On the Politics of Community Music and Music Therapy: The Same or Different?
Pavlicevic might seem to want to close the discussion, and appeal directly to practice. A surprising move, I would have to say, coming from a representative of those now wanting to redefine the field of music therapy. But Pavlicevic points out that the discursive fields themselves are "hugely political", and of course she is right about this. This is probably a main issue, if not the main issue here. Because what is proposed, is done by people who have considerable defining power within the field, as highly profiled practitioners, educators, authors, journal editors, and researchers, all at the same time. People outside of this "circle of power" within the field might feel disempowered, finding that their own views on the matter have become marginalized. And this is maybe what the "confusion" is about, not only having difficulties in understanding what is said, but also finding it difficult to present one's own point of view, having one's own voice actually heard. The specifically political aspect of making a plea for "fuzzy recognition", proposing a "non-definition", or even presenting an "anti-model" could - critically considered - be seen as applying manipulative argumentative devices for having people with objections effectively "silenced". - Thus considered a matter of politics, in the sense of having to do with distribution of power and conflict of interests, within the discipline itself.[1]
Still I would like to elaborate somewhat more on the important issue of politics, because this is also crucial to the matter of what "community music therapy" is about, and which has been much stressed too. The question for me, particularly, when defining a practice as therapy, which the people receiving it, or even their representatives, do not consider to be so, is this: In who's interest is it to define it this way? - The "client" or the "therapist"? This is not merely a theoretical matter, but certainly a political one. There has been some discussion regarding the health services, as to whether or not the interests of professions are in the best interests of the clients. And concern has been raised as to whether it is in the best interest for all to have the population to an ever larger extent become defined and treated as "clients". One might ask then: Where is "community music therapy" actually placed within this political topic of concern?
Political awareness has been called for by several writers. Even Ruud, for some time now, has propagated the relevance of a political perspective on music therapy (see Ruud 1998). Recently Michel Forinash, in a column here in Voices, sparked off by the US presidential elections, asks a series of very relevant political questions related to the field (Forinash 2004). Randi Rolvsjord has quite recently published an article in NJMT, in which she, on the background of a feminist stance, considers therapy practice itself to be a political discourse (Randi Rolvsjord 2004). What I would like to draw attention to here is a difference between the fields of community music and music therapy, regarding their political implications. Community music has, as Ansdell (2002) makes clear, taken a stance politically to be placed outside of established institutions. In communities, where people live, oftentimes working with people who are disadvantaged. Music therapy on the other hand has been very much concerned with becoming included within established institutions in society. Questions of politics consequently become somewhat different for these two fields of practice.
If the matter is about becoming accepted, then a whole series of issues come up. Like Evidence Based Medicine. And cost-benefit analysis. - And how these might be related. Is a higher score on in a cost benefit analysis what will ensure that music therapy will be offered to patients? That is to say as long as, on the one side, public spending decreases, or, on the other, private profit increases? Is this the development that music therapy should strive for? Music therapy being offered only to the extent that insurance companies, according to established documentation, make more money - or alternatively, that public spending gets reduced. Is this in the long run the sole measure to go by? Or should other measures, other scales of value be set up? Maybe what is needed is rather turning it the other way around, a different politics inside established institutions. Maybe music therapy should raise its political flag as value-based. - Addressing questions of human dignity and care, rather than, merely, cost-efficiency and profit. It might be high time for more politics, both inside and outside of established institutions.
On the other hand the political question is: Why take "therapy" into community? Why turn practices that are outside of the institutions into therapy. Why define the roles between participants as being between "therapist" and "client" in some way. - Explicitly or - if this is at all possible to claim - implicitly. To repeat: In who's interest is it to be defined this way? My question then is as to whether this is, not only theoretically, but also politically sound.
I do want to make it unequivocally clear though, that community music practice, involving music therapists or not, and if involved, making a qualified difference, has my full support. And also bringing therapy "proper" outside the limits of individualized treatment within the confinement of a therapy room, when called for, or as an alternative route of practice altogether. I furthermore want to state that the discussions are bringing out new aspects and potentials of practice, not least though all the examples now being reported. The "discourse" is what I have been addressing, discourse in the sense of people talking together about matters they care about, to increase understanding, to become better prepared to act.
Note
[1] I have to grant though, that this "interpretation" is not necessarily true. It may be difficult and rather challenging to deny, once put forward, but actually even harder to substantiate. I do not really want to claim it. What I do think is that the discussions are very much about politics of discipline, and that this naturally does imply differences of power, and of interest.
Rolvsjord, Randi (2004). Therapy as Empowerment: Clinical and Political Implications of Empowerment Philosophy in Mental Health Practises of Music Therapy. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy vol. 13(2), 99-111.
Ruud, Even (1998). "Pathways to Music Therapy". In Bruscia. Music Therapy: Improvisation, Communication, and Culture. Gilsum, NH: Barcelona Publishers.
On the Politics of Community Music and Music Therapy: The Same or Different?
