You are on page 1of 14

What is Right? What is Wrong?

Music Education in a World of Pluralism and Diversity


Author(s): Christian Rolle
Source: Philosophy of Music Education Review, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Spring 2017), pp. 87-99
Published by: Indiana University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/philmusieducrevi.25.1.07
Accessed: 08-10-2017 13:08 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Philosophy of Music Education Review

This content downloaded from 78.184.153.237 on Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:08:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHAT IS RIGHT? WHAT IS WRONG?
MUSIC EDUCATION IN A WORLD OF
PLURALISM AND DIVERSITY
Christian Rolle
rebro University/ University of Cologne
christian.rolle@oru.se

Abstract
We are living in a time of social and cultural changes. As in other disciplines,
the foundations of music education are being increasingly challenged. Thus,
it is no longer possible to specify reliably the aims and contents of music edu-
cation and their implementation in school by simply basing them on lasting
musical traditions and changeless forms of life. It has been said that such an
assessment leads us to a pluralisticif not relativisticview of music educa-
tion. But it does not help us when we have to make a decision on What is to be
done? How can we orientate ourselves in our actions and whereupon should
we base our judgements when negotiating decisions and trying to convince oth-
ers? If we are not ready to accept that the decision-making process in the field
of music education is just a matter of power, we have to be content with the
arguments we can offer. We need to have the courage of independent critical
thinking in terms of Didaktik involving all concerned. The situation is similar
to that of aesthetic arguing: there is no sure footing; our criteria for evaluation
are always up for discussion.

Keywords: aims and contents, critical thinking, curriculum, Didaktik, pluralism

Philosophy of Music Education Review 25, no. 1 (Spring 2017), pp. 8799
Copyright 2017, The Trustees of Indiana University doi: 10.2979/philmusieducrevi.25.1.07

This content downloaded from 78.184.153.237 on Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:08:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
88 philosophy of music education review 25:1

Challenges
What is to be done in music education? What is right? What is wrong? How
should music be taught? These questions are as old as music education itself. Yet,
in times of social and cultural transformations such as those we experience today,
it is becoming increasingly difficult to answer them. At stake is not the legitimacy
of music education as a school subject (itself a difficult issue) but the question
of how we makehave to makeeverday choices as music educators. These
choices are not only but mainly about the aims and contents of music education.
Which issues are to be taught? What music should be performed? What are the
musical experiences that we want to enable the students to have?
In 2005, at the International Symposium on Philosophy of Music Education
in Hamburg, Germany, I had the honor of responding to a presentation by a
Swedish colleague, Jonas Gustafsson from Stockholm University, entitled
Anything goes?1 Gustafsson spoke about the Swedish curriculum, the content
of music education in Swedish schools, and about the challenges of how to define
educational content. I agreed with him on many aspects but, at the same time, I
saw some fundamental communication problems because we appeared to have
quite different approaches to the topic. The problem was not that we disagreed
on specific aims or contents of music education. That was not the point. Rather,
there were differences in the ways of our thinking due to a different history of
music education. Germany and Sweden are not far away from each other; both
are part of Europe, separated by just a few hundred kilometers across the Baltic
Sea. Nevertheless, we must expect cultural differences not only concerning pos-
sible answers, but also how the question under consideration here is approached
(if not rejected).
What is right? What is wrong? Although in most cases it may be very difficult
to answer this question, presumably impossible, although we can never be sure,
I am convinced that we have to keep on asking. I will argue that even though it
is a difficult question, that does not mean it is the wrong question. We could, of
course, simply rely on what others suggestthis is right, that is wrong. But even
then, we make a decision without knowing for sure whether it is the decision we
should be making. This is not a new problem. It is a challenge that faces modern
societies: certainties are questioned. It is as if we were sailing on the high sea or
getting lost in trackless terrain with no signs nor Google Maps available. We are
thrown back on our own orientation capabilities. More than two centuries ago,
Immanuel Kant recommended critical thinking and asked, Was heit: Sich im
Denken orientieren? [What is Orientation in Thinking?]2 This is the title of a
short text in which he confronts us with the still challenging question: How can
we orient ourselves in thought and action when there are no guidelines or if we
are unsure whether they guide us in the right direction? On what should we base

This content downloaded from 78.184.153.237 on Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:08:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
christian rolle 89

our arguments when it is no longer possible to reliably specify the aims and con-
tent of music education or their implementation in schools by simply basing our
decisions on lasting musical traditions and changeless forms of life?

