My OperaThe Integrated Nature of Music, Society, and Education
Thursday, April 13, 2006 3:44:01 AM
In most cases, the arts and artists are inextricably linked with society and education. Artists often reflect or react upon society and life, and because of the inherent representation of society thoughts, and other creative endeavors by the arts are valued enough by society that they are – at least at the fringe – included in school curricula. The arts (including music), society, and education are each symbiotic with each other and any change in one causes change in the other. In Music, Society, Education (Small, 1996) Christopher Small articulated a particularly lucid philosophic discourse that addresses this “triangle”. Understanding how the three disciplines are not separate but linked is important to consider and reflect upon as one formulates their philosophy of music education.
Why does a music educator need a philosophy of music education? Perhaps Reimer (2003) best articulated support for this need: The purpose of (a) philosophy … is to provide a system of principles for guidance in creating and implementing useful and meaningful music education programs. Our profession needs such guidance at both the collective and the individual levels. The profession as a whole needs a set of beliefs that can serve to guide the efforts of the group. The impact the profession can make on society depends in large degree on the quality of the profession’s understanding of what it has to offer that might be of value to society. (Reimer, 2003, p. 2).
Developing a personal philosophy of music education is an important process for music educators to undertake. A philosophy can be useful in many ways including (a) steering classroom strategies, (b) developing and implementing curriculum, (c) informing music advocacy, (d) informing decisions, and (e) guiding a music educator when the teaching environment becomes challenging or difficult or maintaining enthusiasm. However, developing a philosophy is a difficult process (e.g., Reimer, 2003) that involves critical thinking; reading, understanding, and assimilating other educators’ philosophies; and constant reflection and the willingness to amend a current philosophy. A practical, useful philosophy of music education will answer several questions including: (a) what makes music important to oneself and others, (b) what elements constitute a good music education curriculum, and (c) why and how we should implement the resulting curricula in the public schools.
How does Small contribute to an evolving philosophy of music education in Music, Society, Education (1996)? Although Small does not present his discourse entirely for music educators but more for people, educators, musicians, artists, and sociologists in general, the text does force the music educator audience to consider many fundamental issues in present music education. Small points out several important issues including the purpose of arts and music in education and society as well as the ongoing dilemma of how schools in general do not fulfill the contemporary the needs of either society or students.
A major portion of Small’s text focuses on the importance of creativity to humanity. One of the elements that separate humanity from animals is its ability to create, imagine, and dream. There is an inner stirring in all humans that drives us to self-expression and can cause madness when our “voices” are lost (such as in certain dictatorships or prisons). However, Small identifies an attribute of modern Western society where we have valued and enforced structure and confines. For several centuries we have developed arts that are interested in expressing confined visions. As Small discussed, a painting often has a more gilded frame than the painting itself. Our tonal system of music with its 12 chromatic tones and emphasis on form further enforces our values of laws, ethics, borders, boundaries, hierarchies, and structure that pervade all aspects of Western life. Some deem those cultures lacking (or deciding not to have) such structure primitive. Small cautions that despite the monumental works of art valued globally as masterpieces in our canon, we should not be dismissive of other cultures or feel our way is better. Small discusses other societies and how their values in life permeate into their arts. Because of different values, their arts are different. For example, Eastern music such as Balinese Gamelan or Indian Raga place much greater emphasis on rhythm and immediacy, aspects we have sacrificed in our Western music for structure. Small provokes us often to ponder this dilemma and sacrifice, in particular when he asks whether a truly creative culture, focused on the moment rather than the past, would have developed recording technology. Another important point is made in addressing the distance between the creative process (when Beethoven wrote his Symphony Number 5) and the audience (circa 200 years removed and not actually performing) whereas in other cultures all participants in society can contribute to the creative process such as in African or Balinese cultures where even children are part of the performance.
In perpetuating a system that values structure and the past rather than immediacy (focus on the here and now) and boundless creativity we have made sacrificed. Small addresses how it may be becoming increasingly difficult to perpetuate this system and canon as evidenced by decreasing attendance at symphony concerts and the bankruptcies of opera companies. Certain strata of society may be almost violently rejecting this perpetuation in the pursuit of creativity and independence. Wars have broken out across the world over the pursuit of freedom and autonomy. As Small discussed, since education and schools represent the values of society, a time may be quickly approaching where we as educators must readdress our entire educational system and curricula.
Small suggested that music should become something everyone can do and benefit from. Reimer (2003) concurred with this suggestion believing that although there will be experts who are able to reach profound aesthetic experiences every time, that everyone who participates or listens to music is benefited. Secondly, Small suggests that the factory-like approach to schools that prepared workers during the early days of public school for factory floors is inappropriate today. Small suggests that we need specialized, independent, and creative learners. The researchers and proponents of constructivist education support this statement.
Despite some alarmingly appropriate issues discussed by Small, it must be noted that philosophers are concerned with “what should be” and not “what was” or “what realistically can be.” Educators must be much more concerned with the latter and it may be in the current fiscal state of diminishing educational funding and a preoccupation with standardized testing making changes to our educational system are near impossible. That does not mean that individual teachers and music educators should not spend time thinking of and approaching over time “what should be.” And as Reimer pointed out, it is important we approach a consensus and that we concern ourselves with what is important in public education. Is it important that we support an elitist canon where only a small fraction of the population are able to partake in music performance … centered on the performance of ancient music? Or is it more important that we build creativity, self-expression, and independence in students and support musical opportunities where all can take part in musical activities? This seems to be the central question discussed and probed by Small in Music, Society, Education (1996) and it is one important question for music educators to address.
