what we hear is meaning too: deconstruction, dialogue, and music

What We Hear is Meaning Too: Deconstruction, Dialogue, and MusicAuthor(s): Patrick SchmidtSource: Philosophy of Music Education Review, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Spring 2012), pp. 3-24Published by: Indiana University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/philmusieducrevi.20.1.3 .

Accessed: 22/05/2014 04:19

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

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.161 on Thu, 22 May 2014 04:19:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iupress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/philmusieducrevi.20.1.3?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


© Philosophy of Music Education Review, 20, no. 1 (Spring 2012)

What We hear is Meaning tooDeconstruction, Dialogue, anD Music

Patrick SchmidtWestminster Choir College, Rider [email protected]

The concept of dialogue as deconstruction introduced in this article is prompted by two concerns: first, the multiplicity of representation in contemporary soci-ety, and second, the need to address rather than resolve the other as a central premise for learning. Dialogue as deconstruction is seen as an impactful ele-ment in destabilizing sequential forms of teaching ingrained in the contem-porary logic of standardization. An analysis of various traditions of dialogic thought and practice is developed, arguing that conflict and provisionality are either absent or seen negatively in these accounts. In order to present conflict as a positive element and a constitutive part of dialogue as deconstruction, the notion of mis-listening is offered, defined not as the inability to recognize com-monly agreed-upon sonic ideals but rather the capacity to intentionally hear “wrong.” This is seen as an essential element if music education is to empha-size innovation, agency, and dissent.

“Where the notion of ‘proper’ operates, it is always only improperly installed as the effect of a compulsory system of thought.”1



Philosophy of music education review, 20:1�

Something iS happening to Dialogue

as dialogue remains a seemingly undisputed fixture of education, it weighs on those concerned with the notion that “a conviction that can be justified to any-one is of little interest.”2 the long shadow of dogmatic views presenting dialogue as an obvious and complete system persists as a challenge to critical interpreta-tions. Nevertheless, dialogue continues to be manifested daily in unorthodox and unexpected ways.

Recently, I found myself observing a group of college-age students outside a café. People came and went, the group morphed in size and in the combination of instruments, and the playing went on for over two hours. At first, what made this notable was how conversation constantly intersected music-making. The tones and inflections, the pace and rhythm, all seemed to mirror each other. Both musical and textual sound would hit the foreground and fade. There was such ease in the interaction that I wonder in what ways the conversation was indeed constitutive of the music being made.

As I sat and mused over this community, a question ruptured from the polyphony of that moment. It went by quickly, it commanded some attention, and soon enough it was engulfed by the pulse of the group. But for me it lin-gered . . . it stayed awhile and re-arranged the story unfolding in front of me.

A young woman having barely finished playing around with a musical theme shared by the group was asked, “Now . . . how did you think of doing that?” The question was not boastful, nor pronounced with severe inflection. It was simply stated. Surprisingly still, the question was not how did you do that? nor why did you do it?—which are necessary, but much less interesting ones. As I heard the question others did too and from my distanced vantage point, I gleaned a moment of disruption and positive conflict being formed. It didn’t incite dismissal, nor attrition or condescendence. The conflict, that is, the question, incited a shift. The others to the question paused, re-visited, re-listened. And while I waited for a response or resolution, what arrived was a different moment. What came was music thought differently from what had been established. What came was a new tension and a new closeness created by positive conflict and dialogue.

this article presents a notion of dialogue that moves away from dialectical forms, not because they are not useful, but rather for their inattention to two elements. First, the multiplicity of representation in contemporary society, and second, the need to address rather than resolve the Other as a central premise for learning. the first echoes Simon critchley as he asks, “can philosophical dialectics entertain an alterity that cannot be comprehended when reduced to an object of cognition or recognition?”3 here then, dialectics restricts our capacity to reflect in multiple ways and toward multiple ends. the second queries a dialogue that is not contained within and by dialectical structures of reconciliation and



patrick schmidt �

reciprocity, but rather a dialogue that sees the creative potential of difference. taking these premises seriously, i contend that dialogue, as a process of decon-struction,4 is a marked educational need.

this article highlights the idea that dialogue remains a powerful element in teaching and learning as well as in music. it offers, however, that a positive notion of conflict situated through the idea of potenza5 can serve as a departing point for dialogue. conflict is traditionally positioned as an unpleasant demand in an otherwise placid reality. dewey, for instance, addresses conflict only marginally, regarding it even as a possible catalyst in the dissembling of democracy. conflict then is something to be reconciled. the notion of potenza, viewed as power-to-create rather than power-to-command, serves to open a space where we can link conflict and friction, thus situating friction, as david Bohm has, as an element of creativity, for without friction discovery is hampered.

here then we see conflict through potenza characterized as a “potential for connection and ramification” through which dialogue can be more broadly and pertinently presented. this is significant for contrary to dialectical forms, the dialogic pedagogy i propose sees consensus as non-creative, albeit effi-cient. in practical terms, while dialectical education actively searches for ef-ficient resolution, dialogic spaces accept perceived inefficiencies as a trade-off for creative and productive tension. these become useful notions when asking readers to consider two seemingly unreasonable ideas: conflict as a positive el-ement in education, and mis-listening as an innovative pathway in music educa-tion. Both of these are discussed in the article and are formative of dialogue as deconstruction.

While deconstruction is at times seen as negative and disassembling, un-derstood differently, it offers a constitutive process for reconsidering taken-for-granted notions and practices. three elements interact in this conceptualization of dialogue: 1) de-territorialization, as both an aim and a departing point for dialogue, highlighting the importance of learning that is adaptable and conse-quently constantly de-centering and de-centered; 2) positive conflict, understood as the agent for dialogue and articulated as a productive and perhaps necessary element of critical engagements; and 3) provisionality, as the recurrent process that maps dialogical practices pushing them in multiple directions.

