openness - a music education philosophy - dutton

Openness: A Music Education Philosophy - Gerard Dutton 1

Openness: A Music Education Philosophy

Gerard H. Dutton

Northwestern University


Estelle Jorgensen warns against creating an eclectic philosophy, which merely combines

ideas that may or may not be internally consistent. The view that taking the good from

several places, in an attempt to make an amalgam which is wholly better than its

component parts, may be flawed. Jorgensen suggests that, “the reconciliation of disparate

visions of music education ought properly to be synthetic rather than simply eclectic. In

creating a synthesis, one formulates something that is not only integrated but new” (1990,

p.19).

I propose a music education philosophy with openness as its central value. Music teachers

will learn the value of being open to: change, new ideas, the unfamiliar, challenge,

criticism, success and failure. This philosophy will lead teachers to look outward for

inspiration rather than looking inward to a closed world of established norms and

expectations.

I believe this philosophy for music education will indeed provide something ‘new’ for

teachers. By its design, synthesis of good practices modeled in other music education

philosophies, will be organic. Teachers, who adopt this philosophy built around the

concept of openness, will naturally embrace diversity and inclusiveness. These ideals bring

to mind the ‘synergistic proposal‘ of Bennett Reimer (2005), who in warning against

extreme views reminds us that “a synergistic spirit requires . . . an openness to and a

positive attitude toward diversity, in which inclusiveness, or comprehensiveness, is seen as

a guide and a goal. The nature of music, in this spirit, is likely to be multifaceted, music


being identifiable as a special domain while manifesting its single nature in a great variety

of ways” (p. 295).

Being open to new ideas implies being open to diversity, yet much of our music teaching

practices in schools lacks diversity. Reimer describes music education (in America) as

warranting admiration, yet of:

very limited scope in its lack of comprehensiveness, its narrow view of sequential

learning therefore, and its striking, perhaps dismaying, imbalance. We serve very few

students, with very few options, with restricted kinds of music and a limited number

of ways to develop musical creativities and intelligences. (2005, p. 297)

Questions

It is essential that a community of scholars in music education be broadened and

fostered. Ongoing conversations . . . can foster such qualities of mind as incisiveness,

the ability to separate oneself from one's argument or one's practice, take criticism

gracefully as one also criticizes constructively, and develop a love of the questions

themselves. (Jorgensen, 2001, p. 352)

In this paper, the following questions will be answered. In doing so, the reasoning behind

the explicit inclusion of these themes, as central ideas for the philosophy, will be explained

and defended and their implications for teachers and students will become clear.


• Why openness?

• What is the relationship between choices and openness?

• What are the modes of openness?

• How can tone of language affect openness?

• How can teachers open spaces for learning?

• What does it mean to be open to change and new ways of doing?

• What does it mean to be open to success and failure?

• How is this a philosophy?

Why openness?

Unfortunately, many practices and entrenched ways of doing, in music education, do not

embrace openness. Pondering this fact initially appears to create a conundrum for teachers

following a philosophy based on openness. How does one remain ‘open’ to negative

practices, which threaten openness? The answer is clear when it is understood that this

philosophy encourages teachers to be flexible and discerning about the many choices they

make in their work with students. Being open to new ideas, to challenges, to criticism, and

to change will lead thinking, ethical teachers towards practices which ‘open’ up

opportunities for learning. The beauty of this philosophy is that openness does not imply

fickleness. If a music teacher unquestioningly accepts the established norms or the forceful

voices of the self-proclaimed experts without looking outwards for better ‘ways of doing’,

then this behavior does not reflect openness.


