... resources >> colloquia >> MDG Institute

MayDay Group Institute: June 10 - 14, 2002:
The University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
"Re-forming Music Teacher Education: Recent Trends and New Directions for Foundations"


Sociological Perspectives in Music Education
Marie McCarthy
University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Overview of Sociology Session

The goals of this three-hour session on sociological perspectives in music education are:

1. First, to provide a theoretical and historical context for looking at sociology and sociological perspectives; the underlying question is why has it taken so long for music educators to embrace the sociological dimensions of music, of schooling and education, and of music education.

2. After that, we move to two studies that observe and examine critically the relationship between practices in music education and the macro systems in which they function: Hildegard Froehlich looks at the institutions that educate music teachers in her paper "Institutional Belonging, Pedagogic Discourse and the Music Teacher Education Experience." In his paper, "Music Education and Religious Issues in the United States and Canada, Scott Goble explores the impact of church-state relations on the music curriculum, both at the K-12 levels and in teacher education.

3. Lastly we'll take time to discuss ways in which sociological perspectives can be incorporated into undergraduate and graduate education. One obvious way of doing that is through examination of courses that address social dimensions of music education or that draw on social theory; in the process, we'll identify theorists whose works are relevant in such courses and readings that might serve as core or supplementary to the expansion of students' awareness and in-depth study of music education as a social and cultural practice. [See References compiled by Marie McCarthy on this web site.]


Sociology and Music Education in Historical and Theoretical Contexts

Some General Points

A. What makes the sociological perspective so useful? It invites us to move among several different levels of analysis, to look at large-scale processes and structures on the one hand and intimate interactions on the other. It has the potential to take us right into the complexity and richness of social systems and the values that inhere and are reproduced in them. Also it is concrete and it addresses real issues of human encounter in the classroom, the school, and beyond.

B. I use the word 'sociology' we mean not only the field of sociology itself as it has developed over the last century but also, and perhaps even more profoundly, a broad range of sociological perspectives and theories that are rooted in other disciplines such as ethnomusicology, anthropology, feminism, social psychology, or cultural studies.

C. Mention of those other disciplines calls for another distinction to be made between social and cultural dimensions of music teaching and learning. In the interest of the present discussion, I view social perspectives as intertwined with cultural perspectives; while sociology is focused on the individual and collective behavior of groups and the social structures and systems that stimulate and support it, such study is enlightened by examining the underlying cultural reasons why people do what they do. It seems that what's important is to draw on multiple social and cultural theories to probe contexts of music teaching and learning, and to access patterns of participation in music making and reasons underpinning such participation.

D. As a foundation of music education inquiry, what is it that sociology can contribute? As a research community we have made considerable progress toward understanding aspects of the music teaching-learning process at the level of the individual in the context of a group setting. However, we seem to have neglected the study of group dynamics and interactions, the sociological dimensions of professional development, and the nature of our interactions with other social groups and systems.

E. Rather than seeing sociology as a new foundation for music education, joining psychology, history and philosophy, and curriculum theory, my preference in the large scheme of things is to see it develop across all areas of study and to penetrate the very assumptions on which these foundations are built. This movement began to happen in psychology several decades ago when Paul Farnsworth wrote on The Social Psychology of Music in 1969. More recently, David Hargreaves and Adrian North edited a book on the social psychology of music that moved the dialogue to a new level.

Historians have a longer legacy and more deep-seated traditions that have been for the most part devoid of sociological frameworks; it is evident from recent publications that music education historians are beginning to be influenced by sociological theories and perspectives. Those who advocate philosophy based on music as praxis are doing sociology, whether that is an explicit feature of their work or an implicit assumption of their approach to music's meaning.

As a historian interested in the evolution of ideas and practices over time, I began to wonder why philosophy and psychology and history were so well established as foundations for music education, but that sociology had never really gained that status or found a similar role in our professional discourse. Was it not an important perspective for music educators to help them deepen their understanding of music teaching and learning? Did nobody think of making those connections? That led me on a journey through numerous sources back to early twentieth-century American music education.

... top

Early Interactions between Music Education and Sociology

This was a time of profound social change during which the school assumed the role of a social agency. The emerging field of educational sociology played a role in defining a social philosophy and creating social curricular objectives for education. John Dewey was a pivotal figure in this movement. In The School and Society, he viewed the school as "an embryonic community life, active with types of occupations that reflect the life of the larger society" (1900, p 29).

