LAUREN KAPALKA RICHERME
Lauren Kapalka Richerme is Associate Professor of Music Education at the Indiana University Jacobs School of Music, where she teaches undergraduate and graduate courses on music education foundations, philosophy, and sociology. Her research interests include poststructuralist philosophy and education policy. Lauren’s work has been published in the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, Journal of Research in Music Education, Philosophy of Music Education Review, International Journal of Music Education, Music Education Research, Arts Education Policy Review, Journal of Music Teacher Education, Music Educators Journal, and Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education. Her philosophy book Complicating, Considering, and Connecting Music Education is published by Indiana University Press. Lauren serves on the editorial board of Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, and she is chair for the Philosophy Special Research Interest Group. Prior to her university teaching, Lauren taught high school and middle school band and general music in Massachusetts. She holds degrees from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Harvard University, and Arizona State University.
|
Equity versus Hierarchy?: Considering Relations of Equality
Music educators, including the authors of MayDay Action Ideal III, have called for more equitable music teaching and learning practices (e.g., Bradley 2007; NAfME 2017). Equity-focused authors increasingly attend to the relationship between students’ unique identities or experiences and musical content (e.g., Bates 2018, Kelly-McHale 2018, Lewis 2019, Salvador 2019, Soto 2018). Whether in the form of Western classical music competitions or respect from seasoned musicians within participatory music traditions, music making often involves hierarchal distinctions. Yet, relationships between various musical hierarchies and equity-focused practices have gone largely unexamined. In this philosophical inquiry, I propose why and how equity-centered music educators might value certain hierarchies.
I begin exploring the problems and possibilities of hierarchies by considering three potential aims: equality, personal gain, and communal relationships. Given students’ varying interests and prior experiences, aiming for equality of musical outcomes would inhibit student choice and provide little incentive for those motivated to excel at higher and higher levels within their selected musical genres or practices. Focusing on personal gain, on the other hand, rewards hard work and dedication. However, it may also replicate disparities within current music education practices. Unless music educators want to follow Brighouse and Swift (2009) in arguing that parents should not have the ability to provide supplemental educational opportunities for their children, then privileged students with the access to private lessons and other resources will typically benefit the most from individual-focused music education outcomes. More broadly, positioning education as a personal good suggests that choosing to utilize or forgo educational opportunities primarily benefits or harms the individual apart from societies at large. In contrast, Gray (2019) and Fung (2019) explain that equity necessitates cooperative relationships, including community formation and respectful communication. Music educators focused on communal growth and interaction assist students in developing life-long citizenship skills that can be used to address the roots of inequity.
Emphasizing communal benefits over individual ones is not without limitations. On the one hand, feelings of connection and communal joy during potent musical experiences can hide the “seeds of fascism” (Bradley 2009, 66). On the other hand, focusing on what individual students contribute to a music learning community may burden specific individuals, including through situations in which students of color “teach our field about its own whiteness” (Hess 2017, 24). Highlighting communal interactions may also omit attention to how hierarchies can motivate and honor students. Anderson (2019) explains that since “racial and class stereotypes about who is ‘good’” are less salient in the arts than in other endeavors, students from historically marginalized communities may more readily “assume leadership positions, from which others may learn” (p. 8). Additionally, parents may be less likely to advocate for arts education opportunities should they see no chance for their own children to distinguish themselves (Green 1980). How might music educators emphasize communal relationships while avoiding these potential pitfalls?
I offer that teachers could foster what Anderson (1999) terms “relations of equality.” She explains that two people function as equals when they listen and dialogue respectfully and when they take for granted that “mutual consultation, reciprocation, and recognition” underlie their interactions (p. 313). Relations of equality parallel music education equity discourse noting the dignity of all students (e.g., Yale 2018), but they also account for the possibilities of hierarchies. Anderson (2007) clarifies that existing in relations of equality is not the same as equal educational performance outcomes. She argues that education can and should enable individuals to develop their varying talents and interests while simultaneously fostering respectful, collaborative interactions.
In music education, such action might involve emphasizing integration without assimilation and standards without standardization. Rather than adding music classes that appeal to certain demographics of students or focusing on individualistic music making, equity-focused music educators might create classes that integrate different ways of being musical and foreground interpersonal relationships. While students need not stagnate within the singular hierarchy of Western classical music, fostering equity can involve honoring various forms of musical achievement as well as particularly improved or hardworking students.
Selected References
Anderson, Elizabeth. 1999. What is the point of equality? Ethics 109: 287-337.