Choices

All teachers must make choices in their daily practices alongside colleagues and

particularly in their minute-to-minute dealings with their students. Stepping out in the time

scale, there are choices too, which shape and color the teacher’s self-image and overall

mode of operation in practice. The two types of choice, set on different time frames of

macro and micro, are inter-related. In ‘stepping out’ from the minute-to-minute works,

which so occupy our energies as teachers, we have the opportunity to consider and make

choices, which may establish the sorts of teachers we will become. This ‘macro’ time

frame is the starting point for our choice of philosophy. One’s philosophy for music

education, once clearly ‘chosen’ will guide all our other ‘micro’ choices, hopefully

informing our minute-to-minute, day-to-day, week-to-week modes of operating. The

philosophy we choose for ourselves as music teachers, will influence all that we do as

teachers. Perhaps ‘choose’ is not the only way to look at this, since we do more than

choose our philosophy. We actually create our philosophies through informed choices and

then, our subsequent choices will be filtered through our philosophy.

One more important point to make about ‘choosing’ is that this often involves

compromise. As teachers, we can find ourselves paralyzed by difficult choices. A

philosophy based on openness gives music teachers a filter to at least help them in the

process of making their choices, even when choices involve challenge to beliefs or to

established ways of doing. Being open to all points of view, being open to failure, being

open to the unfamiliar, will lead to decisions made with wisdom. Openness will lead to, if

nothing else, the making of better-informed choices as reflective music teachers. Maxine


Greene (1995) writes “Once granted the ability to reflect upon their practice within a

complex context, teachers can be expected to make their choices out of their own situations

and to open themselves to descriptions of the whole” (p. 12).

Meanings

Careful analysis of the meaning(s) of the word ‘openness’ is an important element in

presenting this philosophy to teachers and readers. The word is at once, soft and powerful,

in the way it influences our thinking. To be ‘open’ to something is not the same as to invite

something, or to welcome something, or to be searching for something. For example, to

invite criticism, implies a will or desire, whereas to be ‘open’ to criticism implies a neutral

readiness if criticism is forthcoming. To be ‘open’ is to be prepared, to be alert, to be

receptive, and to be accepting if change arrives. It does not imply a wish or desire or

needfulness. Nor does it imply a reluctance or trepidation or fear. The attributes of being in

a state of openness are positive states for ‘receiving’ something if it is forthcoming. The

careful analysis of language is integral to making meanings from philosophical discourse.

These meanings then can translate into actions, which may then translate into practice.

Modes of openness

A philosophy based on openness calls on its proponents to look for and consider the good

and valuable ideas of others and to share and collaborate in a non-competitive and

generous fashion. In being open, the music teacher will look beyond intemperate and

dogmatic use of language, to extract the core goodness and usefulness of ideas, which may

later be synthesized into their own practice and beliefs. This mode of ‘openness’ may be


thought of, in a metaphorical sense, as the feminine mode. In other words, in this mode,

one is: receptive and willing to receive ideas; willing to consider and learn from others;

open to consider and empathize with the beliefs and practices of others; and ready to ‘take

in’ and benefit from ‘openness’. To follow the metaphor, in the masculine mode of

openness, one is: generous and willing to ‘give’ ideas freely and openly; willing to

collaborate and share ideas and discoveries with others; prepared to offer one’s own beliefs

and practices up for criticism and challenge by others; and ready to ‘give forth’ and be

generous through ‘openness’.

To embrace the masculine mode of openness is: to offer one’s ideas for consideration; to

make ideas accessible through generous use of language; to avoid dogmatic behavior in

relationships; and to relinquish or at least, share power. This mode of being ‘open’ may at

first seem paradoxical, since the nature of the masculine is often thought of as forceful and

dominating. In the context of this philosophy, though, it may be argued that to force one’s

ideas onto others as if they are superior or the ‘only way’ to do, is incompatible with the

modes of openness described above.

Tone of language

In the same way it is important to analyze the meanings assigned to words, so it is

important to use language carefully and in a temperate manner, if a philosophy of openness

is to be adopted. If the philosophical discourse is to generate ongoing and useful meanings,

whether in the masculine or feminine modes of openness, one’s use of language must be

considered. Perhaps, rather, it is the tone of language, which has most influence on


openness. The following are examples of thoughtful and highly respected educators, who

write about the value of western art music in education. One writer fails to create a sense of

openness, through the tone of language employed. The other writer succeeds.

