Fusing (or Confusing?) the Terms "Music Therapy" and "Community Music": A Plea for Clarification
A new round of discussion has come up recently, on the concept of "community music therapy", and what this means and does not mean, and how it can, and cannot be defined.
The issue seems rather confusing, and this in itself, apparently, is how it is supposed to be, according to the proponents of this allegedly "new" point of view. A "fuzzy recognition" rather than "final definition" is required, according to Ansdell (2004).
Poor Wittgenstein
Reference is made, once again, to Wittgenstein, who was concerned about the limitations of too exact definitions. Wittgenstein, of course, started out trying to sort out once and for all what could be said about the world, and what could not be said, and what one therefore had to be silent about, in his famous Tractatus Logicus. Giving up on this exalted task, and turning towards meaning in language as found in the manifold ways it was actually used, what Wittgenstein most of all wanted to avoid, after all, was confusion. His obsession with language was all the time geared in that one direction, of trying not to get entangled in the myriad problems and questions that confused language caused, in so many philosophical debates. I do not think Wittgenstein, pointing out that it sometimes is not possible to get clear cut definitions of all terms - in a clear opposition to views on the status and usefulness of definitions within logical positivism - should be taken as giving a licence to create confusion by mixing terms in various more or less congruent ways.
Confusion is hardly some kind of desirable or particularly interesting state in itself, like wandering around in a thick fog, (in which you might get lost); though at times it may be inevitable. Being confused is rather something you would want to get out of. And certainly if someone complains about being confused, or that something said seems confusing, this is not in itself a reason for reproach. In a debate claiming confusion as the "right thing", and being on "your side", if someone should have difficulties comprehending what you have just said. well, I don't think Wittgenstein is the one to put on the stand as a witness here, for support.
A Systemic Approach
In attempts to clarify, Ruud (2004a, 2004b) has presented some possible objections to the term Community Music Therapy (Ruud has written a more elaborate account in the Norwegian journal Musikkterapi 4, 2004), and proposes to regard this kind of practice as systemic. Responding to this Ansdell also recognizes this as a crucial feature. Systemic therapy, of course, is not something new, it has been used for instance as an approach in which the whole family of the client is actively involved in the therapeutic process. Music therapy though, offers some interesting features regarding systemic therapeutic work, not the least the aspect of performance, as Ruud underscores. Performance makes possible relating the client actively to an even wider setting. In other words, the performance aspect of musicking may offer some rather unique opportunities for a systemic approach to therapy. Without considering this as a "final" definition, it clearly points to a practice of music therapy. And quite seriously, why not just call it this: Music therapy? Whether it be systemic or some other approach.
Not getting too engrossed in defining may be a sound advice, and not expecting too much from making definitions likewise. But is not the issue of debate here precisely this, a defining or "redefining" as Stige (2002, 2004) has put it, of music therapy? I mean, who started it? "Community Music Therapy" proposed as a new term, within a new definition of the field of music therapy as a whole. Is not this maybe why people become concerned and engaged (or upset even), because definitions after all contribute to establish identity? Not only for oneself, but also towards others, as Ruud appropriately reminds of.
A "Hidden" Therapy
Here Stige's distinctions between the levels of practice, discipline and profession may serve a purpose. Is the practice of a professional music therapist, having studied the discipline of music therapy, necessarily music therapy? This depends on the setting. The question is: Does a music therapist, as a trained professional, working within a "community" of some sort, thereby practice music therapy? Clearly not. There has to be some kind of contract between those involved about this being therapy for it to be therapy. And here I am not talking about an essentialist definition, but of daily usage. If the people involved do not consider that they need, or want, or that they are receiving, or paying, for music therapy, how can you actually argue that this is what they are getting? Or is the brand of "community music therapy" something different? - Therapy in a sense beyond daily usage, which people as yet do not themselves realize? And nor society at large.
Distinguishing Between Community Music and Music Therapy
As Jane Edwards (2002) points out, there is already an established practice and a discipline, with training programs for professionalisation, of Community Music. The dimension of community is nevertheless also present within in music therapy, and has clearly been all along. Edwards still wants to keep the terms music therapy and community music apart, and I agree. Why mix these two? What is actually some kind of "community therapy" - music or otherwise? Is this at all a meaningful term? (- And please, do not say that being "meaningful" here is really not what should be required.) A music therapist may work in a community setting, but this does not by itself make it some kind of "community therapy". - Maybe not even "therapeutic community music". But if it is not therapy, in any generally recognized way, ("fuzzy" recognition left aside), does this make it less valuable? I think not. Could not a trained music therapist work in a community music setting, doing a great job at just this, and not "define" it as therapy, whether or not anyone else actually would agree with this?