Pavlicevic might seem to want to close the discussion, and appeal directly to practice. A surprising move, I would have to say, coming from a representative of those now wanting to redefine the field of music therapy. But Pavlicevic points out that the discursive fields themselves are "hugely political", and of course she is right about this. This is probably a main issue, if not the main issue here. Because what is proposed, is done by people who have considerable defining power within the field, as highly profiled practitioners, educators, authors, journal editors, and researchers, all at the same time. People outside of this "circle of power" within the field might feel disempowered, finding that their own views on the matter have become marginalized. And this is maybe what the "confusion" is about, not only having difficulties in understanding what is said, but also finding it difficult to present one's own point of view, having one's own voice actually heard. The specifically political aspect of making a plea for "fuzzy recognition", proposing a "non-definition", or even presenting an "anti-model" could - critically considered - be seen as applying manipulative argumentative devices for having people with objections effectively "silenced". - Thus considered a matter of politics, in the sense of having to do with distribution of power and conflict of interests, within the discipline itself.[1]
Still I would like to elaborate somewhat more on the important issue of politics, because this is also crucial to the matter of what "community music therapy" is about, and which has been much stressed too. The question for me, particularly, when defining a practice as therapy, which the people receiving it, or even their representatives, do not consider to be so, is this: In who's interest is it to define it this way? - The "client" or the "therapist"? This is not merely a theoretical matter, but certainly a political one. There has been some discussion regarding the health services, as to whether or not the interests of professions are in the best interests of the clients. And concern has been raised as to whether it is in the best interest for all to have the population to an ever larger extent become defined and treated as "clients". One might ask then: Where is "community music therapy" actually placed within this political topic of concern?
Political awareness has been called for by several writers. Even Ruud, for some time now, has propagated the relevance of a political perspective on music therapy (see Ruud 1998). Recently Michel Forinash, in a column here in Voices, sparked off by the US presidential elections, asks a series of very relevant political questions related to the field (Forinash 2004). Randi Rolvsjord has quite recently published an article in NJMT, in which she, on the background of a feminist stance, considers therapy practice itself to be a political discourse (Randi Rolvsjord 2004). What I would like to draw attention to here is a difference between the fields of community music and music therapy, regarding their political implications. Community music has, as Ansdell (2002) makes clear, taken a stance politically to be placed outside of established institutions. In communities, where people live, oftentimes working with people who are disadvantaged. Music therapy on the other hand has been very much concerned with becoming included within established institutions in society. Questions of politics consequently become somewhat different for these two fields of practice.
If the matter is about becoming accepted, then a whole series of issues come up. Like Evidence Based Medicine. And cost-benefit analysis. - And how these might be related. Is a higher score on in a cost benefit analysis what will ensure that music therapy will be offered to patients? That is to say as long as, on the one side, public spending decreases, or, on the other, private profit increases? Is this the development that music therapy should strive for? Music therapy being offered only to the extent that insurance companies, according to established documentation, make more money - or alternatively, that public spending gets reduced. Is this in the long run the sole measure to go by? Or should other measures, other scales of value be set up? Maybe what is needed is rather turning it the other way around, a different politics inside established institutions. Maybe music therapy should raise its political flag as value-based. - Addressing questions of human dignity and care, rather than, merely, cost-efficiency and profit. It might be high time for more politics, both inside and outside of established institutions.
On the other hand the political question is: Why take "therapy" into community? Why turn practices that are outside of the institutions into therapy. Why define the roles between participants as being between "therapist" and "client" in some way. - Explicitly or - if this is at all possible to claim - implicitly. To repeat: In who's interest is it to be defined this way? My question then is as to whether this is, not only theoretically, but also politically sound.
I do want to make it unequivocally clear though, that community music practice, involving music therapists or not, and if involved, making a qualified difference, has my full support. And also bringing therapy "proper" outside the limits of individualized treatment within the confinement of a therapy room, when called for, or as an alternative route of practice altogether. I furthermore want to state that the discussions are bringing out new aspects and potentials of practice, not least though all the examples now being reported. The "discourse" is what I have been addressing, discourse in the sense of people talking together about matters they care about, to increase understanding, to become better prepared to act.
Note
[1] I have to grant though, that this "interpretation" is not necessarily true. It may be difficult and rather challenging to deny, once put forward, but actually even harder to substantiate. I do not really want to claim it. What I do think is that the discussions are very much about politics of discipline, and that this naturally does imply differences of power, and of interest.
References
Ansdell, Gary (2002). Community Music Therapy & The Winds of Change. [online] Voices: A World Forum for Music Therapy. Retrieved February 10, 2004, from https://normt.uib.no/index.php/voices/article/view/83/65
Forinash, Michel (2004). Music Therapy and Politics- Do They Mix? [online] Voices: A World Forum for Music Therapy. Retrieved February 10, 2004, from http://voices.no/?q=fortnightly-columns/2004-music-therapy-and-politics-...
Rolvsjord, Randi (2004). Therapy as Empowerment: Clinical and Political Implications of Empowerment Philosophy in Mental Health Practises of Music Therapy. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy vol. 13(2), 99-111.
Ruud, Even (1998). "Pathways to Music Therapy". In Bruscia. Music Therapy: Improvisation, Communication, and Culture. Gilsum, NH: Barcelona Publishers.