A Pluralistic or Relativistic Approach to Music


Education
When we can no longer rely on binding foundations, only a pluralistic, even
relativistic conception of music education seems to be possible. That sounds
good, it sounds liberating, but it does not help us when we have to respond to
the question of What is to be done? If anything goes is the only guidance we
have available, we do not know how to justify the choices we make. Some irritat-
ing ideas and utterances persist in the context of the praxial philosophy of music
education. I do not have the impression that the above dilemma has already been
fully addressed. Marja Heimonen describes praxialist thought as follows:

The functions provide the criteria to which its value is judged: music(s) and
music education are evaluated as good depending on how well they serve
their particular function in different contexts in current multicultural and
pluralist societies.3

I am happy to support the argument that no universal good musicor music


educationexists that would justify the dominance of one genre or of one teach-
ing method.4 But even if we do not have culture-independent criteria of judg-
ment, even if there is no transcendent point of view outside all existing musical
cultures that would allow us to determine what is right and what is wrong, from
the perspective of a critical music education there nonetheless has to be a pos-
sibility to critically evaluate not only music and music education with reference
to the functions they serve, but also to critically assess the functions themselves
and therefore the criteria. I would be reluctant to accept the conclusion that we
have to tolerate whatever takes place in music education because it is beyond
criticism. Unless we are ready to concede that decision-making in the field of
music education is just a matter of power, we have to search for shared points of
reference, landmarks so to speak, for our thoughts and actions and find out how
to convince others in the processes of decision-making.

Counter-Movements in Response to the


Complexity of Modernity
Because there is no simple answer to the questions of how to justify our
actions and how we can argue in a pluralistic and changing world of music and
music education, we need to anticipate counter-movements, some of which will
be reactionary. This is a futile attempt to escape the complexity of modernity.

This content downloaded from 78.184.153.237 on Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:08:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
90 philosophy of music education review 25:1

Terms such as skills, outcomes, and performance standards have domi-


nated the discourse about schools and education in many countries for well over
a decade. Such discussions are frequently motivated by a desire to govern the
education system effectively to make sure the young generations are taught the
life skills demanded by the globalized labor markets of the future. This discourse
(dominated by an instrumental rationality perspective) has long since arrived
in music education. Instead of promoting personal growth and development
through lively and intensive encounters with music, the targets of music edu-
cation are more and more formulated in terms of learning outcomes coupled
with an obsession with assessment.5 And in fact, we find ourselves in a certain
dilemma: on the one hand, the need to catch up, become visible enough to
participate in current debates and influence their agenda; on the other hand,
the need to remain close (and true) to what music education is all about. The
difficulties faced by music education seem to affirm once again the diagnosis
of Niklas Luhmann and Karl Eberhard Schorr:6 education has a technological
deficit, itself a consequence of a technology ban pedagogy has imposed on itself.
It would be interesting to explore why music education has frequently been sus-
ceptible to the discourses of skill training and performance standardsnot only
nowadays. Among other causes it is a consequence, I think, of the lack of orien-
tation in modernity already discussed.
The perceived pressure to justify music education has already led many edu-
cators to invoke transfer effects and legitimize music education by making its case
in instrumental (rather than aesthetic or educational) terms.7 Mozart makes you
smarter,8 we read, or social peace through music. But we had better not rely
on transfer effects to make a case for the indispensability of music education,
because we will lose sight of the music itself and its significance to the people
who make or listen to it. Other school subjects promise equally desirable effects
in terms of intelligence, teamwork, and whatever else is claimed. If we adopt
such strategies of legitimation, we effectively make a case for the instrumental-
ization of music education.

A Canon to Solve All Problems?


