Music education freed from colonialism: a new praxis
Identifieur interne : 002167 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 002166; suivant : 002168Music education freed from colonialism: a new praxis
Auteurs : Robert WalkerSource :
- International Journal of Music Education [ 0255-7614 ] ; 1996.
Abstract
This paper argues against a conflation of the culturally specific (i.e. the western) and the universal in theoretical discourse about music and music education. The charge is made that music education practices generally have lost touch with the contemporary practices of musicians, thus isolating music education from other educational practices. Set in a context of ISME's commitment to a world view of music and music education, such problems are serious. It is argued that the use of western terminology is inimical to ISME's goals. Terms like 'music' and 'aesthetic' are specifically western. Epistemological links exist between an aesthetic theory and the associated musical practices, but these are not universal.
Url:
DOI: 10.1177/025576149602700102
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:21ED2F57E141C4FAC8AACDD069E6B548457AA513Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title>Music education freed from colonialism: a new praxis</title><author><name sortKey="Walker, Robert" sort="Walker, Robert" uniqKey="Walker R" first="Robert" last="Walker">Robert Walker</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:21ED2F57E141C4FAC8AACDD069E6B548457AA513</idno><date when="1996" year="1996">1996</date><idno type="doi">10.1177/025576149602700102</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/21ED2F57E141C4FAC8AACDD069E6B548457AA513/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">002167</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">002167</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a">Music education freed from colonialism: a new praxis</title><author><name sortKey="Walker, Robert" sort="Walker, Robert" uniqKey="Walker R" first="Robert" last="Walker">Robert Walker</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">International Journal of Music Education</title><idno type="ISSN">0255-7614</idno><imprint><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1996">1996</date><biblScope unit="volume">27</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="2">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="15">15</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0255-7614</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0255-7614</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">This paper argues against a conflation of the culturally specific (i.e. the western) and the universal in theoretical discourse about music and music education. The charge is made that music education practices generally have lost touch with the contemporary practices of musicians, thus isolating music education from other educational practices. Set in a context of ISME's commitment to a world view of music and music education, such problems are serious. It is argued that the use of western terminology is inimical to ISME's goals. Terms like 'music' and 'aesthetic' are specifically western. Epistemological links exist between an aesthetic theory and the associated musical practices, but these are not universal.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>sage</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Robert Walker</name><affiliations><json:string>University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><arkIstex>ark:/67375/M70-NSW663Q1-0</arkIstex><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>Journal Article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>This paper argues against a conflation of the culturally specific (i.e. the western) and the universal in theoretical discourse about music and music education. The charge is made that music education practices generally have lost touch with the contemporary practices of musicians, thus isolating music education from other educational practices. Set in a context of ISME's commitment to a world view of music and music education, such problems are serious. It is argued that the use of western terminology is inimical to ISME's goals. Terms like 'music' and 'aesthetic' are specifically western. Epistemological links exist between an aesthetic theory and the associated musical practices, but these are not universal.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8.308</score><pdfWordCount>6164</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>36666</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>14</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>612 x 792 pts (letter)</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>109</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>720</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>0</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Music education freed from colonialism: a new praxis</title><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><title>International Journal of Music Education</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><issn><json:string>0255-7614</json:string></issn><volume>27</volume><issue>1</issue><pages><first>2</first><last>15</last></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/M70-NSW663Q1-0</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - social science</json:string><json:string>2 - education & educational research</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - arts & humanities</json:string><json:string>2 - visual & performing arts</json:string><json:string>3 - music</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Arts and Humanities</json:string><json:string>3 - Music</json:string><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>3 - Education</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>1 - sciences humaines et sociales</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>1996</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1996</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1177/025576149602700102</json:string></doi><id>21ED2F57E141C4FAC8AACDD069E6B548457AA513</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/21ED2F57E141C4FAC8AACDD069E6B548457AA513/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/21ED2F57E141C4FAC8AACDD069E6B548457AA513/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/21ED2F57E141C4FAC8AACDD069E6B548457AA513/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a">Music education freed from colonialism: a new praxis</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher scheme="https://publisher-list.data.istex.fr">Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace><availability><licence><p>sage</p></licence></availability><p scheme="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-0J1N7DQT-B"></p><date>1996</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="research-article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</note><note type="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a">Music education freed from colonialism: a new praxis</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Robert</forename><surname>Walker</surname></persName><affiliation>University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">21ED2F57E141C4FAC8AACDD069E6B548457AA513</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/M70-NSW663Q1-0</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1177/025576149602700102</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j">International Journal of Music Education</title><idno type="pISSN">0255-7614</idno><imprint><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1996"></date><biblScope unit="volume">27</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="2">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="15">15</biblScope></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>1996</date></creation><abstract><p>This paper argues against a conflation of the culturally specific (i.e. the western) and the universal in theoretical discourse about music and music education. The charge is made that music education practices generally have lost touch with the contemporary practices of musicians, thus isolating music education from other educational practices. Set in a context of ISME's commitment to a world view of music and music education, such problems are serious. It is argued that the use of western terminology is inimical to ISME's goals. Terms like 'music' and 'aesthetic' are specifically western. Epistemological links exist between an aesthetic theory and the associated musical practices, but these are not universal.</p></abstract></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="1996">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/21ED2F57E141C4FAC8AACDD069E6B548457AA513/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus sage not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType SYSTEM="SAGE_meta.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><SAGEmeta type="Journal Article" doi="10.1177/025576149602700102"><header><jrn_info><jrn_title>International Journal of Music Education</jrn_title><ISSN>0255-7614</ISSN><vol>27</vol><iss>1</iss><date><yy>1996</yy><mm></mm></date><pub_info><pub_name>Sage Publications</pub_name><pub_location>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pub_location></pub_info></jrn_info><art_info><art_title>Music education freed from colonialism: a new praxis</art_title><art_author><per_aut><fn>Robert</fn><ln>Walker</ln><affil>University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada</affil></per_aut></art_author><spn>2</spn><epn>15</epn><descriptors></descriptors></art_info></header><body><abstract><p>This paper argues against a conflation of the culturally specific (i.e. the western) and the universal in theoretical discourse about music and music education. The charge is made that music education practices generally have lost touch with the contemporary practices of musicians, thus isolating music education from other educational practices. Set in a context of ISME's commitment to a world view of music and music education, such problems are serious. It is argued that the use of western terminology is inimical to ISME's goals. Terms like 'music' and 'aesthetic' are specifically western. Epistemological links exist between an aesthetic theory and the associated musical practices, but these are not universal.</p></abstract><full_text>2
Music
education freed from colonialism: a new praxis
SAGE Publications, Inc.1996DOI: 10.1177/025576149602700102
Robert Walker
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
This paper argues against
a conflation of the culturally specific (i.e. the western) and the universal
in theoretical discourse about music and music education. The charge is made
that music education practices generally have lost touch with the contemporary
practices of musicians, thus isolating music education from other educational
practices. Set in a context of ISME's commitment to a world view of music
and music education, such problems are serious. It is argued that the use
of western terminology is inimical to ISME's goals. Terms like 'music' and
'aesthetic' are specifically western. Epistemological links exist between
an aesthetic theory and the associated musical practices, but these are not
universal.