Example 1 In his passionate advocacy for the place of western art music above popular music in

education, Robert Walker (2007) writes:

An educated mind must know the nature, intent, purpose, and content of the practices

of musicians in the traditions of western thought. We, in many western countries are

in danger of losing these important traditions under the weight of entertainment and

its music of immediate gratification which acknowledges no cultural ties except

those invented by popular culture. (p. 5)

Later, Walker admonishes:

The distinction between education and entertainment . . . has become blurred . . . to

the point where some people, who I argue, should know better, are proclaiming that

Beethoven and Britney Spears, or Lennon and Schubert, are somehow co-equal as

composers and musicians and, therefore, both deserve to be studied in education.

(p. 6)

In criticizing the tone of the writing in the cited passages above, the merit or otherwise, of

the ideas being delivered by the author, is not in question. By isolating ‘entertainment’

from the ‘important traditions’ of western culture, Walker implies that all popular music

and popular culture is unimportant. He goes further, even than this. By using the specific


examples of Beethoven/Britney Spears and Lennon/Schubert to make his point that these

musicians are not ‘co-equal’, he immediately alienates any reader who has ever valued or

even taken pleasure from the music of the two contemporary artists named. In a rather

superior tone, he declares that “some people . . . should know better”. Finally, and

emphatically he closes the discourse by implying that neither Britney Spears nor John

Lennon “deserve[s] to be studied in education”.

As demonstrated by this short analysis, tone of language is an important consideration in

promoting openness in a discourse. The points being made by Walker are certainly valid

and worthy of consideration, however, the tone of his delivery is closed and one-sided.

Ironically, the writer’s argument may be more persuasive if he made an effort to engage his

readership in a softer, more ‘open’ manner. Polarizing opinion by taking a dogmatic and

arrogant tone may not be the best strategy for gaining maximum support for one’s

argument. The tone of our language, as teachers, should be considered wisely too in our

day-to-day dealings with our students.

The true value of a philosophy of openness can be illustrated by the response of the reader,

who despite strongly disagreeing with the opinions of the writer is still open to finding

value in the ideas. To read this text with openness to its full meanings is to be firmly in the

feminine mode described earlier.


Example 2 Estelle Jorgensen (1998) writes:

We see examples of musical genius in all sorts of music, especially in the great

traditions of the world. Indeed, classical musics have been remarkably adept at

incorporating elements of other musics within them, often in surprising and

innovative ways. They have stretched the limits of human imagination, and because

of what they demand of their exponents and listeners, they have historically been the

province of a comparative few. Surely, music education ought to be as much about

enabling as many as possible to have access to these classical musics, even changing

their face if necessary, as it should be about widening the public's musical

perspectives to include a host of other traditional and popular musics of the world.

(p. 85-86)

The written language in the chosen excerpt demonstrates a ‘tone’ of openness. It is most

often describing what ‘is’ and uses positive imagery. It is about what ‘ought’ to be. Apart

from the ‘tone’, we see into the writer’s own philosophy, which is also one of openness.

Jorgensen speaks of “enabling as many as possible to have access” and “widening the

public’s musical perspectives to include”. Here is a clear example of the masculine mode

of openness. The ideas are given freely, yet without being forced upon the reader. Here is a

writer who is looking outwards and opening the discourse up for further development of

thinking and imagination.


Opening spaces

Maxine Greene (1965) paints a bleak picture of attending school in New York, at the turn

of the twentieth century. At that time, there had been a massive immigration of more than a

million people. New York was a city of ghettos – Jewish, Italian, Greek, Slavic, Armenian,

as well as Negros. From a multicultural standpoint, schooling at that time gave the children

of immigrants and farmers nothing of relevance. The ‘school of life’ was where students

would learn the real lessons needed for their future success – not in the public school (p.

140-141).