A 2004 publication of the Konrad-Adenauer Foundation, close to the (con-
servative) German Christian Democratic Party, lamented the lack of orientation
in German music education as well as the excessive freedom of educators to
choose content, which leads to arbitrariness and Gleich-Gltigkeit (a play on
words that implies both relativism and indifference).9 What is needed, the report
suggests, is a new consensus regarding the content of education: The ability
of members of a community to engage in meaningful interaction presupposes
shared cultural experiences: knowledge of outstanding and exemplary musical

This content downloaded from 78.184.153.237 on Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:08:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
christian rolle 91

works provides an important foundation.10 The report calls for a determination


of such significant works by way of defining a canon.
If we take at face value the diagnosis offered by the report, we find ourselves
in a tragic situation indeed: no foundation could sustain a common cultural
identity, which would enable the very process of debating and deciding what the
nature of such a foundation could and should be in the first place. It does not
come as a surprise that the Bildungsoffensive, the reports title, is quickly getting
lost on the impassable terrain of modernity. At the critical point of the text, when
the argument should be made for a refoundation of music education, the text
refuses to make its case and instead only provides a list of works. The canon of
significant works should speak for itself. Philosophy of music education, critical
thinking about the relation between aims, content, and teaching methods ends
in mere enumeration. Apparently, we have arrived at a place where no more
arguments are made and no controversy can be engaged in. The authors seem
to be convinced that the cultural foundations for meaningful interaction have to
be created through a list, since rational communication alone cannot establish
them.
Is the call for a binding determination of educational content justified,
because deregulation would destroy the cultural foundation of our societies? Or
is a canon an expression of regulatory zeal and a lack of trust in the decision-
making ability of educators? How can we encourage those who feel helpless
when confronted with the demands of freedom? With the need to find orienta-
tion in a bewildering world of music, in which the certainties of music education
and aesthetic order that were once believed to be eternally valid are gone, are all
judgments and assessments subject to doubt?

What Shall We Do as Music Educators? The


Request for Some Guiding Principles
Any educational intervention has to prove its relevance. Even though there
is doubt whether music education should be understood as maintaining the tra-
ditions of the past, the ecological principle of sustainability may be helpful for
orientation. However, I will show that the sustainable use of cultural resources
safeguarding diversity is an appropriate guiding principle only if it embraces trans-
formation. This means that music education is not about preventing change, but
about supporting people who develop living cultures. Culture is a dynamic pro-
cess undertaken by human beings who are changing while changing the world.
For humans as temporal beings, who need to orient themselves in the present,
memories of the past and visions of the future belong together. In making deci-
sions, we can only refer to our memories of the future. In the absence of any uni-
versal guideline, I will recommend Didaktik as a way of critical thinking about

This content downloaded from 78.184.153.237 on Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:08:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
92 philosophy of music education review 25:1

educational aims, contents, and methods that should take place locally. Joint
reasoning in terms of Didaktik is part of participatory decision-making processes
that might lack a sound basis but can at least refer to some principles by which
we are able to navigate plurality and diversity.

Sustainability
Because we live in a period of rapid social, technological, and economic
transformation, sustainability has become a key concern. A culture of sustain-
ability is called for to help us address, for example, the global environmental
problems that face us. If we relate this concern to our own field of expertise, we
can say with some pride that music education has long been concerned with the
sustainable use of cultural resources; one could even argue that it has done so
both in synchronic and diachronic terms. The synchronic perspective of music
education explores the different musical cultures of the world, thinking music
globally. Here, the sustainable use of cultural resources might be understood to
imply the effort to maintain and protect musical diversity in an increasingly glo-
balized world. The diachronic perspective looks at the history of music, at what
has been. (While many people, at least in Europe, unfortunately only think of
Western classical music, the diachronic perspective can be extended to include
other musical traditions). Here, sustainable use of cultural resources can be
understood as a cultivation of musical traditions. Both perspectives lead us to
an essentially conservative position, a commitment primarily to the protection
of music as it is and has been. Over and against the de facto normative privilege
enjoyed both by the musical past and present, the new and the experimental
New Music, a bold cross-over projecthas yet to prove not only its educational
relevance, but its relevance generally.