Elliott
(1994) claims that 'progress' has rendered Music Education as Aesthetic Education
(MEAE) no more than a 'net-work of obsolete claims'. He suggests that we need
to 'design a logical blueprint for investigating the concept of ~usi~...'.
In support of his claim for a need to develop his 'blueprint' he links together
some disparate sources in explaining the nature of the obsolescence ofMEAE,
some of which makes for a questionable starting point for his design. It is
quite surprising, for example, that anyone would seriously link Swanwick's
views with those of Reimer. But most surprising of all is his statement that
the value of aesthetic education 'as a philosophy is wrong-headed'. In his
attempt at producing a definition tabula rash he describes music as 'intentional
human activity, involving a doer, a maker, a product and a context'. Thus,
we have a definition for anything humans do, ranging from mowing the lawn
to cooking, dress-making, making love, or catching fish. Elliott then produces
the following terminology; doers (musicers); doing (music;iya~)9 something
done (music); and context. He claims that music can be looked at in four ways:
(a) head-on, the outcome of systematic action; (b) in-back, motivated, action; (c) in-front, goal-orientated action; (d) action in the context of similar
actions. Not only does this take us no further from any kind of behaviour
in which humans indulge but it reads as if (d) was to get rich quick on the
stock market. We still do not know what music is, and even as a beginning
such value definitions are surely redundant. The problem I see with Elliott's
position, albeit not a philosophy but the establishment of 'logically prior
conditions' to one, is that he falls into the same pigeon-hole that he claims
Langer and all who followed
3
her
fell into - a desire for establishing universal principles from diverse particulars
which may be incommensurate. In doing so he raises the same issues that Nietzsche
dealt with, and in particular Nietzsche's claim that 'the aesthetic is applied
physiology' is relevant. The western concern for establishing whether or not
there are universally applicable correlates between specific musical sounds
and specific responses has been matched in music education by a concern for
an all-embracing philosophy of music education. Either quest is probably fruitless
since music, like language, and everything else humans do, is rooted in culture.
The issue is not that music is a human activity, but that humans operate within
socio-cultural systems of which music is only a part. The autonomous musical
sound does not exist, and Neitzsche and all who followed him provide a more
appropriate philosophical pigeon-hole, if we need one. The gist of my argument
here concerns the significance of the claim that musicians provide the best
source of musical information relevant to music educators, and that perhaps
we do not need a philosophy of music education at all, since music education
(similarly not autonomous) operates within systems which have an overall philosophy
of education. However, I have to clear some ground first. Changing social,
political, economic, technical and other considerations mark western history.
So the first issue concerns a discussion of aesthetic education on logical
rather than socio-cultural grounds. There is nothing inherently illogical
in the concept of aesthetic education as music education. What is problematic
is its contemporary efficacy and relevance, which is a differcnt mattcr entirely.
But more fundamental than this are teleological issues concerning the nature
and purpose of music in relation to various socio-cultural situations and
hypotheses about consequent human responses to music. No system universally
relating properties of culturally embedded sounds with the biology of the human
nervous system has been identified which might explain aesthetic experience,
or any similar complex human response. Responses and the sounds which are
associated with them seem to be as varied as socio-cultural conditions, and
the efforts of Helmholtz, Wundt and all who followed in their traditions have
produced little which might explain human responses to music purely in terms
of acoustic-biological interactions. Anthropological paradigms seem to be
our most reliable means of enquiry and source of understanding in music. This
brings its own problems, not the least among which concerns terminology and
its significance. Terminological usage arises out of socio-cultural conditions,
and in order to understand the significance of terms such as 'aesthetic experience'
or 'music' one cannot avoid examining their socio-cultural embedding. And
using words arising out of one socio-cultural situation in the context of
another inevitably causes difficulties. E AE ~ `I'IC E E ENC IS A C IJCIAL
PART F WESTERN VULTURE Modern arguments concerning the 'aesthetic' began in
the 18th century, but 'aesthetic' music linked with the full-blown modern
German theory
4
did
not emerge until the 19th century Central Europe of the 18th century had its
own musical fads and accompanying literature: the 'Doctrine of the Affections'; notions of 'elegance' and 'psychic distance' (see Anderson, 1938); the 'Sturm
und Drang'. These are attributes which are as different in subtle ways from
the igth century German notion of the ,aesthetic' as is the music of J. S.