aiming to model deconstruction,6 this article is structured in the following manner. First, an initial look at the need for dialogue as an educational practice is presented. Second, selected notions of dialogue are offered, setting the eco-logical context from which the current argument is developed.7 third, listening and mis-listening are paired, serving as a critical analogy for dialogue as decon-struction in music education. central to this is the notion that mis-listening can aid musical learning invested in critical and innovative stances, while modeling




deconstruction itself. Finally, the article concludes with an analysis of the aims of dialogic propositions under deconstruction.8

the neeD for Dialogue

the perceived potenza of dialogue, as an element that could de-territorialize the sequential teaching ingrained in the contemporary logic of standardization, is an overriding concern in this article.9 i start not simply from a closed critique but with an invitation, asking educators to consider how we may find openings in the burdensome requirements of curriculum as scope and sequence, while suggesting that small changes can generate meaningful impact. Standards and teaching sequences function as micropolitics in the way they foster—at the local level of the classroom—undue stress on education as the “science of instruc-tion.” to deterritorialize sequence, in simple terms, means to shift the focus from teaching to learning by addressing the ways in which educational actions can grow from methods and models into moments of interactions with student query, identity, and desire. What i call sequentialism10 creates a radicalized albeit per-vasive understanding of teaching where the lesson and the contour it dictates are not allowed to be broken or interrupted. the problem with sequentialist teaching is that it functions independently of the reactions, contexts, needs, or wants of individual students. in a sense, the sequentialist instructor teaches with no one in mind; the intention to reach all demands that the individuals sitting in front of us be forgotten. Such practices create micropolitics—how we teach and why—that are reasonable and yet not responsible, and consequently non-responsive to dif-ferences found within classrooms.11 Exploring the deconstruction of dialogue be-comes both significant and pragmatic in such a context, and may help us to see that changes in the politics of standardization start with the incremental rethink-ing of our own practices.

But first, it is important to acknowledge that dialogic practices already stand upon broad concerns with educational aims such as pluriformality,12 civic democ-racy,13 social justice and ethical education,14 and critical pedagogies,15 among oth-ers. these by and large represent educative pursuits based upon two premises: 1) education cannot be limited to the transfer of standards and values, although it includes them; and 2) the expansion of education beyond itself indefatigably provides a struggle with the formation of conventions, the establishment of power, the construction of ethics, and the understanding of one’s interactions with others and with the Other. Lastly, while much is claimed in the name of dialogical prac-tices—at times in a mundane or deceitful manner—it is nevertheless significant that dialogue as a practice has been empirically linked to improved attitudes toward universal rights16 and restriction of racist attitudes,17 as well as critical thinking.18 consequently, arguing about the possibilities in dialogue remains pertinent.



patrick schmidt �

there persists a space, however, for conceptual and pedagogical understand-ings of dialogue that aims to expand connections and ramifications, working to potentialize its already vast traditions. a dialogic practice articulated under de-construction is one such pathway, bringing to the forefront the marginal and marginalized place of deterritorialization (questioning what is at the center of instruction and how to charter new pathways), provisionality (learning as a matter of entry points that require adaptation) and positive conflict (friction that leads to creative production) in many educational spaces. While unfamiliarity might vest these concepts with the penchant of mere abstraction, the aim is precisely to articulate a theoretical framework that might incite others toward critical practices.

as an example, let us look closely at the idea of positive conflict19 outside education. investigating how technology and wikis have changed our interaction with information, particularly through what are called disambiguation pages, we can find a model where a positive notion of conflict is essential for dialogical co-existence amidst multiplicity. Wikipedia, for example, uses disambiguation pages to situate contradictory or conflicting arguments on a given notion, text, or defini-tion. this simple solution to the fact that complex ideas cannot escape compet-ing views and multiple explanations, leads readers/contributors to act and think in terms of provisionality—seeing difference not as a problem to be solved but as set of possibilities for future engagements. in that wiki models ask for constant input, adaptation, and replacement, rather than authoritative decree, we find here an existing and well established model where positive conflict functions dialogically as well as effectively. its effectiveness, however, is not framed in terms of simplification and streamlining, but rather in terms of quality—understood in terms of variance—of production. the resolution that is found to differing discourses is one not out of consensus but out of positive dissensus.

i contend that the connection to teaching seems quite clear, for the wiki model provides a simple and concrete example that indeed it is possible for us to move away from right or wrong dualities and embody the deleuzian either/or, or, or—maintaining efficiency and coherence, but emphasizing divergent think-ing. in fact, deconstructing (manipulating, playing around with) positive conflict might lead us to the contention that, in their inability to provide multiple under-standings, certain current and accepted pedagogies can become so disturbing or threatening as to generate hostility.20 if we accept this, even if circumstantially or momentarily, should we not also consider that the subtraction of conflict in teaching and learning may be precisely what incites violence, hostility, or resis-tance, rather than what prevents them?21

Situating dialogue as deconstruction through the notion of differánce can also be helpful in understanding how a multiplicity of views on the same concept is




not paradoxical, but rather pedagogical. deconstruction for Jacques derrida is indeed a pedagogical project, and the double meaning embodied by differánce is simply another example of how he uses multiple readings of a concept in order to pedagogically—and thus philosophically—guide us through its possibilities. the double meaning that derrida attributes to differánce is therefore central to the pedagogical project of dialogue as deconstruction, for it brings together dif-ference and deferral of meaning. as difference, dialogue can move away from dualistic, dialectic, or modernist boundaries. as deferral it can foster connections and ramifications that make acceptable the contingency and incompleteness of learning and teaching. together they can allow for a more complex relationship with the Other. as such, the pedagogical project in dialogue as deconstruction could attend to three constitutive aspects of any politicized educational prac-tices while framing a movement away from sequentialism: 1) a concern with agency and action; 2) the understanding that language not only shapes but also constructs realities and interactions; and 3) the acknowledgement of both contin-gency and multiplicity in the formation of knowledge. in order to move forward, qualifying these elements inside music and music education, we must first situate dialogue as deconstruction amidst the various forms of dialogue.

