Engaging ‘Respect for Persons’ in Music Therapy

1. The First Principle

As the essential first principle in the Canadian Association for Music Therapists (CAMT, 1999) Code of Ethics, “Respect for the Dignity and Rights of Persons” serves to ground professional practice. There are intimations in the Code as to what this means, but I believe that a more expansive consideration of ‘respect for persons’ will serve the music therapist in their work –– providing clarity as to how one may approach each individual in their presenting conditions, as well as guiding the development of collaborative strategies for bringing positive change to the situation. To begin, let’s examine how the CAMT Code of Ethics (1999) articulates this principle:

The authors of the Code explain personhood by what it is: they speak of the positive notions of dignity, fundamental rights, and innate worth as human beings, grounding them in a belief that “an individual should be treated primarily as a person” (p. 2). These comments are helpful, but require further explanation. The authors also describe respect for persons by what it is not: that a person is not an object or a means to an end, and that this value is not enhanced or reduced by culture and the broad range of contexts for the individual as listed above. Yet, to describe a phenomenon by what it is not can leave one spinning in a circular logic; it still doesn’t tell me what it is. Moving forward, I will be deliberately sublating the concepts of dignity, rights, and innate worth into this fundamental category of ‘respect for persons.’ In which case, the Code leaves me with two pertinent questions concerning respect and persons:

2. What do I mean when I call someone a Person?

First, the big picture. I appreciate Ervin Laszlo’s (1996) summary of our standing in the universe, that “We are natural systems first, living things second, human beings third, members of a society and culture fourth, and particular individuals fifth” (p. 21). For Ludwig von Bertalanffy (2009), a system is either isolated from its environment (closed system), or continuously exchanging matter/energy with its environment (open system). As an open system, a natural system is one that does not owe its existence to conscious human planning and execution. As a natural system, a human being shares the four common features of all open natural systems: 1) Natural systems are wholes with irreducible properties –– a whole possesses characteristics which are not possessed by its parts singly. 2) Natural Systems maintain themselves in a changing environment –– they move towards the balance of steady-state, as in biological homeostasis. 3) Natural Systems create themselves in response to the challenge of the environment –– when subjected to constant external forces, systems can reorganize their own constraints and acquire new dimensions in a process of adaptive self-organization, as witnessed in ‘neural plasticity.’ 4) Natural Systems are coordinating interfaces in nature’s hierarchy –– in the course of evolution, organisms that last do so because they are hierarchically organized as part of a ‘multi-holon’ structure, where wholes (holons) are also part of other wholes. As open natural systems, humans are living beings who share the atmosphere, the geosphere, and the biosphere with the non-living and all other living beings on the planet (Laszlo, 1996, pp. 24–58).

A person is a kind of ‘human being.’ The term ‘human’ has more than one meaning. As ‘one of the people,’ an individual is a biological ‘member of the species Homo sapiens.’ As a ‘person,’ the individual possesses certain qualities of being a ‘real human being,’ whose role is that of self-conscious agent in the world around them –– members of a society and culture. The word ‘person’ has its origins in persona, the Latin word for the mask of classical drama –– the resonant voice of the character coming through the mask worn by the actor, covering the face, yet revealing the character. The word was possibly borrowed from Etruscan phersu mask (Barnhart & Steinmetz, 1999).

What are the essential conditions for being a ‘person’? In reviewing the work of several scholars–– Nicholas Rescher’s (1990) reflections on conditions for personhood; Peter Singer’s (2011) practical look at the value of human life; Bernard Lonergan’s (2016) study of the existential subject; M. W. Hughes’ (1973) discourse on our concern with others; and R. S. Downie and Elizabeth Tefler’s (1969) analysis of respect for persons –– we get a sense of the extent and specificity needed to answer this question. My definition of persons is both an amalgamation of the salient aspects of persons as developed by these authors, and my own life experience, which surely has informed the practical and theoretical insights I may have. As a crucial component of our very nature as the sort of beings we are, ‘personhood’ requires several conditions which I organize within this working definition: as a person, I am an individual human being with a quality of consciousness –– a self-determining agent, potentially capable of social engagement.

Let’s break this down:

2.1. as a person, I am an individual human being: We have identified humans as living beings who function as natural systems. The person is the individualized human being who is to be valued, as the Code suggests “not as an object or a means to an end” (CAMT, 1999, p. 2). I will expand on this notion of value as we continue to explore consciousness, subjectivity, and self-esteem.

2.2. as a person, I have a quality of consciousness: Consciousness is a multi-layered phenomenon. For Bernard Lonergan (2016, p. 69) we are subjects/persons who move through at least six different levels of consciousness. I begin with Levels 1 through 4.