Many students in the early twenty-first century still feel that the learning they ‘do’ at

school is not relevant to them in their ‘real’ lives. Perhaps this will always be so in formal

education settings, but caring music teachers armed with this awareness and equipped with

openness, have the opportunity to improve the experiences of their students through the

choices they make. Maxine Greene (1995) speaks of “opening spaces” especially for those

who have been “silenced and disempowered” by literacy when they find themselves in new

and unfamiliar contexts:

As a set of techniques, literacy has often silenced persons and disempowered them.

Our obligation today is to find ways of enabling the young to find their voices, to

open their spaces, to reclaim their histories in all their variety and discontinuity.

Attention has to be paid to those on the margins. (p. 120)

By opening spaces for our students to build on their own life experiences, to “find their

voices” and allow them to take control of their own learning, we also open ourselves to the


rewards of doing our jobs well.

Music has a unique place in the multicultural lives of our students, but teachers must learn

to bridge the meanings they have made for themselves to the unique meanings that are

culturally embedded in the life experiences of our students. Kerchner and Abril (2009)

describe the special power of music to inspire:

Musical experiences that result in the construction of meaning and learning are the

spark that can incite deeper understanding of one’s self, others, and culture; can

inspire subsequent musical engagement and learning experiences throughout life; or

can help to reshape a musical culture. (p. 14)

An example of a situation where racial and patriotic tensions must have caused many

students from non-English speaking backgrounds, to feel disempowered, is the furor

created over the singing of the American National Anthem (Star Spangled Banner), in

languages other than English. The reasons for the conflict within the wider community are

complex and many, but if one frames the problem within a philosophy of openness,

solutions appear. At least, there can be understanding and empathy for reactions on both

sides of the divide. It can be fairly observed, that to sanction the singing of the anthem in

languages other than English, is not an action that embraces openness. Abril (2007)

describes how one version of the song, was performed by students from a school for the

deaf, using American Sign Language (ASL). He asks the question, “Why might Spanish be

more offensive than ASL in 2006?” (p. 75). He also cites opposing views, one from the

General coordinator of the National Capital Immigration Coalition, Juan Carlos Ruiz who


explains, “In our countries, national anthems are a beautiful expression of who we are. Our

immigrant communities want to be part of this country [U.S.]. We want the American

dream” (p. 75). Compare this position with that of columnist Michelle Malkin who called

the Spanish version the “Illegal Alien Anthem”. As Abril implies, this conflict provides

many opportunities for music teachers to open spaces for their students. Greene (1995)

observes that “Teachers imaginative enough to be present to the heterogeneity of social life

. . . may also have strong impulses to open pathways towards better ways of teaching and

better ways of life” (p. 12).

Cecilia Ferm (2006) speaks of two important themes for openness to be considered by

music teachers, “openness for earlier musical experience” and “openness for initiatives”.

These two specific objectives of openness with our students may be used as an effective

checklist for teachers, in everything from curriculum planning (macro) to verbal

interactions with individual students (micro). On openness for earlier musical experience,

the author describes how:

Four different aspects show the teacher’s relation to the pupil’s earlier experience of

music are pointed out: events where the teacher’s interest in the pupil’s musical

experience is shown; events that show the teachers’ knowledge about their musical

experience; events that give the pupils an opportunity to show their earlier

experience; and events that illustrate how the teachers in different ways take care of

musical experience. (p. 243)


And on openness for initiatives, Ferm writes:

The theme focuses aspects of the teacher’s openness towards, and encouragement of,

suggestions from the pupils. Initiatives from the pupils might focus activities as well

as affect their shaping. The aspects are grouped as follows: offers, ways of working,

conversation and stimulation/ inspiration. (p. 243)

These themes, when considered during interactions with students for whom English is their

second language (ESL), will be empowering. Considering the possible classroom events

and learning scenarios stemming from the Star Spangled Banner situation cited earlier, this

framework of openness would provide teachers with a valuable tool.