the pluriformality of Dialogue

Nicholas Burbules identifies six traditions that are useful in framing how dia-logue has been conceptualized. these are presented in no hierarchical fashion nor are they exhaustive. they serve, however, to situate the field of discourse in reference to dialogue as well as to note the limitations each tradition presents in a summative form. First is a deweyan view where dialogue is “the fulcrum around which the imperatives of democracy can be reconciled with the facts of diversity and conflict.”22 the public nature of such dialogue is at the center of demo-cratic practices, but it masks how “those who do not, who cannot, or who choose not to develop or exercise these capabilities suffer an attenuated relation to the democratic public sphere, if not an actual exclusion from it.”23 the second is based upon the ideas of Belenky and Noddings, who reject the agonistic features of dialogue, attempting instead to develop dialogue as a form of caring.24 the third, embraces Platonic views of dialogue as ground for “inquiries into truth.” the dialectic/dualistic nature of this dialogue provided for the expansion of the Socratic method. the work of Gadamer supplies the fourth view, where dialogue becomes a condition for inter-subjective understandings. While the hermeneutic emphasis is most important here, critics point to its limitations when attempting to “engage issues of power and inequality that stand outside the dialogical rela-tion.”25 the fifth focuses on the concept of conscientization and is based on the contributions of Paulo Freire—disseminated in the United States principally by



patrick schmidt �

henry Giroux, Peter mcLaren, and ira Shor. Finally, there is what Burbules calls a “post-liberal” view of dialogue, framed by the work of Jurgen habermas, where discourse guides the understanding that “communicative claims rest upon im-plicit norms that can be, and should be, critically questioned and redeemed.”26

the outline presented above confounds a myriad of other thinkers who offer similar visions, taking as patent that these are not exhaustive, but an outline of other complex structures that have dialogue at their center. to it i would add david Bohm’s view that dialogue can be better understood if we have in mind the idea of an “impersonal fellowship.”27 Where, from established fixed positions, one is able to converge to authentic trust and openness, even among individuals who do not have close personal ties. dialogue here is the generative friction be-tween contrasting values, which in itself allows for awareness of the assumptions that might be active in a determined group.

there are other possibilities still. the idea of radical otherness, as Paul deman characterizes it, is also important for a deconstructive view placing dia-logue in the position to address not only distinct voices, but the distinction of voices.28 dialogue here no longer accedes to the “resolution of the other” (their management), but productively flips this notion by asserting that someone else’s otherness can become one’s reality—as Levinas argues, that one’s self is consti-tuted “on the face of the other.”29 moving through these notions the dialogic view articulated by mikhail Bakhtin arguably becomes the fulcrum for the shift from dialectic-based notions toward postmodern or poststructuralist endeavors. Bakhtin articulates the dialogical space where multiplicity can later stand, help-ing us to see beyond dialectical synthesis.30 indeed, i propose that the kernel of dialogue as deconstruction can be found in Bakhtin’s dialogism, whose function is “to sustain and think through the radical exteriority and heterogeneity of one voice with regard to another.”31

Before we move forward however, before we exemplify this moment of shift from the dialectic to the dialogic, we must address more clearly the limitations of dialectic processes, upon which many of the traditions above dwell. the conten-tion upon which this article starts and to which it returns is that while much is achieved in and by its implementation, dialectical frameworks retain synthesis at the core of their practices and thus do not account for or value the surpluses, dif-ferences, and ramifications generated by actions, interactions, or texts. We spoke already of the potential to be found in difference, so let us look at surplus and ramification.

Surplus is here understood as all that is generated by actions, interactions, or texts, but is nevertheless absent from their “central points.” Surplus is then essential for a positive outlook on conflict, as well as deterritorialization and pro-visionality, all three essential to the present notion of dialogue as deconstruction.



Philosophy of music education review, 20:110

ramifications function in similar ways, but in a different direction. While surplus speaks of produced “excesses”—the innovative musical action described in the vignette that opens this article—ramifications speak of the connections, the link-ages, the webbing that arises out of actions, interactions, and texts. this is then the aporia toward which surplus and ramification pulls us. if any interaction, ac-tion, or text can produce surplus and ramification (or hidden products as critical theorists would argue), how can the dialectic teleology of proposition-process-synthesis possibly address the “periphery” of any object, let alone of any dialogue? Or yet, why might we assume surpluses and ramifications not to be as interesting, valuable, or instructive?32

in the search to further exemplify these concepts, i find myself considering the music of hip hop artists, where surplus and ramification find expression both rhetorical and musical. in rhetorical challenge or in adapting sonic environ-ments through sampling and splicing, hip hop artists adhere to the notion of potenza—power-to-create—where conflict becomes something not to be man-aged or dismissed, but rather embraced. this is obvious in traditional terms, if we imagine the braggadocio associated with gangsta rap, but it also functions in more subtle and constructive terms within the complexity of sonic and visual appropriation or ethno-cultural negotiations that are essential to the genre. con-flict in rap and hip hop is and has always been a form of power manifested in the attempt to “connect” with or address others and “ramify” our own selves.33 it is in this process of ramification and connection that creative endeavors are most likely to spark. it is so that rap artists such as Lil Wayne generated over a hundred and twenty songs in a period of two years, find ways to release commercial (da carter iii) and communal products (numerous songs distributed as free, share-able files), cause controversy through discussions about the ethics of copyright (see his internet hit help) and still find time to rhetorically infuriate those rightly concerned with misogynistic lyrics and attitude. What is hard to deny is the man-ner in which Lil Wayne’s music productions create ramifications and surpluses that are both cultural, social, economic, and musical.

in deleuzian terms, what we come to understand is the relational element between the ramification of the individual and the multiplication of connections. that is to say, the manner in which Lil Wayne seems to “listen” to the musics of others, might be framed by notions that go beyond hearing, for they are certainly active, but also beyond traditional listening. there is something appropriative in his practices that listening, active or not, does not seem to acknowledge.34 this conundrum in listening could be seen in terms of a radical otherness that one constructs while engaging in music production. this could also be said to exist in Eminem’s White America, which juxtaposes the cooptation of his own work-ing class, “white-trash” self, with the consumerism that elevates this same image



patrick schmidt 11

(his face, text, and music) to the reluctant poster-child of an affluent, music-consuming youth. What Eminem unknowingly (perhaps?) recreates for us is Bakhtin’s idea of struggle, which is vital to understanding conflict as positive. in other words, the “challenge that ensues is the difficult process of appropriat-ing someone else’s words for one’s own purpose, and the corresponding struggle among the interior voices that vie for ascendancy in consciousness.”35 Eminem provides us with the juxtaposition of selves and others in a single story, pushing beyond role identity and exposing the daily complexity of multiple subjectivity. in practical terms then, to ramify means to see differently, to stand in conscious conflict. this is the constant pedagogical challenge that hip hop artists present to their audiences: how do i interact with the brilliancy of Eminem’s prose and the problematics of its misogyny without “resolving” them? Pedagogically then rami-fications lead to the constancy of new connections, which in turn might make practices of unlearning more acceptable.36 as the wiki example makes clear, unlearning is central to any practice of dissensus and part of positive conflict. Jacques ranciere places dissensus as formative for one’s need to interact with the multiple meanings present in today’s technological societies, and defines it lyrically as “a practice that keeps re-opening.”37 it might also be quite significant in challenging the hegemonic manner in which listening is placed within many musical practices.

