Voices ResourcesA website for the worldwide community around the journal Voices: A World Forum for Music Therapy

Theory is on my mind at the moment. It's not exactly the most peaceful state to be in, and at this point I would even describe it a slightly challenging for of existence. In past columns I have reflected on topics such as motherhood and meditation after my second child was born; or the importance of dancing the tango after the World Congress of Music Therapy in Argentina. But as I prepare for the World Congress in Seoul, I am on sabbatical in Bergen, thinking, talking and dreaming about theory – quite a Norwegian experience perhaps. I will take the opportunity of this column to reflect on the topic at a personal level, by pondering my relationship with theory and describing it as an experience of walking around and around in circles. I will offer this discussion without reference to hermeneutic exercises of circle walking (please see: Kenny, 2006), and without discussion of philosophical understandings of the nature of reality (please see: Rykov, 2011). This is not because they are irrelevant, but because I am choosing to offer a more casual and subjective story about my own experience.

What Are Theories?

I've always been intrigued by the idea of theories – mostly because I wasn't really clear about what they are. So you might say that the first time I walked around the circle in my relationship with theory it was in a naïve, but amicable way. To start with, I liked to use the word theory in relation to my professional work because it suggested a knowledgeable foundation to my practice. After all, I had read a number of music therapy books that had theory in the title, which I felt was a good start – A Comprehensive Guide to Music Therapy: Theory, Clinical Practice, Research and Training(Wigram, Pederson, & Bonde, 2002), and the North American version in the form of Introduction to Music Therapy: Theory and Practice (Davis, Gfeller, & Thaut, 2008), as well as Music Therapy and its Relationship to Current Treatment Theories (Ruud, 1980). These are all standard texts in music therapy where the authors also appear to enjoy the word theory in different ways. As my relationship with theory became more active I was able to point to theories and make statements like "My work is informed by Humanist theory", or "I disagree with the assumption that psychodynamic theories are the most important to music therapy." So our relationship had grown from a receptive to a somewhat more active stage, but my understanding of the word was still very innocent and as I neared the end of the first circle on my journey I effectively thought that theories were ideas and I assumed that those ideas were real, or true[1].

Are Theories Real?

Only as I walked around the circle for the second time in my relationship with theory did I begin to conceive that theories were neither real nor true. I then began to refer to theories as constructs – meaning that they were fictitious structures that helped to comprehend real experiences. By this time I had moved from being a full-time clinician to part-time university lecturer and was often heard making the distinction between theoretical constructs and reality. I had coined the phrase from Yalom (Yalom, 1995) when I was trying to understand how dynamic processes were reflected in music therapy group improvisations. He had labelled group dynamics as constructs, warning the reader never to be more convinced by their informed interpretations than by the client's explanations of their experiences because dynamics were not as real as the people creating them (my interpretation). This was an important step in my understanding of the complex relationship between theories and reality, but as I walked further with theory, I began to understand that this was clearly not the whole picture either. I began to reflect on the possibility that models are more like constructs, and that they are actually a little closer to being real than theories are.

But are Models Theories?

Mary Rykov (2005) has provocatively described music therapy models as garden variety theories. I agree that they have served as a popular substitute for theories during the early stages of disciplinary development. Perhaps models exist between theory and practice, but on a different dimension. Models offer retrospective theoretical reflections on what happens if music therapy is practised in a particular way. I am describing them as retrospective because they have often emerged from pioneer's reflections on practice rather than being clearly developed from within theoretically informed perspectives. Rudy Garred (2007) describes Nordoff and Robbins "formulating notions about what they were doing" (p.13). This is perhaps even true in relation to Mary Priestley's model of Analytical Music Therapy (Priestley, 1994), which was grounded within a particular school of psychoanalytic theories. However, her substantial contributions focused mainly on how to do music therapy in this model, not the theories of why music therapy was valuable as a psychodynamic method. At this point, I find myself concluding my second circle in my relationship with theory. This time it feels like my circle is climbing a mountain and I can see the peak, and the peak tells me – theories answer the why questions, and models answer the how questions. This feels clear and for a brief moment, I can rest.