Bach, Haydn and Mozart from that of Liszt, Schumann and Brahnis. The Rome
of the early 16th century had 'mannerism' and the concept of 'sprezzatura',
defined and demonstrated by Castiglione (1528) and involving Michelangelo
and Rafael, all of whom provided the background for the development of the
young Palestrina. One could go on and on with a catalogue of different viewpoints
and fashions found throughout modern western artistic history, each with its
own special terminology. The term 'aesthetic' appeared first in the literary
theory of 18th century German with Baumgarten (1750). The aesthetic in music
is but one of these 'fashions' which emerged in the 19th century but lives
on in western culture. It is however a well thought-out concept which has
a logic based in musical structure of composers such as Beethoven, Liszt,
Schunann, Brahms and Wagner, and argued in the texts of Hegel, Schopenhauer,
Hanslick, Fichte, Schellin and Schlegel. The music written to this specific
theory of aesthetic experience consti- tutes a supreme expression of the culture
of central Europe in the 19th century. Philosophically, this 19th century
German position moved the locus of debate about aesthetic experience from
issues of sense perception and feelings to those of transcendental experiences
of pure beauty and perfection. This shift was controversial at the time, and
philosophers of the English analytic traditions argued bitterly against it.
It is puzzling that this controversy still lives on in music education literature
where 19th century German transcendentalism is often confused or conflated
with the more pragmatic, analytic examination of sense perception and its
probable connection with feelings. Discussions in this latter field have few
connections with the art of music, and for the most part remain in the realm
of speculative argument with little if any practical application in music.
In contrast, the specific 19th century German aesthetic tradition has powerful
identity in actual music. My point is that the 19th century German notion
of the aesthetic in music is not like an incomplete or spurious philosophical
or scientific notion to be superseded as knowledge increases or analytical
method becomes more sophisticated. It constitutes a powerful cultural artefact.
It is not, for example, like the 19th century search for isomorphic relationships
between physical attributes and ability or character. The 19th century had
such things in abundance: human intelligence was thought to be linked to head
size as in the empirical theory of craniology; and noble art in all its manifestations
was thought to be produced by noble people, hence the rise of the artist hero.
We can justifiably argue that such things are illogical. On the other hand,
from its cultural embedding as an interactive philosophical and artistic concept,
the efficacy of this particular view of aesthetic experience has enabled it
to spread to survive. Modern versions of this 19th century German musical
praxis are found
5
today
in various entertainment media. Many Hollywood films evoke this particular
aesthetic response with their igth century style drama and music. The clever
pastiche of John William in writing music for so many films which enjoyed
world-wide popularity over the last two decades ~6Ja~rs', 'E.T.', 'Raiders
of the Lost Ark' or the 'Star Wars Trilogy'9 for example) has helped introduce
and perhaps redefine the concept to the world. This German aesthetic concept
is, therefore, an important part of our contemporary, media-dominated, popular
world culture, raising many issues to do with its relevance today in education.
It may not be that irrelevant to some, even though they may not realize its
debt to 19th century Germany! Above all it should be distinguished from non-
contextual and generic analytical debates on aesthetic sense perception by
virtue of its close association with artistic, culturally rooted products.
WESTERN 9 h4USlC AND AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE One difficulty western philosophy
has always had with artistic fashions is to do with how such things fit with
concepts such as universalism, pluralism or relativism. Is there something
universal about all musical fads and fashions which unites the musical products
under one umbrella which can define and delineate music, qua music, or are
we talking of relative values, or of pluralist values? A rampant relativism
gives value to everything which, logically, means that nothing is valuable.
One would expect proponents of aesthetic education to be concerned with aesthetic
values which are at least pluralistic, if not universal, But if the reference
is to supposed autonomous qualities of sound which elicit, through some generic
human process, an aesthetic response in all humans, then it can have no specific
connection with the art of music as it subsists in human lives, for this would
be specific and concern particulars. For music educators, as opposed to philosophers,
it is the specifics, the particulars of human activities which matter more
than theoretical and untestable ideas about generic human response mechanisms.
A specific aesthetic theory linked with specific musical practices existed
in central Europe during the 19th century, and this provides specific educational
focus for music educators dealing with aesthetic experience. A lack of specific
musical connections with a general philosophical theory about aesthetic sensibilities
of humans is unhelpful to educators for it leaves them with nothing to teach
about music. Even more damaging to the art of music would be an educational
application which assumed a generic aesthetic response in students devoid
of socio-cultural embedding. There would be nothing for students to learn
about themselves, or about other people in other situations, for the concern
could go no further than speculations about the mechanics of acoustic-biological
interactions. My point here is that 'aesthetic experience in music' should
not be regarded as a generic mechanical universal: the term should refer to
particular cultural artifacts. Detailed studies of the history of ideas and
their influence over various musical practices in the West would surely illustrate
the concept of plurality rather than universality. L6onin,
106
Pérotin,
Josquin or Machaut did not have 'aesthetic' considerations nor experiences
in their music-making. Unless, that is, one subscribes to the view that western
consciousness follows a linear development of ever more penetrating understanding
of the truth. In which case L6onin did have aesthetic experiences but did
not know it at the time. There is more than a bit of arrogance in that view,
but here is the crux of the problem. If an aesthetic nature is endemic to
all humans, then identifying its defining qualities obviously concerns universals,
and one must regard such philosophers as Kant, Schopenhauer, Hegel, as lifting
the veils obscuring universal human truth, despite what musicians did. But
without a direct connection with the practices of music we have nothing to
teach except an abstract, decontextualised philosophy. On the other hand,
if the focus is a specific, culturally rooted aesthetic sense articulated
as such by some and practised as such by musicians ~g.e. the 19th century
German example) then we should treat it as a cultural artefact, and treasure
it as one of many aesthetic pluralities. Its continued presence today cannot
be taken as evidence of a universal human aesthetic response. The most that
essentialists might claim out of its continued presence is that it breathes
life into the otherwise musically lifeless framework of a notion of generic
human aesthetic sensibilities. Others would merely point to how today's technology
facilitates the juxtaposition of the historical with the contemporary to form
the complex of experiences which some label 'post-modern', and our affective
responses to music, like anything else, are a product of our enculturation
in today's world. But no acculturation is value neutral, and values emanate
from socio-cultural roots, not biology. Just as different traditions within
western culture supported different theories and perceptions (many of which
we are still arguing about - the mind-body problem, for example), different
cultures also support differences emanating from their socio-economic, technological,
geographical, and many other conditional factors. Do we regard these differences
as pluralities or relativities? As pluralities, cultures hold their own values
but unite with others in having values, even if they are sometimes divergent.