the following section challenges this very hegemony. it articulates the con-cept of mis-listening as a path to deterritorialize Westernized practices of listen-ing, and the ways in which they may determine who we are as musicians, and perhaps more importantly, how they may constrain the kinds of musical lives available to us. Furthermore, i suggest that mis-listening is to music as positive conflict is to dialogue, an analogous relation that hopefully clarifies dialogue operating musically, and not only in terms of language. this musical concep-tualization, this practice of mis-listening, while “intellectually and emotionally challenging” can produce “more complex understandings, not just of texts, but of worlds and selves.”38

Dialogue iS muSic too: the caSe of liStening anD miS-liStening

While venturing into this discussion, it is important to state that listening and mis-listening are intended as a pairing rather than as antagonists. the aim is to imagine them as two differing elements, which in their interaction allow us to understand mis-listening as an extension, rather than a corruption or a negative surplus of listening. a first step in this process might be to place listening (listen-ing) under erasure. derrida uses erasure39 to mark how a term or concepts can be both unavoidable and necessary, as well as exceedingly problematic. this is




helpful for a critique of listening, for it places said critique not as a dismissal, but as a movement elsewhere.

in a musical life, listening is regularly construed as careful or inattentive, pas-sive or active, purposeful or alienated, all of which can be quite impactful in the development of musical practices. Our listening, i contend, can easily become stationary, however, through norms of recognition of forms and styles that are presented to us unchallenged. From birth to professional life, listening as recog-nition is reinforced in Western societies with the force of ideology40 and this can be observed in quite broad grounds. For example:

1. Listening allows the discourses of parents who praise their bud-ding “musicians,” qualifying their assertions in the child’s obvi-ous—to them—prowess at recognizing pitch.

2. Listening has sustained music studies as a race toward prop-erly and promptly adjusting one’s ears to the sonic needs of others.41

3. Listening often reinforces music education practices concerned with early detection and prevention of mistakes. this is mani-fested in methodologies that emphasize step-by-step construc-tions of activities and performances, breaking down learning to a sequence of most basic elements.42

4. Listening as detection of mistakes mystifies acuity replacing it for musicianship. consider ensembles where students are asked to raise their hands every time they make a mistake. and how easily this is turned from a constructive taking-of-responsi-bility into a problematic surveillance of mistakes.

Beyond education, industry and commerce also have a role in this, exemplified in the fact that “studio workers are often explicitly charged by their owners with the production of a local sound for global consumption.”43 as such, listening does two things: the first possibility is benign, as listening (as an action) bestows the individual with an aptitude to consensually navigate clearly established musi-cal forms and interactions; consider the sonic requirements for interaction in a college ensemble for example. the second, is an extension of the first and more problematic in that listening also defines appropriateness and deviance in music and music education.44 the trouble then is the didactics of listening, its lack in potenza—that power-to-create—and the focus instead on its power-to-direct. Listening directs me to the cadence, it informs me of the problematic leading tone, it prevents me from accentuating the clave on the “wrong” beat. any mis-listening—any deviation or deferral—is therefore either pressured back toward



patrick schmidt 13

normality, or rejected as ineptitude or malaise, unless decreed by authoritative sources (who would contest John cage, Glenn Gould or miles davis?).

Fundamentalist notions of listening have defined the orthodoxy of Western music studies—be they classical, Jazz, or Pop—by reifying the unquestioned im-portance of sonic appropriateness, acuity, and precision.45 as andrew Leyshon argues,

the arrangements of listening in the concert room, the development of spe-cialist musicianship, commercial publishing and the invention of synoptic scores, enshrined the individual performer/performance as an unmediated “natural” and “neutral” channel for the work of the composer.46

Further, both in terms of a history of listening as well as the transaction of lis-tening, the parameters of good musicianship are often defined according to a zero-sum game: one either has a great ear and therefore is a musician, or one does not and therefore is not. in these terms, listening appears as no more than appropriate sonic recognition, no more than a reaction, inviting us to ask whether our over-concern with perfection and skill—with getting it right and engaging in production that is flawless—goes hand-and-glove with the devaluing of musical reflective inquiry and creativity?

my attempt is not to deny that listening provides important tools for recog-nition and resolution, but rather to highlight how it fails to invite alternative, disruptive, and innovative replies. in other words, listening as an uninvestigated practice most often presents musical engagements or artistic realities that dismiss cage’s notion that, “art is criminal action. it conforms to no rules.” One could say that the absence of mis-listening as a practice is evidenced in the difficulty so many music educators and performers show when improvising or arranging. We conform to too many rules. consider arranging, for example, and how it is unfortunately mostly used in functional ways, often connected to solving inad-equacies of ensembles rather than a productive element in altering their nature, format, purpose, and pedagogic capacities. the larger orthodoxy of listening as recognition empties these musical enterprises, which could have the potential for breaking musical/normative expectations, altering musical language, or oth-erwise challenging accepted readings of existing musical texts.

mis-listening then is not to be understood as lack, or as inability to recognize commonly agreed-upon ideals. it is neither corruption nor is it ineffectiveness. rather, i suggest it as the deterritorializing element par excellence in music: the musical de-centering of ideologically constructed sound.47 in other words, mis-listening is the capability to intentionally hear “wrong.”48 that is, to understand that any interpretation, any practice, any text, any musical interaction produces




a surplus and ramifications of meaning and sound, a multiplicity of on-looks and outlooks upon which one can and should enter, contribute, and extend.