Multiple Approaches
In other settings of practice the contract by which the music therapist works may naturally imply that it is therapy. Stige (2004) holds that a main characteristic of what (of late) has been termed community music therapy is that it is music centered, which also Ruud emphasizes. Ansdell poses an opposition to the "consensus model", which is psychodynamically oriented music therapy. It seems the terms used are really covering that old schism of psychodynamic versus music centered therapy. Why not just accept that one will not be subsumed within the other? From both sides. Not claiming "exclusive rights" to therapy from neither a psychodynamic, nor a music centered position. These different approaches will have different assets and qualities to offer, as therapy. The challenge, I believe, is to embrace multiple approaches to music therapy, not attempting to give new, all embracing essentialist definitions or redefinitions, designed to include or exclude one or the other, or trying to establish hegemony of one at the expense of others.
Developing a Conception of Therapy
Still each will have to develop its own conception of therapy, and if psychodynamic therapy has a tradition to build upon, music centered approaches still have a way to go to establish their own frame of reference. Not so much definitions as a conception, a theory of therapy is needed, for a music centered approach, within a systemic oriented practice, following Ruud's suggestion, and which I think is actually to quite some extent missing. I think it would be better to start focusing directly on this - a "missing link" in the pattern which connects, if you like, to enhance the understanding and further the development of these kinds of music therapy practice.
References
Ansdell , Gary (2005). Community Music Therapy: A Plea For "Fuzzy Recognition" Instead sof "Final Definition". [online] Voices: A World Forum for Music Therapy. Retrieved January 13, 2005, from http://www.voices.no/discussions/discm4_07.html
Edwards, Jane (2002). Debating the Winds of Change in Community Music Therapy - #2. [online] Voices: A World Forum for Music Therapy. Retrieved September 15, 2004, from http://www.voices.no/discussions/discm4_02.html
Ruud, Even (2004b). Defining Community Music Therapy II. [online] Voices: A World Forum for Music Therapy. Retrieved January 3 12, 2005, from http://www.voices.no/discussions/discm4_06.html
Stige, Brynjulf (2002). Culture-Centered Music Therapy. Gilsum, NH: Barcelona Publishers.
Stige, Brynjulf (2003). Elaborations toward a Notion of Community Music Therapy. Faculty of Arts: University of Oslo.
Stige, Brynjulf (2004) On Defining Community Music Therapy. [online] Voices: A World Forum for Music Therapy. Retrieved January 3 12, 2005, from http://www.voices.no/discussions/discm4_05.html
Fusing (or Confusing?) the Terms "Music Therapy" and "Community Music": A Plea for Clarification
A new round of discussion has come up recently, on the concept of "community music therapy", and what this means and does not mean, and how it can, and cannot be defined.
The issue seems rather confusing, and this in itself, apparently, is how it is supposed to be, according to the proponents of this allegedly "new" point of view. A "fuzzy recognition" rather than "final definition" is required, according to Ansdell (2004).
Poor Wittgenstein
Reference is made, once again, to Wittgenstein, who was concerned about the limitations of too exact definitions. Wittgenstein, of course, started out trying to sort out once and for all what could be said about the world, and what could not be said, and what one therefore had to be silent about, in his famous Tractatus Logicus. Giving up on this exalted task, and turning towards meaning in language as found in the manifold ways it was actually used, what Wittgenstein most of all wanted to avoid, after all, was confusion. His obsession with language was all the time geared in that one direction, of trying not to get entangled in the myriad problems and questions that confused language caused, in so many philosophical debates. I do not think Wittgenstein, pointing out that it sometimes is not possible to get clear cut definitions of all terms - in a clear opposition to views on the status and usefulness of definitions within logical positivism - should be taken as giving a licence to create confusion by mixing terms in various more or less congruent ways.
Confusion is hardly some kind of desirable or particularly interesting state in itself, like wandering around in a thick fog, (in which you might get lost); though at times it may be inevitable. Being confused is rather something you would want to get out of. And certainly if someone complains about being confused, or that something said seems confusing, this is not in itself a reason for reproach. In a debate claiming confusion as the "right thing", and being on "your side", if someone should have difficulties comprehending what you have just said. well, I don't think Wittgenstein is the one to put on the stand as a witness here, for support.
A Systemic Approach
In attempts to clarify, Ruud (2004a, 2004b) has presented some possible objections to the term Community Music Therapy (Ruud has written a more elaborate account in the Norwegian journal Musikkterapi 4, 2004), and proposes to regard this kind of practice as systemic. Responding to this Ansdell also recognizes this as a crucial feature. Systemic therapy, of course, is not something new, it has been used for instance as an approach in which the whole family of the client is actively involved in the therapeutic process. Music therapy though, offers some interesting features regarding systemic therapeutic work, not the least the aspect of performance, as Ruud underscores. Performance makes possible relating the client actively to an even wider setting. In other words, the performance aspect of musicking may offer some rather unique opportunities for a systemic approach to therapy. Without considering this as a "final" definition, it clearly points to a practice of music therapy. And quite seriously, why not just call it this: Music therapy? Whether it be systemic or some other approach.