Transformations
However, how far does the principle of sustainability reach? As already sug-
gested, we live in times of social and cultural transformation. Many societies are
not only characterized by a diversity of coexisting musical cultures, but above all
by the ongoing development and mixing of these cultures. It is not just that very
different Lebensformen [life forms, ways of life] co-exist in close proximity, but
that they change and influence each other. This is known to have various causes,
including migration, globalization, andof particular relevance to our profes-
sionthe digitization of music, which has fundamentally altered how music is
made available, accessed, and used. Music education, it seems, can no longer
be understood in conservative terms. It is no longer possible to reliably specify
the aims and contents of music education and their implementation in school
by simply basing them on lasting musical traditions and changeless forms of life.

This content downloaded from 78.184.153.237 on Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:08:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
christian rolle 93

On the other handrepresenting a kind of counter-positionsome music


educators believe that a focus on students relieves them of having to address
the implications of dynamic cultural contexts, saying: We place studentsnot
musicat the center of the educational process. Our responsibility is to the pres-
ent and future life of these young people and their wishes and interests rather
than the musical past.
Undoubtedly important, such a perspective oriented towards the individual
subject risks losing sight of its object, eventually defining itself in exclusively
non-musical terms. Music education is not about mediating between students
and music. Therefore, a student-centered approach can be considered just
as misleading as an object-oriented concept of education. The German term
Bildung may help to integrate the various perspectives.11 Humboldts concept
of self-formation or self-cultivation is based on the idea that the development of
human powers or talents can only be achieved by, as he puts it, linking the I
and the world for the most general, liveliest, and freest interaction.12 In light of
a changing world, the classical concept of Bildung has been further developed
by Helmut Peukert and Hans-Christoph Koller, among others. They understand
Bildung as transformational education processes.13 Against this background,
we may understand musikalische Bildung as a transformation process. People
change as they transform their music (understood as a social practice). In this
sense, music education is about music as a dynamic social practice.14

Memories of the Future


Because culture is a dynamic process, the sustainable use of cultural
resources cannot mean arresting the process of cultural development to con-
serve musical traditions. The transcultural mixing of musical cultures, not inter-
cultural co-existence, should be our analytical model. The notion that music
educators guide students through a museum of the worlds historical and con-
temporary musical cultures is misleading. Far from their museumization, the
cultivation of living musical traditions necessarily includes their development
and renewal.15 To use resources sustainably is to look toward the future, at what
lies ahead. Music education cannot limit itself to curating collections of a past to
be preserved, not least because it remains unclear what these collections should
contain. The question of what to teach cannot be answered by turning to the past.
The value we attach to musical works or traditions does not tell us whether we
should teach them. How much of the Beatles do we want in the classroom? How
much Abba, how much Beethoven, how much Sibelius?
Unfortunately, the question of what to teach can also not be satisfactorily
answered by referring to the future. This is because, on the one hand, we should
not sacrifice the (students) present for their future and, on the other hand, we do

This content downloaded from 78.184.153.237 on Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:08:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
94 philosophy of music education review 25:1

not know the future but have differing opinions on how the future might (should)
look like. What is more, our perceptions of the future depend on how we look
back to the past. To comprehend from the perspective of cultural education how
past, present, and future relate to each other, we have to approach culture as a
practice. According to the Munich comedian Karl Valentin, The future also
used to be better.16 The statement makes clear how much future is contained in
the past and how we make judgments about the present when we remember.17
As the German sociologist Harald Welzer puts it: In functional terms, remem-
brance has little to do with the past. When we remember, we find orientation in
the present to prepare ourselves for the future.18
This affirms the importance of historical thought and historical references for
musikalische Bildung. But historical facts do not themselves determine their rel-
evance to the present. Music history is a social practice, which constantly creates
new interpretations. This also applies to music classes in school that address the
music of previous periods and other cultures. Teaching and learning do not obey
the logic of linear time. Music education was, is, and will be the current attempt
to construct the musical past in order to develop perceptions of possible musical
futures. However, the desired future should not lead us to forget the present.19