at the most basic level, we can practice mis-listening simply by downplaying the sign (notation and form) in favor of tone (texture, aural perception, and in-flection). a similar shift in musical interaction from language (structural/techni-cal) to an idiomatic standpoint (contour) would create significant learning chal-lenges and questions in most music education ensembles or classroom. Such shifts can be found in vernacular practices that are becoming more common in american music classrooms, where garage band models present students with the challenge to create versions of (not just replicate) a song, where listening alone is not sufficient and in fact restrictive. as Lil Wayne, students have to mis-listen to the original in order to appropriate, adapt, and create something new. music sociologists looking at home music recording exemplify the practices of recordists where listening alone becomes limiting and at times inconsequential. this is so once all sound is recorded and the aim is constant tweaking, developed by “tech-niques of personal production, such as storing” which require a constant reinven-tion of original material, or a constant listening “away” from what is produced and replayed.49 Ethnomusicologists would perhaps recognize mis-listening as a pedagogy already in place in the diasporic strategies developed in the music pro-duction of migrants, refugees, and immigrants. the hybridity found in much of their music production requires

capacities for simultaneity and heterophony (and thus pastiche, irony, multi-vocality, and the embrace of contradictions), [a] collective nature (and thus, imbrication with everyday lives), and [a] capacity to signify beyond the lin-guistic domain (and its binary “either/or” codes).50

mis-listening can also be found in non-governmental projects such as resonaari, where Finish youth with disabilities engage in creative engagements through music,51 or in the gendered music politicking of groups such as Bikini kill or labels such as Golden rod.

Expanding listening into mis-listening—maintaining them pedagogically as a pair—does not require re-invention but adaptation and re-focusing, the power of small changes i referred to earlier. technology-mediated music is another exam-ple where musical rethinking is available to us and where we foreground citation, interference, and alternative readings. these are the elements that created the musique concrete of cage as well as the “versioning” of hip hop. Versioning is an interesting frame for it assumes adaptability and provisionality as its premise and form. instead of proposing a reading of the musical problem, it fosters a dynamic assemblage, a constant remaking. this is what Elizabeth Gould articulated as the possibilities of nomadism in music education,52 made manifest by practices that



patrick schmidt 1�

are propelled forward by an “intense desire to go on trespassing, transgressing.”53 this nomadism can be seen in the work of the dJs Girl Talk where a musical piece of approximately five minutes is constituted by the splicing of over two hun-dred other songs—which exemplifies the feasibility of positive conflict instead of synthesis or consensus.

in fact, hip hop artists such as Girl Talk or Skrillex already embody the repre-sentation of conflict, multiplicity, and provisionality as constitutive and construc-tive elements. careful attention to his music reveals a production that does not attempt to incite a political response, but rather behaves as an enfleshment of a politics of conflict. Girl Talk and Skrillex are the creative outcome of the positive conflict between stultifying copyright demands made by a protectionist industry and cultural change in a community that sees sharing as a valued and valuable source of “capital.” consequently, Girl Talk and Skrillex do not aim at exposing difference, but constitute themselves as and through difference—the bricollage of the text, the splicing of musical material, the sampling of soundscapes with speeds that mash recognition and creation, the dislocation of linguistic accent, or the juxtaposition of familiar images. this innovative music production presents a literacy that is not interested in learning music by listening and copying, or in perfecting the nuances of a piece or passage via repetition. the typical master-apprentice metaphor where legitimization occurs through slow construction of ‘chops’ that are rendered possible by careful listening and matching of style and sound is challenged by a different kind of agency. Perhaps more importantly, it invites us to accept a dialogical and creative space inhabited by beings that refute and refuse linear identities and hard boundaries.

technology makes alternative literacies in music possible, retaining other-wise ephemeral information and helping us to remember what once had to be put down on paper, aiding in the development of complexities previously only available through notation. Now i can re-construct music out of remembered bits and might no longer feel guilty of musicking differently—fostering a “letting go” of the oppressive concern with “getting it right.” in this sense a “good take” is always behind or ahead of me. it does not need to be internalized through repeti-tion or bettered through the external guidelines of directors or musical leaders. revisitation does not need to be about “improvement” in the traditional sense of technique. the result of such a pedagogical framework is that students might be more comfortable in altering or disrupting their own work and those of others, might feel more confident in improvising for and on their own, taking on mis-listening as a possibility and as part of who they are as music producers.

the summative element is finally this: to “err” in the communicative process can represent a pivotal moment for dialogic interaction. this awareness is what capacitates us toward a critique from within, toward a dialogue that is critical of




its contents, parameters, silences, demands, forms, and so on—that is, dialogue, musical or otherwise—that is critical of itself. With mis-listening and conflict in mind, i suggest several dialogical aims from which further thinking could be developed.

Dialogical aimS

if indeed “a talent for speaking differently, rather than for arguing well, is the chief instrument of cultural change,”54 then dialogue as deconstruction can be a transformative power toward an education in and through music that is mean-ingful to a larger portion of the population within or outside schooling. the last step toward this ideal is offered not via a definition of conditions and terms—for its enactment depends on our own individual contexts—but rather through the articulation of possible aims.

the first aim of dialogue as deconstruction is to deterritorialize the notion of conflict, placing it inside dialogue as a deliberate attempt to shift away from em-phases on consensus and control. controlled listening, for instance, maintains a structure between addresser and addressee where conflict is a rare occurrence. conflict is consequently seen as the cause of communicative breakdown and thus dialogue with the Other remains elusive. to assume conflict as positive, on the other hand, means to create a new relational territory where difference is given as the referent. difference as a referent incites dialogue that recognizes the Other as another possible self, rather than the one who stands in opposition to my own being. the rarity of positive conflict mediated in and through dialogue, i argue, is precisely what generates estrangement with an Other, who in the ab-sence of the referent—of difference as a common assumption—sees the possible relation as a threat, as the imminence of violence. Positive conflict in dialogue presents us with a constant invitation, even if seemingly contradictory, toward an ethic that goes beyond tolerance.55

the second aim of dialogue as deconstruction is to create a distance from cumulative notions of learning—seeing teaching and learning as provisional acts. Provisionality has been argued in several ways in this paper, and is supported by a trust that learning requires unlearning and can take place amidst uncertainty. rishma dunlop argues for learning as a provisional act reminding us that “the extent of our understanding depends on our willingness to suspend and chal-lenge the language knowledge to which we have access.”56 Provisionality opens for us the possibility of dispensing with dualities, with false choices, opting rather for the multiplicity of a deleuzian dialogue that offers—in somewhat humorous terms—“either/or, or, or.”