Moreover, such pluralist values have individual integrity where each relates
to its own moral purposes and provides stability for the people of the culture.
So we would go for plurality over relativity in both inter- and intra-cultural
situations; it makes more moral sense to us. But what does it mean in practice
cross-culturally? It means, I suggest, accepting sounds from a culture other
than our own, not necessarily as music in the western sense, but as cultural
expressions which only have significance in the special terms of their cultural
embedding: the types of throat singing of the Inuit or the Tuvinians, for
example, are different in this way from each other and from the 19th century
romantic lied. Each has value in our pluralist universe, but of what help
is this claim? Try as we may, to a westerner throat-singing does not sound
like music as a westerner knows it. So, I suggest, let us accept this and
tackle the problem differently. Perhaps throat-singing is not music since,
as I argue below, 'music' is a term developed specifically in the West to
signify modern western practices. The sounds of both lied
117
and
throat-singing emanate from the vocal tract, but each requires a different
use of vocal articulators and the respiratory system, which in turn produces
different physical events. Since each has its own cultural embedding and special
physical attributes, why should they be labelled identically? °I'E ~ ®~ G~
A CIJLTURAL RELEVANCY We in the West talk of music, art and the aesthetic.
Few other cultures have words for such things. For the people of Ball, for
example, there is no word for art or music in their language any more than
there is in the languages of many North American Indian peoples or Australian
Aborigines. If a culture has no word f®r music, for example, then logically
it follows that it has no concept of music. Most cultures use music in trance
or possession rituals (Rouget, 1985), but to equate this with the western
19th century aesthetic response would be a distortion of both. Moving further
down this road, we can claim to have no good reason for including non-western
activities which we think of wrongly as 'musiccal' or 'aesthetic' in our pedagogies
which seek to educate in music. We can argue, therefore, that it is illogical
to include such activities in an implied terminological umbrella or pluralities
such as 'musics' or 'musicing'. It is rather like including apples, oranges,
carrots and potatoes as examples of fruits or fruitings. We would certainly
put all of them under the generic term 'food', but the term 'music', my argument
goes, is comparable with the term 'fruit' in this respect, not the term 'food'.
Here we can apply the logic of pluralism to mean a pluralism of terms and
therefore concepts, not a single term to signify a pluralism of concepts.
But let me explore this further. We in the West have developed the concept
'music', the Greek origins of which lie in mousike - a term originally signifying
the activities of the All of them, gods and goddesses of such arts as dance,
poetry, drama and singing, but in post- classical times the Latin term musica
was used to signify mathematical and metaphysical ideas rather than what we
now think of as 'music' (Wellesz, 1957, p. 340), its anglicised version. Later,
the term came to be used to denote singing, and then instrumental music as
this developed. Other cultures have different epistemologies and terminologies
for their different activities in expressing their cultural systems and beliefs,
yet we in the West have a habit of making everything fit our terminology and
our concepts. The ubiquitous gamelan of Bali is thought by westerners to be
'musical', presumably because it appears to have the modern western 'musical'
attributes of pitch, rhythm, counterpoint, and other sonic organizations with
which we in the West are familiar. Interestingly enough, Debussy heard a gamelan
and then went on to produce music which many at the time labelled anti-music.
Perhaps they were right: Debussy did indeed, through `~cu~~' and other works,
signal the destruction of what then was taken for granted as 'music' in western
Europe. But we should not forget the similar reaction in 1902 to Schoenberg's
'Transfigured Night', and he was merely taking Wagnerian compositional logic
a stage further towards a language of dissonance -
128
a very
western type of intellectual activity in music. So, whether as a result of
contact with non-western sources or as products of the West's obsession with
intellectualism, western music has seen many changes: from monody to polyphony,
from vocal to instrumental, from diatonic to chromatic, from a language of
consonance to one of dissonance, and so on. Within this dynamic process the
term 'music' acquired its significance. In Balinese culture the term 'gamelan'
does not signify similar dynamic processes of change and shining emphasis; it signifies specific activities each with its own terminology peculiar to
a particular village community. There is no one thing called a gamelan And
it is essentially a collection of instruments of ritual, not of concerts,
as integral to the particular socio-cultural imperatives of Balinese Hindu
beliefs as are Balinese puppet dancing or vocal declamations in their performances
of the `I~a~ayarra' stories. There are at least two grounds on which one might
claim that 'gamelan' does not signify music in the western sense: acoustic
and social. First, the acoustic properties of the gamelan's metal bars and
gongs do not yield sufficient pitch information for western musical purposes.