3. What are some key issues concerning personhood?

Further questions concerning the ‘person’ have to do with value, as when the Code asserts that, “all persons have a right to their innate worth as human beings” (CAMT, 1999, p. 2). This can be framed in the light of dichotomies, including:

3.1. Ends and means. The person is an end in themselves, not merely a means to an end for another.

3.2. Subject and object. The person is to be related to as a subject, not merely some kind of object. In Martin Buber’s (1996) terminology there are two basic kinds of relationship, the subject to subject, I–Thou relationship, and the subject to object, I–It relationship.

3.3. Identity or the identified. The person is able to define themselves, to have a personal identity, to define their priorities and preferences, and not merely to be defined by the other.

3.4. The knower or the known. The person is able to know for themselves, to interpret the world around them, not merely to be a known quantity or type within the social sphere.

3.5. Body and soul. Human beings as a species are usually distinguished from other species because of mind, reason, and spirit (soul). A therapist’s view on the body/mind or body/soul problem has influence on their chosen scale of values, and this is bound to affect therapeutic choices at a deep level. F. F. Centore (1979) outlines the six possible positions concerning the material body and immaterial soul –– that a person as human being is

3.6. The Person as Individual Human Soul Versus The Ideology. Do I recognize the person as an individual human soul? If so, how do I understand the value of the person? Some religious/spiritual traditions place humanity as the highest created value, and argue that authentic human relations between persons are the basis for social morality (Hatcher, 1998, pp. 1–35).

If the person as individual human soul is not the highest value, then the potential exists that some ideology will emerge as that highest value. In theory and practice, an ideology exists to pursue the propagation of certain doctrines, and these are held to be more important than any individual, and is therefore potentially poised to sacrifice the individual person to the doctrines if necessary. Sacrificing individual persons becomes the means to accomplish the envisioned doctrinal ends of the ideology. Ideologies are found in both religious and humanistic moralities. Hatcher (1998) explains that one humanistic morality is collectivism, where all value is extrinsic to the individual, and is usually defined with reference to some particular collectivity. Yet another humanistic morality is individualism, which holds that the individual has value because they have “demonstrated some special abilities or competency above the socially perceived norms” (p. 21). Hatcher affirms that unlike the collectivist, power-seeking ideology, or the individualist competitive ideology, the mark of authentic relationships between persons is “altruistic love, which leads to reciprocity, mutuality, and symmetry, not to asymmetry and dominance” (p. 23).

Note: The body/soul question is challenging, multi-dimensional, and not easily answered. Concerning the individual and ideologies, I consider the individual person to be more important than any religious/political/economic ideology. Although I may not always be aware of how this influences my work, I acknowledge that having this view most likely edges me, at times in subtle ways, towards making specific choices during the treatment process.

Thus far, I have described how as a person, I am an individual human being with a quality of consciousness –– a self-determining agent, potentially capable of social engagement –– and have outlined some key issues concerning personhood. With this necessary groundwork in place, we can tackle the notion of ‘respect.’

4. What does it mean to ‘Respect a Person’?

There are both legal and moral answers to this question. Being a person is a social mode of existence within an environing culture –– balancing rights and responsibilities, considering necessities and desires. Concern, empathy, sympathy –– how are these to be understood in our notions of respect? From the Latin respicere, respect is literally the “act of looking back at one.” In this process of regard, respecting a person entails three important approaches: active sympathy, seeing the potential person, and openness to another’s rules for living.

5. What are some implications for music therapy?

I return to the specific applications of ‘respect for persons’ as outlined in the Code of Ethics (CAMT, 1999), “In adhering to this principle [Respect for the Dignity and Rights of Persons], music therapists are specifically concerned with the values of General Respect, Privacy, and Informed Consent” (p. 2).

6. A person speaks about respect …

Note: I now take on the dramaturgical voice (Ihde, 2007, pp. 167–176), in order to express this principle from the individual person’s point of view –– myself as client:

“How will you as a person, engage respect for me as a person, a client in music therapy? Will you show active sympathy, a generous good will for me to succeed as a self-determining agent? Will you see the potential in my immediate presenting conditions? Will you listen to what I have to say, to what I really feel and believe – consider it seriously? You know that as a person, I am an individual human being, an individual whole (holon) composed of many parts, and as a whole I am in turn a part of a larger whole, in an unfolding hierarchical natural system, as we all are. As an integral whole, I am one-of-a-kind, a self like no other self. I have a quality of consciousness that functions on many levels. These levels change, enjoin as schemes of recurrence throughout the day. Day by day I explore, engage, and enhance my capacity at all levels of consciousness. You are dealing with a self-determining agent, someone who can evaluate, judge for themselves, has the will to choose, can decide, act on that decision, and is willing to be responsible for that action. As well, I am not only capable of social engagement, but keen to be actively involved in all my relations. I was born a human being and continue to ‘become the person’ I can be. I am writing each chapter of the only life I have. I can see you are a person too, as is everyone who may join us. You’ve explained the ground rules, and I agree as to how we’ll proceed with finding ourselves in music.”