dialogue as deconstruction aims also at dissensus. as a notion, a space, and a place for musical practice, dissensus can be understood through the examples




of mis-listening as a constructive and creative opportunity. While contestation has a hard and often lonely track, and in times of standardization can be quite challenging, today’s experience is awash with new vehicles for music-making, sharing, and interacting are becoming widely available, bringing with them new needs, challenges, and the creation of alternative spaces for an education in and through music. Such new spaces will continue to present challenges to the his-torical effectiveness of music education in developing individuals who are apt “manipulators of duty,” prizing recognition and precision over innovation. mani-fested clearly in our practiced duty toward the oeuvre,57 many ensemble partici-pants arguably hear merely what the manipulation of the work requires or the director demands. as many second and third chairs know, little to no space exists for interpretative capacities or a “far reaching.” consequently and unfortunately listening inside ensembles is often both necessary and inconsequential. my pre-cision, my listening, identifies me and subsumes me into the group, framing learning as the actions participants take toward properly assuming their designate and effective function.58 the resilience of these models serve as an invitation for educators to address learning as a practice of social justice; to focus on generative thinking and not simply on content; to facilitate musical interaction based on in-novation rather than on simple or directed consensus; and to attend to personal growth that leads to variance and not just identification.

dialogue as deconstruction, in sum, is a practice of decoding. it does not simply imply disassembling or deciphering, but suggests “that a code has been detached from a milieu and made available for alternative use.”59 to see possibil-ity in deterritorialization, positive conflict, and provisionality is to create small detachments from familiar as well as uncomfortable milieus. how do we dia-logue through our fears? We create alternative uses for our notions and assump-tions. how do we engage in a pedagogy of mis-listening? We aim at difference rather than resolution.

concluSion

deleuze and Guattari suggest that philosophy’s role is to create new concepts. the notion of dialogue as a philosophical enterprise sponsored in this article ad-heres to this position. conceptually, the hope is that dialogue as deconstruction might aid us to think education not anew, but again, pragmatically unfreezing some of the strong rituals that populate school music pedagogy.

mis-listening is concerned with self development and the ways musical pa-rameters can be made to speak to the individual and become elements in creative growth. Just as tia deNora points out, mis-listening highlights the importance of “introjection,” inviting us to more closely observe the “presentation of self to self” and pedagogically and carefully challenge “[one’s] ability to mobilize and




hold on to a coherent image of ‘who one knows one is.’”60 i am interested in how dialogue and pedagogical mis-listening can focus individuals toward the act of constructing musical selves which would bypass a concern for music as a thing, a task, or a master, highlighting the “cultivation of self-accountable imageries” of musical ideas. Bryce merrill argues that “listening to music can encourage individuals to narratively construct memories, which may evoke not only ideal-ized notions of the past but also images of present and future selves.”61 thus mis-listening is also a work of “remembering,” that is, of placing new sonic interac-tions between commonly assumed “factual” musical elements. this is what gives me permission to be, to “remember” musical parameters “wrong” and therefore focus music production in terms of creative growth, rather than upon precision and correctness.

How did you think of doing that?, the question that generated the initial vignette in this article, incites us toward the multiplicity of context, structure, practice, and content in any musical praxis, while it also reminds us of the mul-titude we are at any learning moment: our psychological, embodied, cultural, oppressed and oppressor, rational, raced, gendered, or political selves. Further, in its simple representation of a larger complexity, the question above thrusts us to consider that to allow or sustain impoverished notions of dialogue is to condone the impoverishment of our own condition as human beings.62

Fundamentally, dialogic approaches return to the simple stance that “the active nature of student’s participation in the learning process must be stressed” helping students to be “able to challenge, engage, and question the form and substance of the learning process.”63 While such readings foster voice and partici-pation, they often leave aside concerns with the provisional, the importance of conflict, or how plurality can and often does reinforce otherness in contemporary society. Such considerations are the propelling reason why this article adopts a near cessation of differentiation between music education and education in gen-eral. Our singularity, i posit, is better addressed and more broadly understood, if articulated within a larger educational multiplicity. to me this seems increas-ingly clear, for when one’s concerns rest with issues of social justice, race, gender, economics, or even pedagogical and dialogical practices, it is considerably harder to think music “alone,”64 than when focusing upon didactics, program advocacy, or pitch accuracy.65

in Pragmatism and Social Hope, Judith Green argues for a participative de-mocracy that “though it does require competent, energetic, democracy-minded individuals who expect to exercise influence,” it also necessitates “valued com-munities of struggle that can stimulate and support the individual.”66 Both the notion of exercising influence as well as of a community of struggle are markers of what i have called positive conflict. it is so that the call for dialogue as de-




construction oddly brings us to dewey, as it follows the quest for the valuing of educational enterprises that attend to large ends, rather than to “ends-in-view.” in those terms, dialogue brings to our attention that “any action or choice that suc-ceeds in achieving a particular end always also has a host of other effects (some predictable, some not) in the complex network of social contingencies that sur-round every human event.”67 in the end dialogue alerts us to the potenza of our interactions; the power-to-create that reminds us of the connections and ramifi-cations that we always miss, that inevitably overwhelm us, but that nevertheless remain, alive, waiting for us.

coDaDialogue has been a chasing whirlwind. The constant element that travails but indefatigably returns, Amorphous always, Still manyAnd irremediably changed.

noteS1Judith Butler, “imitation and Gender insubordination.” inside/Out. Ed. diana Fuss

(New York: routledge, 1991), 21. 2richard rorty, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity ( cambridge: cambridge Univer-

sity Press, 1989), 43.3Simon critchley, Politics-Subjectivity: Essays of Derrida, Levinas, and Contemporary

French Thought (New York/London: Verso, 1999), 7. 4the idea of deconstruction will be later expanded, but is marked in this text by bring-

ing together provisionality, conflict, and multiplicity. deconstruction is first addressed by heidegger, but most famously interpreted by derrida. its usual conflation with destruction is a common misunderstanding, or at least a partial view of the concept. most important here is the understanding of deconstruction as a position or an attitude. deconstruction as a process argues that there is always something “outside” our actions or “outside” the text. in other words, we cannot avoid the fact that in any attempt to express ourselves we leave things out; we create silences. See Jacques derrida, “deconstruction in a Nutshell: a conversation with Jacques derrida,” ed. John d. caputo (New York: Fordham Univer-sity Press, 1997).