Not getting too engrossed in defining may be a sound advice, and not expecting too much from making definitions likewise. But is not the issue of debate here precisely this, a defining or "redefining" as Stige (2002, 2004) has put it, of music therapy? I mean, who started it? "Community Music Therapy" proposed as a new term, within a new definition of the field of music therapy as a whole. Is not this maybe why people become concerned and engaged (or upset even), because definitions after all contribute to establish identity? Not only for oneself, but also towards others, as Ruud appropriately reminds of.
A "Hidden" Therapy
Here Stige's distinctions between the levels of practice, discipline and profession may serve a purpose. Is the practice of a professional music therapist, having studied the discipline of music therapy, necessarily music therapy? This depends on the setting. The question is: Does a music therapist, as a trained professional, working within a "community" of some sort, thereby practice music therapy? Clearly not. There has to be some kind of contract between those involved about this being therapy for it to be therapy. And here I am not talking about an essentialist definition, but of daily usage. If the people involved do not consider that they need, or want, or that they are receiving, or paying, for music therapy, how can you actually argue that this is what they are getting? Or is the brand of "community music therapy" something different? - Therapy in a sense beyond daily usage, which people as yet do not themselves realize? And nor society at large.
Distinguishing Between Community Music and Music Therapy
As Jane Edwards (2002) points out, there is already an established practice and a discipline, with training programs for professionalisation, of Community Music. The dimension of community is nevertheless also present within in music therapy, and has clearly been all along. Edwards still wants to keep the terms music therapy and community music apart, and I agree. Why mix these two? What is actually some kind of "community therapy" - music or otherwise? Is this at all a meaningful term? (- And please, do not say that being "meaningful" here is really not what should be required.) A music therapist may work in a community setting, but this does not by itself make it some kind of "community therapy". - Maybe not even "therapeutic community music". But if it is not therapy, in any generally recognized way, ("fuzzy" recognition left aside), does this make it less valuable? I think not. Could not a trained music therapist work in a community music setting, doing a great job at just this, and not "define" it as therapy, whether or not anyone else actually would agree with this?
Multiple Approaches
In other settings of practice the contract by which the music therapist works may naturally imply that it is therapy. Stige (2004) holds that a main characteristic of what (of late) has been termed community music therapy is that it is music centered, which also Ruud emphasizes. Ansdell poses an opposition to the "consensus model", which is psychodynamically oriented music therapy. It seems the terms used are really covering that old schism of psychodynamic versus music centered therapy. Why not just accept that one will not be subsumed within the other? From both sides. Not claiming "exclusive rights" to therapy from neither a psychodynamic, nor a music centered position. These different approaches will have different assets and qualities to offer, as therapy. The challenge, I believe, is to embrace multiple approaches to music therapy, not attempting to give new, all embracing essentialist definitions or redefinitions, designed to include or exclude one or the other, or trying to establish hegemony of one at the expense of others.
Developing a Conception of Therapy
Still each will have to develop its own conception of therapy, and if psychodynamic therapy has a tradition to build upon, music centered approaches still have a way to go to establish their own frame of reference. Not so much definitions as a conception, a theory of therapy is needed, for a music centered approach, within a systemic oriented practice, following Ruud's suggestion, and which I think is actually to quite some extent missing. I think it would be better to start focusing directly on this - a "missing link" in the pattern which connects, if you like, to enhance the understanding and further the development of these kinds of music therapy practice.
References
Ansdell , Gary (2005). Community Music Therapy: A Plea For "Fuzzy Recognition" Instead sof "Final Definition". [online] Voices: A World Forum for Music Therapy. Retrieved January 13, 2005, from http://www.voices.no/discussions/discm4_07.html
Edwards, Jane (2002). Debating the Winds of Change in Community Music Therapy - #2. [online] Voices: A World Forum for Music Therapy. Retrieved September 15, 2004, from http://www.voices.no/discussions/discm4_02.html
Ruud, Even (2004a). Defining Community Music Therapy. [online] Voices: A World Forum for Music Therapy. Retrieved December 12, 2004, from http://www.voices.no/discussions/discm4_04.html
Ruud, Even (2004b). Defining Community Music Therapy II. [online] Voices: A World Forum for Music Therapy. Retrieved January 3 12, 2005, from http://www.voices.no/discussions/discm4_06.html
Stige, Brynjulf (2002). Culture-Centered Music Therapy. Gilsum, NH: Barcelona Publishers.
Stige, Brynjulf (2003). Elaborations toward a Notion of Community Music Therapy. Faculty of Arts: University of Oslo.
Stige, Brynjulf (2004) On Defining Community Music Therapy. [online] Voices: A World Forum for Music Therapy. Retrieved January 3 12, 2005, from http://www.voices.no/discussions/discm4_05.html