A gamelan version of a Mozart piano sonata would work as badly as a piano
version of gainelan sounds for a sarong drama. The fact that western ears
can 'impose' pitch on most quasi-periodic sounds does not make them all music
by western definition. Second, because of the importance attached to cultural
embedding, it is as inappropriate to extract gamelan sounds from their context
and significance in order to call them 'music' as it would be to extract Balinese
vocalisations and call therra `poctr°y' or the physical movements of the Sarong
and call them 'ballet'. By what right, then, or by what logic, do we extricate
the gamelan from its life- giving socio-cultural context to make it part of
a pluralist western set of activities we call `rrmsic'? Well, let me explore
this further. And though to recording company moguls or media tycoons, whose
influence over our students is enviable, all this might seem excessively trivial,
and certainly irrelevant to their interests, I bask in the belief that to
educators it does not and should not. 9 A WESTERN TERM FOR A PARTICULAR WESTERN
CULTURAL ACTIVITY If my arguments so far hold water, in trying to establish
a universal term we are obliged to descend to such a level of ambiguity of
definition in order to accommodate 'musics' from outside the western traditions
that we are left with a description of activity which covers practically everything
humans do. In which case, like all such rlotiorrs, it hardly avoids the relativistic
trap of lack of clear delineation if applied universally. But it also renders
the term 'music', as it defines modern western activities, meaningless. The
term 'music' is as culturally laden with western traditions of the last several
hundred years as is the term 'gamelan' with Balinese traditions. Perhaps John
Cage (1939) had a point in suggesting that 'music' is a term 'reserved for
18th and 19th century (European) instruments', even though we might want to
spread the net a bit further
139
than
that. But first, some ideas from contemporary philosophy, particularly relating
to language and meaning. It was Herder and Hegel who focused attention on
the importance of culture in determining our sense of identity and our understanding
and interpretation of phenomena. And it was the revival of Hegel in post-
Second World War France which helped spawn the post-structuralist movement
through the writings of Foucault, Merlot-Ponty, Derridas, Barthes and others.
Michael Foucault (1966) argued for a view of language in which meaning was
derived not just from cultural embedding but also from an individual's own
personal origins and context. Thus there was nothing inherently authoritarian,
for example, or noble in any per- son's speech or writings, that is to say
in the words that they used or their manner of delivery. Such specific attributes
could only be perceived by those who shared and accepted the same cultural
value systems. Words had meanings which were negotiable outside their particular
socio-cultural setting, not inherent, argued Foucault. These ideas found their
way into various media quite quickly. Television comedy actors like those
of the Monty Python group during the 1970s demonstrated that English authoritarian
mannerisms could very easily become risible, even objects of derision when
placed outside their socio-cultural context, thus destroying the notion that
there was anything inherently authoritarian in either a particular mode of
delivery or the words used. These developments challenged essentialist assumptions
about language, meaning and usage. 61D'~&ds~~a~, as a term, becomes, like
'democracy', simply a western word struggling for identity in a pluralist,
post-modern world. Etymologically, I have argued above that there is little
justification for the expansion of the western term 'music' outside of western
traditions. Educationally, a great deal of confusion (and probably unintended
cultural imperialism) could be avoided by a classification based more on socio-cultural
embedding than on old colonial appropriations, and acoustic properties might
be key here. The essence of music, qua music, as historically defined in western
thought, concerns pitch, unambiguously periodic sounds rich in stable harmonics
and therefore susceptible to combinations in western practices of harmony
and counterpoint. Dissonance, in western musical terms, refers to deviations
from such harmonic norms. We cannot fit sounds from outside western traditions
into such a paradigm without insulting and destroying their integrity, as
well as implying that we in the West have developed the art of music to higher
degrees of sophistication than others because of our technology and culture.
But such a definition also causes problems for the musical avant-garde of
the 20th century, a point I have already mentioned and to which I return later.
Post-modern thought suggests a re-evaluation of both terminological signification
and usage on both logical and socio-political grounds. In such things, the
universal use of the term 'music' means either we reject its connection with
western musical theory through processes of semantic deconstruction, in which
case its products become conceptually indistinguishable from sonic activities
of other cultures, or we paternist- ically bring these activities into the
fold of music with all the built-in
1410
sense
of superiority that involves. This makes as much, or as little, sense as adopting
a term from any other culture to use universally. Why not, for example, use
the Ghanaian word dwom (pronounced jom), for example, as a universal term
instead of 'music', since it signifies the use of the voice in social activities
we might classify as dance, games or theatre? Or the Ghanaian term agror,
a collective noun signifying a complex of cultural activities involving movement,
drama, words, actions, vocalisations? Such a solution might well be more universally
democratic since such terms have no connotations of a dominant world culture.
But western scholars would surely object on the grounds that a concept, signified
by a word, is produced over time as a result of social usage and is linked
inextricably with the activities it signifies. l~bsolutcly! Certain specific
Ghanaian practices are signified by the word dwom. So why should the Ghanaians
want to use our western word music to signify dwom, any more than western
musicians would want to use dwom to signify what the West calls music? CAN
MUSIC EDUCATION GO NOW? Where does all this leave us in music education? Well,
to begin with, if aesthetic experience in music is essentially socio-cultural
and context specific we must teach it as such, not treat it either as a worn-out
bicycle or part of some cosmic search for truth. But we cannot rely just on
the sounds of music: we should know the philosophical arguments and provide
some experiences which can induce aesthetic responses (such as in Hollywood
films for example). And if pitch is an acoustic attribute specially defined
in the West it is a degrading acoustic identity for the sounds of other cultures
which may be quasi-periodic but where pitch extraction may be epiphenomenal
in their cultural practices. Most importantly, if we cannot rely on the term
'music' as a universal, the we cannot rely on the concept of music education
if we wish to go outside the music, qua music, of the western traditions.