5i borrow this idea from deleuze, who explores potenza as a form of power. this is based upon the work of Spinoza. For details see Gilles deleuze, Spinoza: Practical Phi-losophy (San Francisco, ca: city Light Books, 1988). Negri also articulates the Spinozian potenza, but closer in meaning to the French puissance. that is, power which is seen as fluid, dynamic or constitutive and its form. See a. Negri, Time for Revolution (New York: continuum, 2003).

6i structured this text hoping it would do three things: present an attitude or stance to-ward a vision of dialogue, clarify or bring forth existing silences, and lastly, recognize other silences created by the text itself. regarding the latter, terry Eagleton articulates that “a




work is tied to ideology as much for what it says as by what it does not say” (p. 143). See terry Eagleton, Marxism and Literary Criticism (Berkeley: University of california Press, 1976).

7this segment does not intent to determine a teleology of progress or development, but to highlight the silences in argumentations over dialogue.

8it is important to articulate that this article stands upon postmodern dispositions and assumptions, and makes use of poststructuralist arguments. a number of terms are therefore used, which might not be familiar and seen as jargon. their absence, nev-ertheless, would crucially hamper the argument attempted and their full explanation would necessitate a much greater space than available. the text then is meant as an entry point, as a conglomerate of propositions that maintain a certain cohesiveness, rather than a “complete” text which aims at an authoritative resolution on the subject of dialogue.

9i extend this issue elsewhere; see Patrick Schmidt, “Ethics or choosing complex-ity in music Education,” in Action, Theory and Criticism in Music Education, in press (2010).

10See also Schmidt, “reinventing from Within: thinking Spherically as a Policy im-perative in music Education,” Arts Education Policy Review 110, no. 3 (2009).

11See Zygmunt Bauman, Does Ethics Have a Chance in a World of Consumers? (cam-bridge: harvard University Press, 2008).

12James Banks, Diversity and Citizenship Education (San Francisco, ca: Jossey-Bass, 2004).

13From John dewey, Democracy and Education (New York: macmillan, 1916). to a. Gutmann and d. thompson, Why Deliberative Democracy? (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004).

14W. althof and m. Berkowitz, “moral Education and character Education: their relationship and roles of citizenship Education,” Journal of Moral Education 35 (2006): 495–518; martha Nussbaum, Sex and Social Justice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).

15michael apple, “interrupting the right: On doing critical Educational Work in conservative times,” in Education Research in the Public Interest: Social Justice, Action, and Policy, ed. Gloria Ladson-Billings and William F. tate (New York: teachers college Press, 2006); henry Giroux, Teachers as Intellectuals: Toward a Critical Pedagogy of Learn-ing (New York, NY: Bergin and Garvey, 1988); maxine Greene, Releasing the Imagination (New York: teachers college Press, 1992).

16k. covell and r. howe, “moral Education through the 3 rs: rights, respect and responsibility,” Journal of Moral Education 30 (2001).

17L. Schulz, d. Barr, and r. Selman, “the Value of a developmental approach to Evaluating character development Programs: an Outcome Study of Facing history and Ourselves,” Journal of Moral Education 30 (2001).

18J. Schuitema, G. ten dam, and W. Veugelers, “teaching Strategies for moral Educa-tion: a review,” Journal of Curriculum Studies 40 (2008).

19despite the problematics involved in it, i am here conflating positive and constitu-tive characterization of conflict in dialogue.



patrick schmidt 21

20See J. S. coleman, “Social capital in the creation of human capital,” America Journal of Sociology 94 (1988): 95–120.

21i use the term violence less in the physical sense—although the somatic experiences of violence in school are certainly present—giving emphasis to what Bourdieu calls sym-bolic violence. See Pierre Bourdieu, “cultural reproduction and Social reproduction,” in Power and Ideology in Education, ed. J. karabel and a. halsey (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977).

22Nicholas Burbules, “the Limits of dialogue as a critical Pedagogy,” in Revolution-ary Pedagogies: Cultural Politics, Instituting Education, and the Discourse of Theory, ed. Péricles trifonas (New York: routledge, 2000), 252.

23ibid., 253.24See Nel Noddings, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education

(Berkley, ca: University of california Press, 2003).25Burbules, “the Limits of dialogue as a critical Pedagogy,” 254.26ibid., 254.27david Bohm, On Dialogue, vol. 1996 (New York: routledge, 1996).28Paul de man, “dialogue and dialogism,” Poetics Today 4, no. 1 (1983): 99–107.29Emmanuel Levinas, Entre Nous: On Thinking-of-the-Other (New York: columbia

University Press, 1998).30Before we look at dialogue as deconstruction, we must articulate a few crucial prob-

lematics of the dialectic standpoint—central to several of the examples here. a dialectic view of dialogue could be argued to work under the assumption and necessity of synthesis. One can find the need for synthesis in a myriad forms, from the aristotelic notion of right action to the habermasian project of communicative speech.

31See m. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination, ed. michael holquist, trans. caryl Em-erson and michael holquist (austin: University of texas, 1981); de man, “dialogue and dialogism.”.

32We see this constantly in the classroom as, unfortunately, teachers dismiss students comments or questions, or when their creative work is seen as a by-product or something that “missed the point of the assignment.”

33Similarly, see the notions of “rhizome” in Gilles deleuze and Felix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus (minneapolis and London: University of minnesota Press, 1987).

34conflict is what deleuze and Guattari, in A Thousand Plateaus, call the machine at work. it suggests that we are not a whole, but a joining of many parts, that we are one massive articulation.

35Frank Farmer, “Voice reprised: three Etudes for a dialogic Understanding,” Rheto-ric Review 13, no. 2 (1995), 307.

36See deborah Britzman, Lost Subjects, Contested Objects: Toward a Psychoanalytic Inquiry of Learning (albany, NY: State University Of New York Press, 1998). the work of ilya Prigogine proposes that contrary to the natural science notion that things move toward equilibrium (a notion manifested in sociology as well through the famous work of durkheim, for example), for organisms, and thus individuals, the further they stray from




equilibrium the more complex and diverse they become or as he puts it, order “floats in disorder.” the interaction and understanding of relations in the social world through dis-sensus could thus find its affinity with dialogue that is understood also as non-conflating or non-consensual (contrary to the habermasian view). See ilya Prigogine, The End of Certainty (New York: the Free Press, 1997).

37See Jacques ranciére, Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics (London: continuum, 2010), 54.