References
Reimer, B. (2003). A philosophy of music education: Advancing the vision (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Small, C. (1996). Music, society, education. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.
Why does a music educator need a philosophy of music education? Perhaps Reimer (2003) best articulated support for this need: The purpose of (a) philosophy … is to provide a system of principles for guidance in creating and implementing useful and meaningful music education programs. Our profession needs such guidance at both the collective and the individual levels. The profession as a whole needs a set of beliefs that can serve to guide the efforts of the group. The impact the profession can make on society depends in large degree on the quality of the profession’s understanding of what it has to offer that might be of value to society. (Reimer, 2003, p. 2).
Developing a personal philosophy of music education is an important process for music educators to undertake. A philosophy can be useful in many ways including (a) steering classroom strategies, (b) developing and implementing curriculum, (c) informing music advocacy, (d) informing decisions, and (e) guiding a music educator when the teaching environment becomes challenging or difficult or maintaining enthusiasm. However, developing a philosophy is a difficult process (e.g., Reimer, 2003) that involves critical thinking; reading, understanding, and assimilating other educators’ philosophies; and constant reflection and the willingness to amend a current philosophy. A practical, useful philosophy of music education will answer several questions including: (a) what makes music important to oneself and others, (b) what elements constitute a good music education curriculum, and (c) why and how we should implement the resulting curricula in the public schools.
How does Small contribute to an evolving philosophy of music education in Music, Society, Education (1996)? Although Small does not present his discourse entirely for music educators but more for people, educators, musicians, artists, and sociologists in general, the text does force the music educator audience to consider many fundamental issues in present music education. Small points out several important issues including the purpose of arts and music in education and society as well as the ongoing dilemma of how schools in general do not fulfill the contemporary the needs of either society or students.
A major portion of Small’s text focuses on the importance of creativity to humanity. One of the elements that separate humanity from animals is its ability to create, imagine, and dream. There is an inner stirring in all humans that drives us to self-expression and can cause madness when our “voices” are lost (such as in certain dictatorships or prisons). However, Small identifies an attribute of modern Western society where we have valued and enforced structure and confines. For several centuries we have developed arts that are interested in expressing confined visions. As Small discussed, a painting often has a more gilded frame than the painting itself. Our tonal system of music with its 12 chromatic tones and emphasis on form further enforces our values of laws, ethics, borders, boundaries, hierarchies, and structure that pervade all aspects of Western life. Some deem those cultures lacking (or deciding not to have) such structure primitive. Small cautions that despite the monumental works of art valued globally as masterpieces in our canon, we should not be dismissive of other cultures or feel our way is better. Small discusses other societies and how their values in life permeate into their arts. Because of different values, their arts are different. For example, Eastern music such as Balinese Gamelan or Indian Raga place much greater emphasis on rhythm and immediacy, aspects we have sacrificed in our Western music for structure. Small provokes us often to ponder this dilemma and sacrifice, in particular when he asks whether a truly creative culture, focused on the moment rather than the past, would have developed recording technology. Another important point is made in addressing the distance between the creative process (when Beethoven wrote his Symphony Number 5) and the audience (circa 200 years removed and not actually performing) whereas in other cultures all participants in society can contribute to the creative process such as in African or Balinese cultures where even children are part of the performance.
In perpetuating a system that values structure and the past rather than immediacy (focus on the here and now) and boundless creativity we have made sacrificed. Small addresses how it may be becoming increasingly difficult to perpetuate this system and canon as evidenced by decreasing attendance at symphony concerts and the bankruptcies of opera companies. Certain strata of society may be almost violently rejecting this perpetuation in the pursuit of creativity and independence. Wars have broken out across the world over the pursuit of freedom and autonomy. As Small discussed, since education and schools represent the values of society, a time may be quickly approaching where we as educators must readdress our entire educational system and curricula.
Small suggested that music should become something everyone can do and benefit from. Reimer (2003) concurred with this suggestion believing that although there will be experts who are able to reach profound aesthetic experiences every time, that everyone who participates or listens to music is benefited. Secondly, Small suggests that the factory-like approach to schools that prepared workers during the early days of public school for factory floors is inappropriate today. Small suggests that we need specialized, independent, and creative learners. The researchers and proponents of constructivist education support this statement.
Despite some alarmingly appropriate issues discussed by Small, it must be noted that philosophers are concerned with “what should be” and not “what was” or “what realistically can be.” Educators must be much more concerned with the latter and it may be in the current fiscal state of diminishing educational funding and a preoccupation with standardized testing making changes to our educational system are near impossible. That does not mean that individual teachers and music educators should not spend time thinking of and approaching over time “what should be.” And as Reimer pointed out, it is important we approach a consensus and that we concern ourselves with what is important in public education. Is it important that we support an elitist canon where only a small fraction of the population are able to partake in music performance … centered on the performance of ancient music? Or is it more important that we build creativity, self-expression, and independence in students and support musical opportunities where all can take part in musical activities? This seems to be the central question discussed and probed by Small in Music, Society, Education (1996) and it is one important question for music educators to address.
References
Reimer, B. (2003). A philosophy of music education: Advancing the vision (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Small, C. (1996). Music, society, education. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.