This suggests making some choices in our quest to define a global policy for
what we now call music education. Either we limit our concept of music and
music education to the western traditions, and we find another term which
would enable us to include activities of other cultures however defined, or
we continue to assume that all cultures make what we in the West have defined
as music. I do not think it is viable or logical to use the term 'musics'
as though we all know what it means. Basically, it is only we in the West
who know what it means. There are, however, consequences for world music education
with the abandonment of the term `n~uslc'. If we cannot use the term 'music'
on grounds that it would ignore the crucial acoustic differences and the socio-cultural
embedding of the activities we wish to utilize, then we would have music education
for western music plus some other activity in the curriculum which concerned
other cultures. In which case, and at the very least, this latter ought to
be concerned with a scientific study of acoustic properties in order to escape
the trap of assuming universal usage of western concepts. Additionally, we
would need a more holistic
1511
socio-cultural
involvement with all that goes to make up a particular lifestyle. But then
we are faced with a problem over western music. Can we justify teaching western
music as an autonomous sonic object (the 19th century belief associated with
the German Aesthetic) removed from its socio-cultural context, yet at the
same time teaching differently, as socio-cultural phenomena, the activities
we think are nearest to our western concept of music found in other cultures?
No! I would answer. We should recognize them all as socio-cultural acoustic
phenomena even if it means placing 19th century beliefs into the pluralists'
bag, despite the historical belief in universal properties. A PRAXIS I suggest
that the revolution we might seek in music education lics less in seeking
clearer generic definitions in a quest for philosophical clarity, since in
the Wittgenstinian sense philosophy itself is no less of a cultural artefact
that music, and more in identifying the purposes of education in music in
the western traditions and similar activities in other cultures. I do acknowledge,
however, that in writing this paper I rely on the possibility of a universal
analytical approach which must be our only hope for developing world understanding.
For example, we should revisit the thorny old issue of why we are teaching
music at all, and why we should teach what some erroneously label 'musics'
of all cultures. Pragmatically, there are probably two main justifications:
to train a few people to be professional musicians, and to educate everyone
to understand the practices we call 'music' and other activities in different
cultures so that there is some point to being a professional performer in
our post-modern, media-dominated world (there might be an audience!). Educationally,
I argue that regarding doom, gamelan, as socio-cultural acoustic phenomena,
rather than autonomous transcultural sonic materials, provides a more solid
basis for arguments about educational justification. All human activities
in all cultures arise out of the technological, biological and socio-cultural
details of everyday living, much like plants and animals arise out of the
physical and biological conditions here on the planet earth. Each in our own
culture develops beliefs, rituals and other special cultural habits, and included
among these, inextricably and ineluctably, is this activity we in the West
call music, or Ghanaians call doom. Empirically, one can claim that this is
what happens in all human societies. If we hold that an education should contain
studies of humans in different societies and times in order, at the very least,
to develop understanding of our own predicament and how we might relate to
those of others' predicaments, then to leave out of such studies activities
like music and dwom would be tantamount to ignoring some of the most significant
and meaningful activities humans indulge in. This position is only tenable
if we accept music and dwom as socio-cultural phenomena, rooted in culture
and uniquely reflective and expressive of the culture. In which case, if we
leave music out of education we would not be talking about a study of humans
in societies which had justifiable
1612
claims
to educational completeness. It is not just that all human societies use sound
as communication but rather such usage is a crucial and integral part of what
that society is all about. To ignore these activities, however defined, is
to ignore important information about the society and its individuals. This
has major implications for all that we currently do in the name of 'music
education for everyone', including the roles of skill acquisition and its
development, performance, listening, composing, improvising and contextual
studies, It necessitates an approach from a team of experts who can supply
information and experiences from the variety of areas of knowledge, including
technology, beliefs, socio-religious practices and rites, all of which go
to make up what we know about a culture. There would be no reliance on an
essentialist notion of the autonomous, culturally transcendent, generically
expressive qualities of sound matched by a generic human aesthetic response
to such sounds. Teaching in such a pedagogical context becomes something quite
different from what we know in today's music class. The purposes of such an
educational process become qualitatively different. Skill acquisition, for
example, would need a socio-cultural context as an educational justification
for its inclusion. There would be no educational point in training children
to sing like the choristers of King's College, Cambridge, without King's College
Chapel, Cambridge, and its rituals and beliefs. And the Balinese `IZarrrayar~a9
vocal declamations would be as out of place in I~in~gs College chapel as would
the sounds of I~in~'s choristers singing in a Balinese ritual drama. Operationally,
the solution, I suggest, lies in the following: (a) revise the content of
music education from kindergarten upwards to bring it more into line with
the actual activities and theoretical motivations of musicians in the 20th
century; (b) make greater use of digital technology. Concerning the first,
the 20th century is nearly over, yet the bulk of the content in our music
education programmes at all levels is more appropriate to Mendelssohn than
Nlessi~e~9 and Puccini than Par. Schools, for example, still use 19th century
French time names and the 6rrr°' interval or the minor third. It is as though
the 20th century never happened in music. Yet each generation in this century
has produced startling innovation in musical art: i7ebussy, Stravinsky, Cowell,
Ives, Webern, Schoenberg and early liar6se up to 1930; Bart6k, early Messiaeii
and Cage in the 1930s and 1940s; Stockhausen, Boulez, Zenakis, Berio, Penderecki
and Cage again in the 1950s and 1960s; then came Murray Schaffer, Reich, Glass
and latterly Judith Weir, John Taverner, Arvo Part, to name just a few. And
these do not even include the developments in jazz, blues, rock and roll and
popular music fashions. It is extraordinary that music education in schools
generally continues to be virtually oblivious to what has happened in the
20th century, and there is a wealth of information about the cultural embedding
of these activities. Of particular significance to my argument is the fact
that the work of many 20th century musicians has been greatly influenced by
non-western ideas and practices. The reaction of some who labelled this new
music 'anti-music' is both testimony to a recognition of the presence of non-
1713
western
influences, and a compelling reason for its pedagogical use as a bridge between
traditional western concepts of music and activities of other cultures. Therefore,
I argue, in any attempt to address the concept of world practices in what
we call music education, the most obvious pathway is to use the work of the
many musicians who have assimilated some world practices into their own work
and proceed from there: Cage was influenced by Zen and gamelan, Stockhausen
by Japanese gagaku, Reich by the gamelan, Messiaen by bird calls, Bartok by
indigenous music, and so on. The activities of many 20th century musicians,
both in the West and in countries like Japan with the work of Takemitsu, provide
as good a platform for music educators to launch a truly cosmopohtan approach
as one can find. Suggestions for the use of 20th century practices in pedagogy
are not new, of course (see Walker, 1984 and 1990). They were first tried
in the late 1950s and 1960s by many teachers unheralded and practising induependently.
