentice model of instrument and voice
02 instruction have persisted on multiple continents for centuries, relatively recent
03 technological innovations have facilitated music education centered on multi-
04 tracking, remixing, and creating mash-ups, endeavors unimaginable throughout
05 the vast majority of human history.6 Yet, even seemingly long-standing music
06 education practices can include elements of variability. For example, contem-
07 porary students in traditional band, choral, and orchestral programs likely find
08 themselves with increasing access to education in popular music-making as
09 well as other genres outside of the Western cannon. In short, “music education”
10 encompasses a collection of disparate, constantly changing practices.
11 Despite this diversity, current music education practices tend to have three
12 potentially problematic qualities in common. First, music education practices
13 often center on questions about content and pedagogy while neglecting teachers’
14 and learners’ unique attributes, including those related to their multiple environ-
15 ments. Leaders of groups ranging from music associations to teacher licensing
16 committees divide individuals into categories such as “instrumental,” “general
17 music,” “Gordon,” and “music technology.” Even when an “Orff teacher” serves a
18 population of students very similar to that of a “Kodály educator” in a neighbor-
19 ing town, discussions about content and pedagogy often occur absent considera-
20 tions of who and where one teaches.
21 Likewise, authors of policies such as national standards, International Bac-
22 calaureate exams, and competition requirements make little acknowledgment of
23 differences between students or schools.7 Yet, music educators frequently turn
24 to such documents as their primary sources of guidance. When music educa-
25 tors neglect students’ and communities’ diverse needs and interests, they miss
26 opportunities for musical and educative experiences particularly meaningful for
27 a specific time and place. Even the very terms “educator,” “students,” and “com-
28 munity” have the potential to solidify people and practices, separating them
29 from the continual change central to life beyond the classroom.
30 Second, contemporary music educators tend to treat music-making and edu-
31 cation as amoral and apolitical processes. Extending the Enlightenment trad-
32 ition of separating musical practices from functional ends,8 music educators may
33 conceive of their work as aiming toward transcendent conceptions of “good”
34 music rather than as contingent on sociocultural practices that often propa-
35 gate various systems of subjugation. By conceiving of the decision to emphasize
36 Beethoven over Beyoncé in purely musical terms, they neglect any ethical or pol-
37 itical implications of such action. Further, Julia Koza explains how music admis-
38 sion processes at the collegiate level favor white individuals while minimizing
39 and excluding contributions from members of other races.9 The same holds true
40S for Pre-K–12 music instruction, which even when broadened to include practices
41N such as guitar and ukulele, can promote racist divides by omitting genres such
42L as rap and hip-hop.10
Preface | ix
My point is not to assert that music educators should uncritically embrace 01
all music-making; rather, these examples demonstrate how seemingly innocuous 02
decisions can have potentially serious ethical implications. When misrecognized 03
as apolitical and amoral, the ethical dilemmas hidden within all musical and 04
educative practices go unexamined, and potentially more ethical alternatives 05
remain unconsidered. In addition to neglecting possibilities for more ethical 06
teaching and learning, such action denies students the opportunity to develop 07
the dispositions and thought processes needed to make ethically conscious deci- 08
sions throughout their lives. It may also reinforce a conception of ethics as pre- 09
given and straightforward rather than complex and evolving in integration with 10
one’s own differing experiences. 11
Third, music makers often struggle to explain the purpose of their work 12
in ways that are inclusive of divergent contemporary musical practices yet not 13
superficial or relativistic. For example, the high school ensemble director who 14
asserts that music promotes militaristic discipline may indirectly undermine the 15
work of teachers who advocate for music education as an avenue for individ- 16
ual self-expression. Alternatively, authors of existing advocacy resources proffer 17
that music education can promote everything from higher test scores, to better 18
attendance, to creativity;11 music education can be “good for” anything that rein- 19
forces teachers’ personal values and convinces others of the importance of their 20
existing work. While asserting narrow purposes for music education excludes 21
various forms of musical engagement, a scattershot approach, particularly one 22
based on unfounded rationale, can inhibit teachers and students from collec- 23
tively expressing the significance of their endeavors. Music educators need not 24
blindly adopt a single purpose or abandon an array of advocacy tactics useful 25
within their respective contexts, but the absence of at least partial agreement 26
about shared rationale may hinder support from administrators, politicians, and 27
other stakeholders. 28
The uncritical acceptance of any and all purposes for music education is 29
also problematic because it dissuades dialogue about values, potentially hiding 30
troubling ulterior motives and limiting alternative possibilities. A teacher who 31
cloaks the goal of personal glory through winning competitions in the guise of 32
instilling a hard work ethic may miss how students lacking access to private les- 33
sons or those with different learning needs are excluded or degraded. Resistance 34
to sustained thoughtful debate about possible purposes of music education leaves 35
the field without examined arguments. Caught in a cycle of justifying what is, 36
music educators and students miss opportunities to reimagine what could be. 37
Contextualized within my initial overarching question about possible rela- 38
tionships between society and music education, I wonder: How might twenty- 39
first-century music educators respond to these three dilemmas? Consistent with S40
my Western classical music background, my gut response to such an inquiry N41
involves seeking solidified answers. Just as I aim to play the right note or to L42