Didaktik as a way of doing philosophy of music


education locally
In German, the (well-established) educational field that concerns itself
with the question of the current and future relevance of educational content
is referred to as Didaktik. While no adequate English translation of the term
exists, Scandinavian languages offer similar terms. Frede Nielsen, among others,
has published repeatedly on this topic20 referring among others to scholars such
as Wolfgang Klafki.21 Musikdidaktik offers models to reflect on the connections
between educational objectives, content, and methods in relation to specific
groups of students, settings, and frameworks.22 Such theoretical reflection does
not, however, directly translate into curricula, textbooks, and courses. Even if
the educational objectives were met with unanimous approval (which is rarely
the case), no specific content or learning environments can be directly derived
from them. Choices have to be made locally, in each school, in each classroom,
for and by each group of learners. Critical thinking in terms of Didaktik requires
participation.
Rarely do music curricula at the state level prescribe the specific body of con-
tent to be covered. In most cases, national standards are limited to the outline of
outcomes to be achieved. This gives the teachers and the students more freedom
in decision-making. I present some curricular examples from Germany assum-
ing that there are similar examples to be found in other countries. If you look

This content downloaded from 78.184.153.237 on Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:08:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
christian rolle 95

at curricula in the various federal states of Germany from the last two decades
(often referred to simply as frameworks), you will find that many of them no
longer determine educational content in any detail. Instead, we find statements
such as the following: In the selection of content . . . , a relationship must be
established between student experiences and educational concerns.23
Curricula define the thematic areas to be covered but offer only suggestions
when it comes to specific educational content. Many curricula explicitly call
for student participation in decision-making processes related to themes and
content.24
Most curricula start by identifying the tasks and objectives of music educa-
tion. What we find there is so general that no specific content can be derived
from it. In Baden-Wuerttemberg, for example, we find the following introductory
statement:

What characterizes the school-subject of music is the aesthetic approach to


the world via the auditory sense. The specificity of this approach unfolds in
the interaction and the mutual influence of a) physical-sensory perception,
b) awareness of emotional effects, and c) intellectual reflection.25

These general framing remarks are followed by equally general recommenda-


tions. The 2002 secondary school curriculum (grades 11 to 13) in Schleswig-
Holstein26 lists three fields of action (reception, reflection, and design) and the
specific competencies to be acquired (for example, in reflecting on music in
the process of historical transformation and in the context of social structures).
The only other binding element in the curriculum is that the thematic areas
music and its design principles, music and its historical context, as well as an
emphasis on New Music have to be addressed at some point during the three-
year period covered by the curriculum.27
The 1999 secondary school music curriculum (grades 11 to 13) in North
Rhine-Westphalia expressly calls for diversity, inasmuch as the choice of topics
must do justice to the diversity of music culture(s) as well as the preferences
of each group of learners.28 It is noted that: Specific educational content is
always chosen at the expense of alternative content: Striking a balance in terms
of the diversity of music is an integral element . . . of didaktik reasoning and
reflection.29

Courageous Freedom
In and for every music lesson, far-reaching decisions have to be made regard-
ing educational content as alternatives always exist. No curriculum and no list of
works could relieve educators of the need to make decisions locally. Certainly,
a few general criteria or principles can be identified for the selection of content

This content downloaded from 78.184.153.237 on Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:08:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
96 philosophy of music education review 25:1