Various publications reflecting this individual work eventually appeared:
in the UK (Self, Painter, Dennis); in the 1J~~ (The Contemporary Music Project; Manhattanville Music Curriculum Project); in Canada (R. Murray Schaffer); in German (Gertrudt I~ldsy~r-Dea~k~arla~). All this activity foundered largely
because the bulk of music educators had no experience of contemporary music; their own backgrounds were so rooted in the past that they had no connection
with the sources of such ideas and practices. This was a great pity, and delineates
one of the major educational distinctions between visual art pedagogy on the
one hand, and music pedagogy on the other. Since the early 1930s visual art
pedagogy has developed hand in hand with contemporary practising artists in
a way that did not occur in music. While Klee, Kandinsky, Picasso, Rauschenberg,
Henry Moore and Jackson Pollock, to name a few, were inspiring, and becoming
models for, the art work done in school classrooms by children of all ages,
music educators began a child's music education rooted in the musical concepts
and constructs of the 18the century. The very recent growth and developments
of digital technology has brought a new player on the scene in all aspects
of education. For'music', 'dwom', or whatever term we use, it is likely that
this might provide art opportunity to make a leap over several generations
of music curriculum stagnation. But this will only occur if music educators
make their music content commensurate with what musicians are actually doing
now. Pedagogically, we should strive to be both 'where musicians are' and
'where children are' (to use slogans). Such an approach drives the content
and curricula design of most other subjects in schools. In language education,
for example, current practices do not advocate starting with stylised 18th
century English. To say the very least about pedagogical sophistication in
language education, children study language starting from their own usage,
and go on to develop understanding and appreciation of the language use of
others, including other times and places and eventually the works of masters
of language. There is no reason why music pedagogy must proceed in the opposite
direction. A new pedagogy for all students rooted in the 20th century and
leading
1814
to
other times, places and cultures, utilizing digital technology in the form
of acoustic synthesis, sequencing, CD ROM and 'on-line' access to the vast
store of examples and information available world-wide is, I suggest, the
only way forward. But the lead must come from the universities and music colleges,
otherwise the schools will face the uncomfortable situation of square pegs,
that is to say music educators with historical and pedagogically irrelevant
musical skills and knowledge, trying to fit into the round holes of a pedagogy
with which they have no professional or scholarly connection. Acknowledgements
I am indebted to Yaroslav Senyshyn for his comments on this paper and also
to doctoral student, Akosua Addo, for her invaluable help in supplying me
with the Ghanaian terms and definitions. References
Anderson, E. (ed. and trans) (1938). The letters of Mozart and his family (revised edn. 1985). London.
Baumgarten, A.G.
(1750). Aesthetica. (1961 edn). Hildesheim: G. Olms.
Cage, J.
(1939). Silence. London: Calder and Boyars.
Castiglione, B.
(1528). Il libro del Cortegiano. Venice .
Elliott, D.
(1994). Rethinking music: first steps to a new philosophy
of music education. International Journal of Music Education , 24, 9-20.
Foucault, M.
(1966). The order of things: an archaeology of the human
sciences. First published in English in 1970. London: Tavistock.
Rouget, G.
(1985) Music and trance: a theory of relations between
music and possession. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Walker, R.
(1984). Music education: tradition and innovation Springfield Ill: Charles C. Thomas.
Walker, R.
(1990). Musical beliefs: mythic, psychoacoustic, and educational
perspectives. Teachers College Press: New York.
Wellesz, I. (ed.) (1957). Ancient
and Oriental music. Vol 1, The New Oxford History of Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
L'6ducation
musicale liber6e du coloniaiisnxei un nouvel e~~ Cet article argumente contre
les sp6cifiques culturels (i.e. de l'ouest) et universels en th6orie retouv6
en musique et en education musicale. L'article accuse la pratique g6n6rale
en education musicales d'avoir perdu contact avec les pratiques contemporaines
des musiciens, ceci isolant 1'6ducation musicale des autres pratiques 6ducationelles.
Décrit comme ayant en tate les objectifs de 1'ISI~E au point de vue de la
musique et de 1'education musicale, ces probl6ines sont serieux. L'article
indique que l'usage de la terminologie de l'ouest est inimical aux buts de
1'ISME. Les termes cornrne 'la musique' et `1'~sthetique' sont purement de
1'ouest. Des relations epist6mologiques existent entre une th6orie esth6tique
et les pratiques musicales associ6es, mats celles-ci ne sont pas universelles.
Vom Kolonialismus befreite B4usikerziehungi neue Praxis Der Beitrag wendet
sich gegen die Verschmelzung des kulturell Spezifischen (d.h. des Abendlandischen)
mit dem Universellen im theoretischen Diskurs iiber Musik und Musikerziehung.