Anderson, Elizabeth. 2007. Fair opportunity in education: A democratic equality perspective.
Ethics 117, 595–622.
Anderson, Elizabeth and John White. 2019. Elizabeth Anderson interviewed by John White. Journal of Philosophy of Education 53 (1): 5-20.
Bradley, Deborah. 2009. Oh, that magic feeling! Multicultural human subjectivity, community, and fascism's footprints. Philosophy of Music Education Review 17 (1): 56-74.
Gray, Dee Ann. 2019. Cultural diversity in the music classroom—EMBRACE the challenge. Music Educators Journal 106 (2): 66-68.
Green, Thomas. 1980. Predicting the behavior of the educational system. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Hess, Juliet. 2017. Equity and music education: Euphemisms, terminal naivety, and whiteness.
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 16 (3): 15–47.
I begin exploring the problems and possibilities of hierarchies by considering three potential aims: equality, personal gain, and communal relationships. Given students’ varying interests and prior experiences, aiming for equality of musical outcomes would inhibit student choice and provide little incentive for those motivated to excel at higher and higher levels within their selected musical genres or practices. Focusing on personal gain, on the other hand, rewards hard work and dedication. However, it may also replicate disparities within current music education practices. Unless music educators want to follow Brighouse and Swift (2009) in arguing that parents should not have the ability to provide supplemental educational opportunities for their children, then privileged students with the access to private lessons and other resources will typically benefit the most from individual-focused music education outcomes. More broadly, positioning education as a personal good suggests that choosing to utilize or forgo educational opportunities primarily benefits or harms the individual apart from societies at large. In contrast, Gray (2019) and Fung (2019) explain that equity necessitates cooperative relationships, including community formation and respectful communication. Music educators focused on communal growth and interaction assist students in developing life-long citizenship skills that can be used to address the roots of inequity.
Emphasizing communal benefits over individual ones is not without limitations. On the one hand, feelings of connection and communal joy during potent musical experiences can hide the “seeds of fascism” (Bradley 2009, 66). On the other hand, focusing on what individual students contribute to a music learning community may burden specific individuals, including through situations in which students of color “teach our field about its own whiteness” (Hess 2017, 24). Highlighting communal interactions may also omit attention to how hierarchies can motivate and honor students. Anderson (2019) explains that since “racial and class stereotypes about who is ‘good’” are less salient in the arts than in other endeavors, students from historically marginalized communities may more readily “assume leadership positions, from which others may learn” (p. 8). Additionally, parents may be less likely to advocate for arts education opportunities should they see no chance for their own children to distinguish themselves (Green 1980). How might music educators emphasize communal relationships while avoiding these potential pitfalls?
I offer that teachers could foster what Anderson (1999) terms “relations of equality.” She explains that two people function as equals when they listen and dialogue respectfully and when they take for granted that “mutual consultation, reciprocation, and recognition” underlie their interactions (p. 313). Relations of equality parallel music education equity discourse noting the dignity of all students (e.g., Yale 2018), but they also account for the possibilities of hierarchies. Anderson (2007) clarifies that existing in relations of equality is not the same as equal educational performance outcomes. She argues that education can and should enable individuals to develop their varying talents and interests while simultaneously fostering respectful, collaborative interactions.
In music education, such action might involve emphasizing integration without assimilation and standards without standardization. Rather than adding music classes that appeal to certain demographics of students or focusing on individualistic music making, equity-focused music educators might create classes that integrate different ways of being musical and foreground interpersonal relationships. While students need not stagnate within the singular hierarchy of Western classical music, fostering equity can involve honoring various forms of musical achievement as well as particularly improved or hardworking students.
Selected References
Anderson, Elizabeth. 1999. What is the point of equality? Ethics 109: 287-337.
Anderson, Elizabeth. 2007. Fair opportunity in education: A democratic equality perspective.
Ethics 117, 595–622.
Anderson, Elizabeth and John White. 2019. Elizabeth Anderson interviewed by John White. Journal of Philosophy of Education 53 (1): 5-20.
Bradley, Deborah. 2009. Oh, that magic feeling! Multicultural human subjectivity, community, and fascism's footprints. Philosophy of Music Education Review 17 (1): 56-74.
Gray, Dee Ann. 2019. Cultural diversity in the music classroom—EMBRACE the challenge. Music Educators Journal 106 (2): 66-68.
Green, Thomas. 1980. Predicting the behavior of the educational system. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Hess, Juliet. 2017. Equity and music education: Euphemisms, terminal naivety, and whiteness.
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 16 (3): 15–47.