and for the justification of and critical reflection on the choices made. One cri-
terion could be the diversity of educational opportunities. Different analytical
perspectives on music could, for example, be named and become mandatory.30
However, such catalogs of criteria will not completely determine the selection of
educational content, large freedoms remain to make choices of ones own.
The question remains: What is to be done? Which issues are to be taught?
What music should be performed? What are the musical experiences that we
want to enable the students to have? How can we arrive at a decision if it is not
possible to specify the aims and content of music education by simply referring to
lasting musical traditions and authoritative prescriptions? The question remains:
How can we encourage those who feel helpless when confronted with the need
to find orientation in a bewildering world of music, in which certainties of music
education and aesthetic order that were once believed to be eternally valid are
gone, in which all judgments and assessments are subject to doubt?
Didaktik is not only the task of philosophers and distant curricular commis-
sions but should become an integral element of educational practice. To achieve
this, Didaktik in the sense of critical thinking and joint decision-making about
aims, content of curricula, learning, and teaching practices must be given a cen-
tral place in (not only music) teacher education.31 Instead of teaching philoso-
phies of music education, we should perform philosophy of music education.
Doing philosophy of music education locally means doing philosphy of music
education dialogically, including students.32
If the call for student participation in reflection on music Didaktik is justified
and if joint critical thinking is rightly an essential part of all music (educational)
practices in schools and universities, aesthetic argument would be of particular
importance for the musical classroom. It suggests that we would have to exam-
ine the role of argumentative language in music as practice and as well in the
classroom where students and teachers are asked to give reasons when talking
about music. Research needs to be done on the specific claim to validity raised
by aesthetic judgements that request, rather than demand, acceptance.33 If we
want to free music education from instrumental reason, we should try to establish
a concept of aesthetic rationality in music (educational) matters showing that
it is inherent in musical communication respectively in communication about
music.
The call for student participation in decision-making processes is not simply
rooted in motivation psychology or the need for citizenship education in school.
What is even more fundamental in terms of music education is the reference to
intellectual independence and the capacity of judgment. It is the need to justify
the choice of educational content in the course of open debate that allows stu-
dents to acquire the competencies to find orientation in the world of music. Such

This content downloaded from 78.184.153.237 on Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:08:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
christian rolle 97

music-cultural orientation is not acquired by being told what to listen to. Music
education needs to encourage freedom.

Notes
1
Jonas Gustafsson, Anything Goes? Content, Democracy and the Music Educators
Dilemma, paper at the Sixth International Symposium in Philosophy of Music
Education, Hamburg, 2005.
2
Immanuel Kant, What is Orientation in Thinking? in H. Reiss, ed., Kants Political
Writings (Cambridge: University Press, 1991), 237249. See also Geert-Lueke Lueken,
ber die Orientierungsleistung philosophischen Argumentierens, in Simone Dietz
et al., eds., Sich im Denken orientieren. Fr Herbert Schndelbach (Frankfurt a.M.:
Suhrkamp, 1996), 5270.
3
Marja Heimonen, Nurturing Towards Wisdom: Justifying Music in the Curriculum,
Philosophy of Music Education Review 16, no. 1 (2008): 65.
4
Ibid.
5
The topic is addressed in more detail by Eva Georgii-Hemming in her contribution
to this symposium.
6
Niklas Luhmann and Karl Eberhard Schorr, Das Technologiedefizit der Erziehung
und die Pdagogik, in Luhmann and Schorr, eds. Zwischen Technologie und Selbstreferenz.
Fragen an die Pdagogik (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1982), 1140. Also see Luhmann and
Schorr, Problems of Reflection in the System of Education (Mnster/ New York: Waxmann,
2008).
7
See ivind Varkys article in this symposium.
8
The much-quoted Mozart effect was begun by Frances H. Rauscher, Gordon L. Shaw,
and Katherine N. Ky, Music and Spatial Task Performance, in Nature 365 (1993): 611.
9
Jrg-Dieter Gauger, ed., Bildungsoffensive durch Neuorientierung des Musik
unterrichts. Initiative Bildung der Persnlichkeit, published on behalf of the Konrad-
Adenauer-Stiftung (Sankt-Augustin, 2004) [hereafter referred to as KAS 2004]. http://
www.kas.de/wf/de/33.5929/, 22-05-2015. See also Hermann J. Kaiser, et al., eds.,
Bildungsoffensive Musikunterricht? Das Grundsatzpapier der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung in
der Diskussion (Regensburg: ConBrio, 2006), 1730.
10
Ibid. 3, translated by the author.
11
With the same aim in view, three central aspects of the concept of Bildung are dis-
cussed by ivind Varky, The Concept of Bildung, Philosophy of Music Eduction
Review18, no. 1 (2010): 8596, as well as in his article Bildung. Between Cultural
Heritage and the Unknown, Instrumentalism and Existence, in Mike Flemming, Liora
Bresler, and John OToole, eds., The Routledge International Handbook of the Arts and
Education (London: Routledge), 1929
12
See Wilhelm von Humboldt, Theorie der Bildung des Menschen. Bruchstuck. I.
Klassische Problemformulierungen, in Heinz-Elmar Tenorth, ed., Allgemeine Bildung:
Analysen zu ihrer Wirklichkeit. Versuche uber ihre Zukunft (Weinheim: Juventa, 1986).
See also von Humboldt, The Sphere and Duties of Government, trans. Joseph Coulthard
(London: John Chapman, 1854), 11.