Er erhebt den Vorwurf, daB die Praxis der Musikerziehung sich im allgemeinen
von der Praxis der gegenwdrtig praktizierenden Musiker entfernt hat und so
die
1915
Musikerziehung
von anderen erzieherischen Praktiken isoliert hat. Im Zusammenhang von ISMEs
Verpflichtung gegeniiber einer weltweiten Betrachtung der Musik sind solche
Probleme ernstzunehmen. Der Beitrag argumentiert, daB der Gebrauch der westerlichen
Terminologie den Zielen von ISME vviderspriclat, Eegrif~e wie 'Musik' und
`Asthetik' sind spezifisch westlich. Epistemologische Verbindungen existieren
zwischen einer 5sthetiscben Theorie und der damit verbundenen musikalischen
Praxis, aber diese sind nicht allgemeingiiltig. La educaci6n musical liberada
del coloniaiisnxoi una nueva practica Este trabajo argumenta en contra de
la fusi6n de lo especificauiente cultural (es decir, occidente) y lo universal,
en el discurso teorico sobre la musica y la educaci6n musical. Se recrimina
que la practica de la educaci6n musical en general ha perdido contacto con
las prdcticas contemporáneas de los musics, aislando en consecuencia a la
educaci6n musical de otras prdcticas educativas. Dentro del contexto del compromise
de la ISME hacia una perspectiva mundial de la musica y de la educaci6n musical,
tales problemas son serios. Se argumenta que el uso de la terminologia occidental
es adverso a los objetivos de la ISME. Términos tales como musica y est6tica
son especificamente occidentales. Existen lazos epistemol6gicos entre una
teoria est6tica y las prdcticas musicales asociadas, pero 6stas no son universales.</full_text></body><references><citation><book-ref><edg><editor>Anderson, E.</editor></edg> (ed. and trans) (<dte>1938</dte>). <btl>The letters of Mozart and his family</btl> (revised edn. <dte>1985</dte>). <pub-ref><pub-place>London</pub-place></pub-ref>.</book-ref></citation><citation><book-ref><aut><au>Baumgarten, A.G.</au></aut> (<dte>1750</dte>). <btl>Aesthetica</btl>. (<dte>1961</dte> edn). <pub-ref><pub-place>Hildesheim</pub-place>: <pub-name>G. Olms.</pub-name></pub-ref></book-ref></citation><citation><book-ref><aut><au>Cage, J.</au></aut> (<dte>1939</dte>). <btl>Silence</btl>. <pub-ref><pub-place>London</pub-place>: <pub-name>Calder and Boyars</pub-name></pub-ref>.</book-ref></citation><citation><book-ref><aut><au>Castiglione, B.</au></aut> (<dte>1528</dte>). <btl>Il libro del Cortegiano</btl>. <pub-ref><pub-place>Venice</pub-place></pub-ref> .</book-ref></citation><citation><journal-ref><aut><au>Elliott, D.</au></aut> (<dte>1994</dte>). <art-ref><atl>Rethinking music: first steps to a new philosophy of music education. International Journal of Music</atl></art-ref> <jtl>Education</jtl> , <vid>24</vid>, <art-ref><ppf>9</ppf>-<ppl>20</ppl></art-ref>.</journal-ref></citation><citation><book-ref><aut><au>Foucault, M.</au></aut> (<dte>1966</dte>). <btl>The order of things: an archaeology of the human sciences</btl>. First published in English in <dte>1970</dte>. <pub-ref><pub-place>London</pub-place>: <pub-name>Tavistock</pub-name></pub-ref>.</book-ref></citation><citation><book-ref><aut><au>Rouget, G.</au></aut> (<dte>1985</dte>) <btl>Music and trance: a theory of relations between music and possession</btl>. <pub-ref><pub-place>Chicago</pub-place>: <pub-name>University of Chicago Press</pub-name></pub-ref>.</book-ref></citation><citation><book-ref><aut><au>Walker, R.</au></aut> (<dte>1984</dte>). <btl>Music education: tradition and innovation</btl> <pub-ref><pub-place>Springfield Ill</pub-place>: <pub-name>Charles C. Thomas.</pub-name></pub-ref></book-ref></citation><citation><book-ref><aut><au>Walker, R.</au></aut> (<dte>1990</dte>). <btl>Musical beliefs: mythic, psychoacoustic, and educational perspectives</btl>. <pub-ref><pub-name>Teachers College Press</pub-name>: <pub-place>New York</pub-place></pub-ref>.</book-ref></citation><citation><book-ref><edg><editor>Wellesz, I.</editor></edg> (ed.) (<dte>1957</dte>). <btl>Ancient and Oriental music. Vol 1, The</btl> <pub-ref><pub-place>New</pub-place></pub-ref> <pub-ref><pub-place>Oxford</pub-place></pub-ref> History of Music. <pub-ref><pub-place>Oxford</pub-place>: <pub-name>Oxford University Press</pub-name></pub-ref>.</book-ref></citation></references></SAGEmeta></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo><title>Music education freed from colonialism: a new praxis</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative"><title>Music education freed from colonialism: a new praxis</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Robert</namePart><namePart type="family">Walker</namePart><affiliation>University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="Journal Article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1996</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1996</copyrightDate></originInfo><abstract>This paper argues against a conflation of the culturally specific (i.e. the western) and the universal in theoretical discourse about music and music education. The charge is made that music education practices generally have lost touch with the contemporary practices of musicians, thus isolating music education from other educational practices. Set in a context of ISME's commitment to a world view of music and music education, such problems are serious. It is argued that the use of western terminology is inimical to ISME's goals. Terms like 'music' and 'aesthetic' are specifically western. Epistemological links exist between an aesthetic theory and the associated musical practices, but these are not universal.</abstract><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>International Journal of Music Education</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><originInfo><publisher>Sage</publisher></originInfo><part><date>1996</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>27</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>2</start><end>15</end></extent></part><identifier type="ISSN">0255-7614</identifier></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">21ED2F57E141C4FAC8AACDD069E6B548457AA513</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/M70-NSW663Q1-0</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1177/025576149602700102</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-0J1N7DQT-B">sage</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Sage Publications</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/21ED2F57E141C4FAC8AACDD069E6B548457AA513/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Musique/explor/DebussyV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002167 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 002167 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Musique
|area= DebussyV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:21ED2F57E141C4FAC8AACDD069E6B548457AA513
|texte= Music education freed from colonialism: a new praxis
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33. |  |