38Jodi Norton, “Guerrila Pedagogy: conflicting authority and interpretation in the classroom,” College Literature 21, no. 3 (1994): 141.

39the tracing of a word demonstrating it to be under erasure is a device used by der-rida to trouble the word and demonstrate to the reader that the author is both aware of the problems and limitations the term carries, however he feels the word is still necessary for the articulation of a discourse. See Jacques derrida, Negotiations: Interventions and Inter-views, trans. Elizabeth rottenberg (Stanford, ca: Stanford University Press, 2002).

40Paul Louth in a paper presented at the 2010 iSPmE conference argues this point similarly saying “the enculturation of students into a dominant set of values associated with structural listening inhibits them from structuring their listening experiences in ways that they otherwise might. more importantly, such enculturation encourages the transfer of dominant structural meanings to musical situations in which they may be inappropriate.” See Paul Louth, “the role of critical Formalism in music Education,” in International Society for the Philosophy of Music Education Conference (helsinki, Fin-land 2010).

41i would argue along with Bruno Nettl that this happens in many ensembles in North american higher education. See Bruno Nettl, Heartland Excursions: Ethnomusicological Reflections on Schools of Music (chicago: University of illinois Press, 1995).

42See cathy Benedict, “Processes of alienation: marx, Orff and kodaly,” British Jour-nal of Music Education 26, no. 2 (2009): 213–224.

43See martin Stokes, “music and the Global Order,” Annual Review of Anthropology 33 (2004): 54.

44as michael Foucault’s work suggests, normalcy determines as well as creates deviance.

45christopher Small addresses the impact of listening in the concert hall and the im-port of fundamental ways to perceiving music. See christopher Small, Musiking (New York: Oxford, 1999).

46andrew Leyshon, david matless, and George revill, “a Place of music,” Transations of the Institute of British Geographers 20, no. 4 (1995): 425.

47in some aspects it garners similarity to the constructive ways in which Jacques attali articulates “composition.”

48as Eric Shieh graciously noted when commenting on a draft of this article, this ability to hear wrong is a project of naming power and the struggle to recognize what a colonized ear looks like and the spaces still available for multiple meanings.

49Bryce merrill, “music to remember me By: technologies of memory in home recording,” Symbolic Interactions 33, no. 3 (2010): 458.



patrick schmidt 23

50See martin Stokes, “music and the Global Order,” Annual Review of Anthropology 33 (2004): 47–72: 64.

51See music as a Natural resource. compendium developed in partnership with the United Nations, edited by Barbara hesser, harry heineman, cathy Benedict, and Patrick Schmidt. retrieved from http://www.unpan.org/regions/Global/directories/resources/tabid/456/itemid/1836/language/en-US/default.aspx.

52Elizabeth Gould, “music Education desire(ing): Language, Literacy, and Lieder” (paper presented at the Philosophy of music Education conference, London, Ontario, canada, 2007).

53rosi Braidotti, Nomadic Subjects: Embodiment and Sexual Difference in Contempo-rary Feminist Theory (New York: columbia University Press, 1994), 36.

54See rorty, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, 35.55Elizabeth Ellsworth, Teaching Positions: Difference, Pedagogy and the Power of Ad-

dress (New York: teachers college Press, 1998).56rishma dunlop, “Beyond dualism: toward a dialogic Negotiation of difference,”

Canadian Journal of Education 24, no. 1 (1999): 62.57i developed this issue elsewhere making a distinction between music education as

performance—based upon aesthetic norms, that is, based upon a priori; and music educa-tion as a performative—understood as collective engagements that are dependent upon communicative interaction. See P. Schmidt and c. Benedict, “Politics of Not knowing: the disappearing act of an Education in music.” Journal of Curriculum Theorizing 27, no. 3 (2011): 134–48. Jerome Brunner in The Culture of Education (harvard University Press, 1996) also presents a more complex understanding of oeuvre, exactly attempting to rescue its potential.

58these are decisions made a priori, without consultation or participation. dialogue that is consensus-based has as one of its major silences the rejection of difference, often dismissing that “institutionalized rejection of difference is an absolute necessity in a profit economy, which needs outsiders as surplus people.” a milieu of dissidence may aid us to reconcile with the idea that, “as members of such an economy, we have all been programmed to respond to the human differences between us with fear and loathing.” See a. appadurai, “disjuncture and difference in the Global Economy,” in Global Cul-ture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity, ed. m. Featherstone (London: Sage, 1990).

59ian Buchanan, “deleuze and music,” in Deleuze and Music, ed. ian Buchanan and marcel Swiboda (Edinburgh Edinburgh University Press, 2004), 11.

60tia denora, Music in Everyday Life (cambridge: cambridge University Press, 2000), 64.

61merrill, “music to remember me By: technologies of memory in home record-ing,” 461.

62mit’s dialogue Project articulates ways in which dialogue is diminished, stressing how common the following characteristics remain: Objectification, or the propensity to see ideas as objects rather than constructs; Independence, or seeing interpretations existing outside or independent of one’s own thinking and participation; Literalness, or the draw-




ing straight corollaries between our perception and fact or reality; Rigidity, or a disregard or inattention to difference; and Violence, or attempts at ‘correcting’ whatever we do not like. While quite didactic, these categories highlight how pervasive single-mindness and exclusionary thinking can be in educational spaces. this is an issue that requires the at-tention of all engaged in teaching and learning.

63henry Giroux, Ideology, Culture, and the Process of Schooling (Philadelphia, Pa: temple University Press, 1981).

64Our tendencies toward advocating for the uniqueness of music education, or music education “alone,” seem quite interestingly tied to arguments for “music alone.” For more see Peter kivy, Music Alone: Philosophical Reflections on the Purely Musical Experience (ithaca: cornell University Press, 1990).

65my intent here is not to dismiss more technical elements of music education prac-tices. For me the issue is how do we bring a complexity that allows the inclusion of techni-cal aspects under larger educational discussions. thus, shifting our historic emphasis of music education as technical-functional instruction.

66See Judith Green, Pragmatism and Social Hope (New York: columbia University Press, 2008), 204. italics in the original.

67Burbules, “Ways of thinking about Educational Quality,” Educational Researcher 33, no. 6 (2004): 7.



what we hear is meaning too: deconstruction, dialogue, and music

Documents