This content downloaded from 78.184.153.237 on Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:08:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
98 philosophy of music education review 25:1

13
Helmut Peukert, in Ottmar John and Norbert Mette, eds., Bildung in gesellschaft-
licher Transformation (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schningh, 2015). Hans-Christoph Koller,
The Research of Transformational Education Processes: Exemplary Considerations
on the Relation of the Philosophy of Education and Educational Research, European
Educational Research Journal 10, no. 3 (2011): 375382. More fully presented in Hans-
Christoph Koller, Bildung anders denken. Einfhrung in die Theorie transformatorischer
Bildungsprozesse (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2012). See also Clemens Menze, Bildung, in
Dieter Lenzen and Klaus Mollenhauer, eds., Theorien und Grundbegriffe der Erziehung
und Bildung. Enzyklopdie Erziehungswissenschaft Bd. 1 (Stuttgart: Klett, 1995), 350356.
14
Which may require transforming music education, see Estelle R. Jorgensen,
Transforming Music Education (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008). See
also Christian Rolle, Musikalisch-sthetische Bildung. ber die Bedeutung sthe-
tischer Erfahrung fr musikalische Bildungsprozesse (Kassel: Bosse, 1999). Jrgen Vogt,
Musikalische Bildung. Ein lexikalischer Versuch, in J. Vogt, ed., Zeitschrift fr Kritische
Musikpdagogik, 2012, http://www.zfkm.org/12-vogt.pdf), 125.
15
Also see Jorgensen, Western Classical Music and General Education, Philosophy
of Music Eduction Review 11, no. 2 (2003): 130140.
16
This thought has frequently been expressed, also by Paul Valry, Lavenir est comme
le reste: il nest plus ce quil tai in Paul Valry, Notre destin et les lettres (1937), in
Regards sur le mode actuel et autre essais (Paris: Gallimard, 1945), 159.
17
This issue has been addressed by Adrian Niegot, Die Zukunft war frher auch
besser: Anmerkungen zum musikpdagogischen Handlungs- und Geschichtsbegriff aus
gedchtnis- und erinnerungstheoretischer Perspektive [The Future Looked Brighter in
the Past: Remarks on the Perception of Activity and History in Music Education from
the Perspective of Memory Research Theory], in Jens Knigge and Anne Niessen, eds.,
Musikpdagogisches Handeln. Begriff, Erscheinungsformen, politische Dimensionen
(Essen: Die Blaue Eule, 2012), 4155.
18
Harald Welzer, Erinnerung und Gedchtnis. Desiderate und Perspektiven, in
Ariane Eichenberg, Christian Gudehus, Christian and Harald Welzer, eds., Gedchtnis
und Erinnerung. Ein interdisziplinres Handbuch, (Stuttgart: Metzler, 2010), 8, trans-
lated by the author, originally in German: Erinnerung hat funktional nichts mit
Vergangenheit zu tun. Sie dient der Orientierung in einer Gegenwart zu Zwecken kn-
ftigen Handelns.
19
See Vogt, Modale Zeiten. Temporale Perspektiven einer pdagogischen Introduktion
in Musikkultur, in Thomas Ott and Jrgen Vogt, eds., Unterricht in Musik. Rckblick und
aktuelle Aspekte, (Mnster: Lit, 2008), 1628.
20
Frede V. Nielsen, Almen musikdidaktik (Kbenhavn: Akademisk Forlag, 1997).
Nielsen, Didactology as a Field of Theory and Research in Music Education, Philosophy
of Music Education Review 13, no. 1 (2005): 519. Also see Werner Jank, Didaktik,
Bildung, Content: On the Writings of Frede V. Nielsen, Philosophy of Music Eduction
Review 22, no. 2 (2014): 113131. See furthermore Eva Georgii-Hemming and Jonathan
Lilliedahl Why What Matters, Philosophy of Music Eduction Review 22, no. 2 (2014):
132155. Nielsens concept of musikdidaktik is addressed in Frederik Pios article in this
symposium. However, my following considerations concerning Didaktik as a way of joint
critical thinking are based neither on phenomenology nor on existentialism.