Theories explain "Why"

The problem with hiking up mountains is that often when you reach the peak your view expands and suddenly you see that there are still many more peaks ahead. And so the metaphoric third circle of my journey in relationship with theory begins. If theories are proposed as a way of offering possible answers to questions that begin with why, this suggests that they are a way of making meaning. Kenneth Bruscia (2005) suggests that theories answer the question of what practice and research mean and he goes on to explain research answers the question of what is known and unknown and practice what constitutes effective action. Brynjulf Stige (2002) seems to agree that theories are used for making meaning but insists on remembering that any meaning reflects the norms, values and assumptions of the local context. This highlights the circular nature of my relationship with theory, and amusingly, with reality. Are theories somewhat real after all? Isn't abstracted reality still reality?

Music Therapy Theory

In order to conclude my column without reaching a conclusion, I will take the opportunity to explain why I think this is an important topic for consideration and why I spend so much time thinking about my relationship with theory. Music therapists have relied on theories from psychology, and more recently other allied disciplines, since the inception of the field. Since none of these external theories are really a perfect fit for answering why music therapy questions, models have emerged as a helpful, in between way for practitioners to be able to answer why we do it that way, at least. In the last decade there have been some substantial contributions in the form of music therapy theories where external bodies of knowledge have been more completely incorporated with music therapy practice (Aigen, 2005; Crowe, 2004; Rolvsjord, 2010; Thaut, 2000). However, the big picture is still lacking. Carolyn Kenny (2003) has suggested that a general theory may fill this gap and explain music therapy more completely. However, an alternative to a singular general theory may be an integrative meta-theory that reveals the vast and nuanced landscape of theories relevant to music therapy and highlights when possibilities are most powerful. I think I might try walking around the circle with that possibility in mind.

Note

[1] Perhaps I should also discuss my relationship with Heidegger here, and later, but forgive me for not doing so at this time

References

Aigen, K. (2005). Music-centered music therapy. Gilsum, NH: Barcelona Publishers.

Bruscia, K. (2005). Developing theory. In B. Wheeler (Ed.), Music Therapy Research (pp. 540-551). Gilsum, NH: Barcelona Publishers.

Crowe, B. J. (2004). Music and soul making: Toward a new theory of music therapy. Oxford, UK: Scarecrow Press.

Davis, W. B., Gfeller, K. E., & Thaut, M. H. (2008). An introduction to music therapy : Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Kenny, C. (2003). Beyond this point there be dragons: Developing general theory in music therapy. Voices: A world forum for music therapy, 3(2). Retrieved from https://normt.uib.no/index.php/voices/article/view/129/105

Kenny, C. (2006). Music & life in the field of play : an anthology. Gilsum, NH: Barcelona Publishers.

Priestley, M. (1994). Essays on analytical music therapy. Phoenixville, PA: Barcelona Publishers.

Rolvsjord, R. (2010). Resource oriented music therapy in mental health care. Gilsum, NH: Barcelona Publishers.

Ruud, E. (1980). Music therapy and its relationship to current treatment theories. St Louis, MO: MagnaMusic-Baton.

Rykov, M. (2005). One Size Fits All, or What is Music Therapy Theory For? Voices: A world forum for music therapy, 5(1). Retrieved from https://normt.uib.no/index.php/voices/article/view/207/151

Rykov, M. (2011). Writing music therapy. Voices: A world forum for music therapy, 11(1). Retrieved from https://normt.uib.no/index.php/voices/article/view/288/448

Stige, B. (2002). Culture-Centered Music Therapy. Gilsum, NH: Barcelona Publishers.

Thaut, M. (2000). A scientific model of music in therapy and medicine. San Antonio, TX: IMR Press.

Wigram, T., Pederson, I. N., & Bonde, L. O. (2002). A comprehensive guide to music therapy: theory, clinical practice, research and training. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Yalom, I. (1995). The theory and practise of group psychotherapy (4th ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.

How to cite this page

McFerran, Katrina (2011). Walking in Circles: My Relationship With Theory. Voices Resources. Retrieved January 14, 2015, from http://testvoices.uib.no/community/?q=fortnightly-columns/2011-walking-circles-my-relationship-theory