Openness to change and new ways of doing

Considering Ferm’s second theme, “openness for initiatives”, music teachers who embrace

a philosophy of openness, will freely consider and choose new ways of working with their

students in their practice. In searching for authentic musical experiences and those which

open spaces (Greene, 1995) for students to construct their own meanings, students may

devise new ways of challenging themselves through creative self-directed projects.

Teachers who enable this type of authentic, student-centered learning may find it difficult

to relinquish part of their power. The teacher’s role will move towards that of partner, of

enabler, even friend. It will move away from the traditional role of expert and provider of

all knowledge. Sometimes the teacher’s role may be completely transformed into that of

the student, which may be both confronting and liberating. When both teachers and

students can release their imaginations (Greene, 1995), and when students are allowed to


find their voices, the learning environment will be improved.

In their study of tertiary music education students’ patterns of musical experiences, Lines

and Naughton (2009) warn of the dangers of ‘calculative thinking’ in education.

This form of thinking . . . is centered on the objective considerations and

deliberations of the individual subject [in this case music]. Problems occur when

calculative thinking, in its scheduling and representations of order, begins to obscure

or ignore possibilities of learning not deemed important in the predetermination of

events. This issue means that wherever calculative thinking dominates educational

practice it remains an important task to preserve open pedagogical styles and the

perceptive capabilities of teachers so that emergent learning outside the frame of

calculation can be affirmed. (p. 3)

The musical experience, of many undergraduate music education students, is limited

largely to the ‘serious’ study of the ‘printed score’ - mostly of technically challenging,

western art music sanctioned by the ‘academy’. This “limiting of the student experience”

(p. 3) of music teachers-to-be, takes away from them the chance to playfully explore

different styles of music or to improvise and think imaginatively about music making, to

freely try out new ideas in music and create meaning. These are the very skills, which

would set them up to be creative, imaginative teachers, open to new ways of doing.

Several authors (Allsup, 2003; Campbell, 1995; Lines & Naughton, 2009) have explored

the dichotomy of the two musical worlds inhabited by students. There is a clear disconnect


between music studied at school and all the other musical experiences enjoyed by students.

They bring themselves together, at home and in various social contexts to create their own

meanings through their own music, which is wholly relevant to them. Music teachers who

embrace a philosophy of openness will wonder how the spontaneity and joy of the garage

band can be brought into the classroom. Opening spaces for students to explore,

experiment, collaborate, and teach each other may be part of the answer. Of course, there

may be no clear answer. Perhaps, it is perfectly natural that the musical experiences and

meanings created by students outside of school should bring them the greatest joy. Perhaps

it is also perfectly natural that the musical experiences and meanings created by students

outside of school should stay outside. Openness to students’ success, and teachers’ genuine

interest in and support of these musical experiences may be enough. The ideal situation

would be to make connections between the two musical worlds. Bridging this divide is

perhaps, one of the most rewarding challenges in music education. It requires openness by

the music teacher in all of the various modes of openness espoused by this philosophy.

Lines and Naughton (2009) remind us, “The ideal of pedagogical ‘openness’ is key to

ensure that [teachers] are in a position where they might discover new possibilities and

ways of thinking about what they might otherwise tend to conceive as ‘normal’ practice”

(p. 5).

Logically, a philosophy based on openness to change and new ways of doing, will lead

music teachers to explore and engage with new technologies in their practice. As

previously discussed, the changing roles of the teacher and the dynamically changing


relationships between teachers and students, will go a long way towards enabling good

working and learning environments and partnerships with technologies (Folkestad,

Hargreaves & Lindstrom, 1998). As good teachers accept that they are no longer expected

to be experts-in-everything, (or even to portray that illusion) they will discover how to

creatively use newer and newer digital tools alongside their students, who will increasingly

be acknowledged as the new experts. Apart from increased creativity achievable through

engagement with technology, this empowering of our students-as-experts will be

worthwhile in itself.