This content downloaded from 78.184.153.237 on Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:08:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
christian rolle 99

21
See Wolfgang Klafki, Didaktische Analyse als Kern der Unterrichtsvorbereitung
[Didaktik Analysis as the Core of Preparation of Instruction], in Klafki, Studien zur
Bildungstheorie und Didaktik (Weinheim: Beltz, 1963), 126 ff.
22
See Hermann-Josef Kaiser and Eckhard Nolte, Musikdidaktik. Sachverhalte
ArgumenteBegrndungen (Mainz: Schott, 1989).
23
Ministerium fr Bildung, Wissenschaft und Weiterbildung of Rhineland-Palatinate,
eds., Lehrplan Musik. Sekundarstufe 1. Klassen 59/10, http://lehrplaene.bildung-rp.de),
3, translated by the author.
24
See for example Ministerium fr Schule und Weiterbildung, Wissenschaft und
Forschung (MSWWF) of North Rhine-Westphalia, eds., Richtlinien und Lehrplne fr die
Sekundarstufe IIGymnasium/Gesamtschule. Musik (Frechen: Ritterbach, 1999), section
Themenfindung in der Lerngruppe, 14 ff.
25
Ministerium fr Kultus, Jugend und Sport of Baden-Wuerttemberg, eds., Bildungsplan
2004. Allgemein bildendes Gymnasium (available under http://www.bildung-staerkt
-menschen.de/service/downloads/Bildungsplaene/Gymnasium/Gymnasium
_Bildungsplan_Gesamt.pdf, 22-05-2015), 270, translated by the author.
26
Ministerium fr Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kultur) of Schleswig-
Holstein, eds., Lehrplan fr die Sekundarstufe II. Gymnasium, Gesamtschule,
Fachgymnasium. Musik (Kiel, 2002, available under http://lehrplan.lernnetz.de, 22-05-
2015), 3235.
27
Ibid., p. 37ff.
28
MSWWF, Richtlinien und Lehrplne fr die Sekundarstufe IIGymnasium/
Gesamtschule. Musik, 23.
29
Ibid.
30
See Christopher Wallbaum, Was soll Gegenstand von Musik in der Schule sein?
in Kaiser et al., eds., Bildungsoffensive Musikunterricht? 141153. http://www.qucosa.de,
22-05-2015. See also, Jrgen Vogt, Kerncurriculum, nicht Kanon. Vorbereitende
berlegungen zu einem (auch) musikdidaktischen Schlsselbegriff, in Bildungsoffensive
Musikunterricht? 125140.
31
That is how I interpret Stanley Haskins advocacy for the development of criti-
cal thinking skills in the domain of teacher education. See Stanly Haskins, Gradually
Adaptive Frameworks: Reasonable Disagreement and the Evolution of Evaluative Systems
in Music Education, Philosophy of Music Eduction Review 21, no. 2 (2013): 197212.
32
That includes but goes beyond teaching philosophy (of music) as part of the school
music curriculum; see the contributions of Bennett Reimer, Sandra Stauffer, Randall
Allsup, and Mary Reichling, Symposium. Philosophy: Exploring the Potentials in the
School Curriculum, Philosophy of Music Eduction Review 13, no. 2 (2005): 131145.
33
In the words of Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1978). An empirical study concerning different ways of giving reasons for musi-
cal judgments has been carried out by Christian Rolle, Lisa Knrzer, and Robin Stark,
Music-related Aesthetic Argumentation. Theoretical Considerations and Qualitative
Research, in Eva Georgii-Hemming, Sven-Erik Holgersen, Lauri Vkev and ivind
Varky, eds., Nordic Research in Music Education, Yearbook 16 (Oslo: nmh-publikasjoner,
2015).

This content downloaded from 78.184.153.237 on Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:08:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

You might also like