We do need some notion of what music is, to account for its role in therapy. Reply to Carolyn Kenny
I appreciate Carolyn Kenny's response to my essay "On the Ontology of Music in Music Therapy". First of all let me admit that I was a bit apprehensive about publishing the text, because it is an integral part of my current work on a PhD thesis. Therefore it would necessarily have to be stripped of parts that I really wanted to include, but which the format of essay would not allow me to put in. Kenny's comments and questions present an opportunity to address some of these quite briefly here.
The final, and rather challenging question posed, to take this first, whether we need an "ontology" I think needs to be answered with an affirmative yes, but not to remain 'philosophically correct'. Ontology is about what we consider the nature of reality to be. And our notion of what music is, has bearings on how we may account for how it works, which is what I was trying to address in the essay. The point is that we do have a notion about what the reality of music in therapy is, whether we are reflectively conscious of it or not. Philosophical analysis may help to make more explicit our presuppositions about music and how it works in therapy. I would like to cite from the chapter "Why Philosophy?" from The Field of Play (Kenny 1989) to bring out my point here: "If theory serves as a foundation for practice, philosophy serves as a foundation for theory (p.46)". This sums it up very succinctly, I believe.
Though there seems to be a basic accord of music therapy theory, between Carolyn Kenny and myself, we do use different terms. Let me say something more about why I use the word 'dialogue'. It is precisely because I think it is applicable across the two spheres of the interpersonal and the musical. I think it is a real challenge for music therapy theory to sort out, to distinguish between the part music plays, as music, and the interpersonal aspect of music therapy, and furthermore how these are related. I have chosen to use the term dialogue, based on Martin Buber's original conception in the book I and Thou, to try to achieve some kind of focus in developing these rather complex issues in current music therapy discourse. A particularly tricky and recurring theme is the difference and interconnection between the verbal and musical in music therapy. I find that 'dialogue' as a foundational concept within and between these modalities allows new ways of viewing these matters. This at least is a theoretical hypothesis, which as mentioned, I am in the midst of trying to work out.
The triangle as it is set up serves the purpose of relating the two aspects of the musical and the interpersonal to each other, by interconnecting the three sides of client, therapist and music. This is merely a graphic illustrative devise for the argument presented, and should not be taken as a 'model' in any strict sense. I am glad to have to opportunity of pointing this out here. There is always the danger of reading too much into such a figure, resulting in a restriction rather than a broadening of thought. And the limitation of such an illustrative device as a triangle is that the process orientation is not initially apparent, as Kenny quite rightly points out. Therefore a clear qualification is needed, because the triangle just shows interrelations, but not the direction, where it is all heading. Music therapy is not about making musical art. In making art the focus is in making the work into a whole, whereas in therapy the focus is the rather making the client whole. This may not be read out of such a triangle, which only indicates various interrelations between three sides. The aim is not shown, which is the benefit of the client.
I am glad that Kenny, though she does not initially find this within the triangle, still senses an overall process orientation. Let me then just state my priorities that if such an illustrative device as a triangle should obscure such an orientation I would readily dispose of it. I still, for now at least, hold on to the perspective of these three interrelated sides, to bring out what I believe to be some crucial aspects of music therapy process. I do not think that music in the last resort is "already within each person" as Kenny puts it, whatever this really means. I think music may be considered a reality that may be related to creatively in the making of it, and in finding meaning in it. It is an encountered present reality that is not reduced to, or simply confined within the space between people. Music is not just "interplay" - it is something more. And this does not imply that it is a separate entity. A dialogical perspective as I see it, points to dynamic interrelations rather than fixed entities. It is not about establishing separate entities, one working on the other, but about mutualities between the different sides, not reducing one in favour of another. If music here was nothing more than "interplay" between persons, it was really nothing that could be related to on its own terms, either creatively or aesthetically. I want to argue for a relative autonomy of music in creative music therapy. And I suspect that something about what is unique in music therapy is to be found here: in the role of music, as music, in therapy.
I find it hard to see how a music therapist does not mediate how music may serve in the therapeutic process of the client, as Kenny suggests, even putting the term "therapist" in brackets, and stating that the therapist is "merely one of the conditions within the space of the encounter". I believe the particular role of the therapist has to be recognized. I will follow Buber here, who uses the term 'inclusion' to indicate what the role of the therapist entails. This implies that the music therapist has to take into consideration what the significance of the musical experience may be for the client. The client does not have this kind of responsibility towards the therapist, lest the relation ceased to be a therapeutic one. This is simply what creative music therapy is about, as I see it. Thus I find Kenny's statement: "This condition of the therapist, perhaps, does put some more responsibility on the therapist to "place difference" in the form of new tonalities, rhythms, textures, dynamics into the musical space." a bit too weak in the insertion of the word "perhaps" about the therapist having more responsibility. I think the responsibility of the therapist, also in relation to the music, is inevitable.
Kenny has an interesting note on considering the institutional setting as one condition within the Field of Play, which could be introduced to account for the paradox, as she terms it, of the creative process being the product in music therapy. This would serve to indicate a projected outcome of the inherently ambiguous creative process. I think this is an exciting train of thought, incorporating the conditions of the setting within the field as a whole, and I agree that it is necessary to develop more complex theory as an alternative to a strictly positivistic frame of mind, to capture expected "outcome" of music therapy process. This of course should furthermore be closely connected to various ways of documentation of music therapy practice.
Let this be my preliminary response to the questions brought up by Kenny. Though I am tempted to elaborate further on these issues I leave them here, to return to them more extensively on a later occasion hopefully. I still will invite and welcome any further questions and comments on the essay, of course, and my reply here.