Success and Failure

In much of what has been discussed here about openness, the implication may seem to be

that this philosophy is the key to success. Success is a natural goal for all endeavors,

especially in music education. An interesting paradox should be addressed however, that

by embracing openness, both teachers and students will inevitably encounter failure. I

would argue that music teachers must be open to failure as a positive learning experience.

If one fails, there is usually a clear implication of effort. What is trial-and-error, if not a

series of failures? How would experimentation, improvisation, or practicing a musical

instrument, be possible without openness to failure? In a society increasingly geared

towards the product rather than the process, there is danger in avoiding challenge and risk

in an attempt to be safe from failure. Again, there is paradox here, since the avoidance of

possible failure will be a type of failure in itself. The failure to be open to new ideas and

challenges is a failure to be open to eventual success.


A final thought about openness to new ways of doing, is that if teachers want and expect

their students to be risk-takers, to be innovative, and to think critically, then teachers

themselves must model these behaviors by being open to new ideas in their practice. As

Maxine Greene (1995) asserts, “I think that if I and other teachers truly want to provoke

our students to break through the limits of the conventional and the taken for granted, we

ourselves have to experience breaks with what has been established in our own lives; we

have to keep arousing ourselves to begin again” (p. 109).

How is this a philosophy?

Critics of a philosophy of music education based on a concept such as ‘openness’ may ask

the question, “How is this a philosophy?” They may identify as weaknesses, what this

philosophy does not do. For example, this philosophy does not offer a defined set of

instructions, guides or rules. It does not prescribe policy. It does not prescribe curriculum.

It does not give preference to specific practices over others. What this philosophy does, is

act as a filter and a catalyst for making choices. These choices may lead to positive

changes in policy, curriculum, practice etc. By offering a filter for choices, based on

openness, this philosophy can, I believe, build courage and resilience in teachers. It creates

a multi-directional web for sharing ideas and knowledge. The perceived weaknesses

identified above, are in fact its strengths. Precisely by not being prescriptive, this

philosophy can be universally applied by all music teachers who are open to the ideas

discussed in this paper.


References

Abril, C. (2007). Functions of a national anthem in society and education: A sociocultural

perspective. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, (172), 69–87.

Allsup, R. E. (2003). Mutual learning and democratic action in instrumental music

education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(1), 24.

doi:10.2307/3345646

Campbell, P. S. (1995). Of garage bands and song-getting: The musical development of

young rock musicians. Research Studies in Music Education, 4(1), 12–20.

doi:10.1177/1321103X9500400103

Ferm, C. (2006). Openness and awareness—roles and demands of music teachers. Music

Education Research, 8(2), 237–250. doi:10.1080/14613800600779550

Folkestad, G., Hargreaves, D. J., & Lindstrom, B. (1998). Compositional strategies in

computer-based music-making. British Journal of Music Education, 15(1), 83–97.

Cambridge. doi:10.1017/S0265051700003788

Greene, M. (1965). The public school and the private vision: A search for America in

education and literature. New York, NY: Random House.

Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jorgensen, E. R. (1990). Philosophy and the music teacher: Challenging the way we think.

Music Educators Journal, 76(5), 17. doi:10.2307/3400984

Jorgensen, E. R. (2001). A dialectical view of theory and practice. Journal of Research in

Music Education, 49(4), 343. doi:10.2307/3345617

Kerchner, J. L., & Abril, C. R. (Eds.). (2009). Musical experiences in our lives: Things we

learn and meanings we make. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Education.


Lines, D., & Naughton, C. (2009). Changing places: Openness, pedagogy and Heidegger.

In Philosophy of Education Society Australasia Conference, Hawaii, December,

2009 (pp. 1–8). Presented at the Philosophy of Education Society Australasia

conference, Hawaii, December, 2009.

Reimer, B. (2005). A philosophy of music education: Advancing the vision. (3rd Ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Walker, R. (2007). Music education: Cultural values, social change and innovation.

Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.