We do need some notion of what music is, to account for its role in therapy. Reply to Carolyn Kenny
I appreciate Carolyn Kenny's response to my essay "On the Ontology of Music in Music Therapy". First of all let me admit that I was a bit apprehensive about publishing the text, because it is an integral part of my current work on a PhD thesis. Therefore it would necessarily have to be stripped of parts that I really wanted to include, but which the format of essay would not allow me to put in. Kenny's comments and questions present an opportunity to address some of these quite briefly here.
The final, and rather challenging question posed, to take this first, whether we need an "ontology" I think needs to be answered with an affirmative yes, but not to remain 'philosophically correct'. Ontology is about what we consider the nature of reality to be. And our notion of what music is, has bearings on how we may account for how it works, which is what I was trying to address in the essay. The point is that we do have a notion about what the reality of music in therapy is, whether we are reflectively conscious of it or not. Philosophical analysis may help to make more explicit our presuppositions about music and how it works in therapy. I would like to cite from the chapter "Why Philosophy?" from The Field of Play (Kenny 1989) to bring out my point here: "If theory serves as a foundation for practice, philosophy serves as a foundation for theory (p.46)". This sums it up very succinctly, I believe.
Though there seems to be a basic accord of music therapy theory, between Carolyn Kenny and myself, we do use different terms. Let me say something more about why I use the word 'dialogue'. It is precisely because I think it is applicable across the two spheres of the interpersonal and the musical. I think it is a real challenge for music therapy theory to sort out, to distinguish between the part music plays, as music, and the interpersonal aspect of music therapy, and furthermore how these are related. I have chosen to use the term dialogue, based on Martin Buber's original conception in the book I and Thou, to try to achieve some kind of focus in developing these rather complex issues in current music therapy discourse. A particularly tricky and recurring theme is the difference and interconnection between the verbal and musical in music therapy. I find that 'dialogue' as a foundational concept within and between these modalities allows new ways of viewing these matters. This at least is a theoretical hypothesis, which as mentioned, I am in the midst of trying to work out.
The triangle as it is set up serves the purpose of relating the two aspects of the musical and the interpersonal to each other, by interconnecting the three sides of client, therapist and music. This is merely a graphic illustrative devise for the argument presented, and should not be taken as a 'model' in any strict sense. I am glad to have to opportunity of pointing this out here. There is always the danger of reading too much into such a figure, resulting in a restriction rather than a broadening of thought. And the limitation of such an illustrative device as a triangle is that the process orientation is not initially apparent, as Kenny quite rightly points out. Therefore a clear qualification is needed, because the triangle just shows interrelations, but not the direction, where it is all heading. Music therapy is not about making musical art. In making art the focus is in making the work into a whole, whereas in therapy the focus is the rather making the client whole. This may not be read out of such a triangle, which only indicates various interrelations between three sides. The aim is not shown, which is the benefit of the client.
I am glad that Kenny, though she does not initially find this within the triangle, still senses an overall process orientation. Let me then just state my priorities that if such an illustrative device as a triangle should obscure such an orientation I would readily dispose of it. I still, for now at least, hold on to the perspective of these three interrelated sides, to bring out what I believe to be some crucial aspects of music therapy process. I do not think that music in the last resort is "already within each person" as Kenny puts it, whatever this really means. I think music may be considered a reality that may be related to creatively in the making of it, and in finding meaning in it. It is an encountered present reality that is not reduced to, or simply confined within the space between people. Music is not just "interplay" - it is something more. And this does not imply that it is a separate entity. A dialogical perspective as I see it, points to dynamic interrelations rather than fixed entities. It is not about establishing separate entities, one working on the other, but about mutualities between the different sides, not reducing one in favour of another. If music here was nothing more than "interplay" between persons, it was really nothing that could be related to on its own terms, either creatively or aesthetically. I want to argue for a relative autonomy of music in creative music therapy. And I suspect that something about what is unique in music therapy is to be found here: in the role of music, as music, in therapy.
I find it hard to see how a music therapist does not mediate how music may serve in the therapeutic process of the client, as Kenny suggests, even putting the term "therapist" in brackets, and stating that the therapist is "merely one of the conditions within the space of the encounter". I believe the particular role of the therapist has to be recognized. I will follow Buber here, who uses the term 'inclusion' to indicate what the role of the therapist entails. This implies that the music therapist has to take into consideration what the significance of the musical experience may be for the client. The client does not have this kind of responsibility towards the therapist, lest the relation ceased to be a therapeutic one. This is simply what creative music therapy is about, as I see it. Thus I find Kenny's statement: "This condition of the therapist, perhaps, does put some more responsibility on the therapist to "place difference" in the form of new tonalities, rhythms, textures, dynamics into the musical space." a bit too weak in the insertion of the word "perhaps" about the therapist having more responsibility. I think the responsibility of the therapist, also in relation to the music, is inevitable.
Kenny has an interesting note on considering the institutional setting as one condition within the Field of Play, which could be introduced to account for the paradox, as she terms it, of the creative process being the product in music therapy. This would serve to indicate a projected outcome of the inherently ambiguous creative process. I think this is an exciting train of thought, incorporating the conditions of the setting within the field as a whole, and I agree that it is necessary to develop more complex theory as an alternative to a strictly positivistic frame of mind, to capture expected "outcome" of music therapy process. This of course should furthermore be closely connected to various ways of documentation of music therapy practice.
Let this be my preliminary response to the questions brought up by Kenny. Though I am tempted to elaborate further on these issues I leave them here, to return to them more extensively on a later occasion hopefully. I still will invite and welcome any further questions and comments on the essay, of course, and my reply here.