Music as a school subject was not exempt from the sociological emphasis in education. Birge wrote: "School-music is no longer cloistered. Its spirit is that of co-operation and helpfulness. School and community are rapidly coming together" (1984/1928, p 229). This relationship was evident in the community music movement, which began around 1913. Peter Dykema and James Mursell, both commentators on this movement, stressed the need for the music teacher to be a social leader and the school, as Mursell put it, "a radiating center for the promotion of a higher level of community life" (1934, 249). All of this wonderful, community-based activity was going on in the practice of music education. However, at the level of creating curricular objectives that were socially based, it didn't seem that music educators were involved in such a task. In fact, in 1927, Dykema admonished his colleagues for their lack of involvement in the process,

Our subject has been interpreted largely by sociologists and general students of education rather than musicians. Most of us seem to be content to do our work with a supreme indifference as to the effects it will produce upon children. ... It is time that we started to study what music is doing to affect life and that we stated the results of our study in definite convincing form. How long are we willing to have questions raised as to whether we know what is actually happening sociologically with our own subject? (1927, p 352; italics added)

It seems that few if any paid attention to Dykema's observation. General educational philosophy and curricular objectives were driven by a social agenda, and the practice of music education seemed to be moving toward a recognition of the importance of school-community integration, so why then did it not penetrate music education thinking, especially at a time when MENC (MSNC at the time) was developing its agenda? The answer is complex and multifaceted; yet we can glean at least three reasons why sociology didn't take root. First, there were problems within the developing field of educational sociology itself; second, psychology dominated music education development and research in the United States; last, and possibly the most profound reason, was the development of music education philosophy. Leaders such as Mursell and Earhart considered social factors as secondary to aesthetic factors in explaining the meaning and value of music. For example, Mursell and Mabelle Glenn wrote in 1931: "We see the social power and richness of music. But we must not think that to capture this power, we must slight music and intrinsic musical value, and emphasize a spirit of 'get-together' (p. 376). Another great voice from that era, Will Earhart, warned that "except when music is sought for its own pure sake and is made beautiful in itself and for itself, it loses its holy power" (1937, p 223).

... top

Music Education in the Mid 20th Century: A Profession in Need of Sociological Perspectives

Now come forward in time to a post-World War II America. Did the situation change? Did the research community begin to turn to sociology for insight into the relationship among music, society and education? The answer in general is no. Some research was carried out that focused on social behavior in music education contexts&emdash;for example, hand-clapping games, music preference surveys&emdash;but they were carried out devoid of sociological theory. In the post war years music educators distanced themselves even more from functional or utilitarian rationales and drew on aesthetic rationales for music in education, excluding any role for sociological perspectives in the nature, meaning and value of music. So on the one hand, the profession needed to respond to social and cultural upheavals in American society of the 1950s and 60s, but neither its philosophy nor its community of scholars were focused on making such connections central to their inquiry. What was available at the time in terms of social and cultural theory to the music education community?

From the developing field of ethnomusicology numerous studies were available about the meanings, roles and importance of music in the lives of people in non-western cultures, thus preparing the way and facilitating change in later decades. A second source of social theory useful to music educators was founded in the sociology of music--here in the United States through the work of John Mueller and Max Kaplan who addressed such issues as the socialization of musicians, musical preference, musical taste, and other affective dimensions of musical behavior. Both of these scholars contributed to music education forums. The broad view Kaplan had of the role of music education in the bigger picture of music in society prompted him to write these words in 1966:

Whereas in 1907 a new MENC was committed to put music education into the schools, the task of 1977, 1987, and 1997 will be to get it out again into the full daylight of the community and the society. (1966, p 237)

A third source was found in social psychology, especially in the work of Paul Farnsworth, who in his 1969 book, The Social Psychology of Music, argued that musical behavior must be explained in terms of the social as well as psychological and physiological aspects.

Yet another stream of sociological thought came from education. Some important expositions on sociology had been published in the first half of the 20th century&emdash;the ground breaking of Emile Durkheim, the first person to recommend that education be approached from a systematic, objective, sociological perspective; the influential writings of Max Weber and Karl Marx; and the foundational work of George Herbert Mead in interaction theory. Durkheim was one of the primary proponents of functionalist theory, which was the prevailing sociological theory by the 1950s. It was also known as structural-functionalism. These theorists held the view that social systems such as educational systems are normally in balance, all the parts working together to create a 'functional' system. If a part of the system is out of balance, other parts are under stress and force change until the system returns to equilibrium. Durkheim compared social systems to living organisms. Kaplan and Mueller drew on functionalist theory in their studies of music and society.

How might this theoretical approach serve music education research? Examples might be how students are socialized as music teachers, music preference studies, the advocacy movement since it is connected strongly to social, cultural, educational and economic values, the relationship between the MayDay Group and other parts of the music education system. Wherever we can make connections between or among parts of a system we are following the functionalist lead. If we look through the lens of education as a system, it allows us to see how the parts relate to the whole, the ways in which various parts are interconnected, the consequences that each part produces, how the system relates to other social and educational systems. At the time this theory developed, the purpose of education was to maintain social equilibrium and ensure social order. The idea that the system achieved such balance at the expense of the poor and the underprivileged did not seem to be a concern.

With the social upheaval of the 1960s it was clear that functionalist theory could not explain the disruptions in society based on inequality. Sociologists turned to conflict theory inspired by Weber's and even more so by Marx's writings. This theory allowed them to look at countercultures related to race, gender and class. The lens they used to look at society was very different to that of the functionalist - society is composed of the 'haves' and 'have nots', competing economic and interest groups. The 'haves' control power, wealth, influence, privilege, high culture, and access to the best education. This leads to conflict. Schools are seen as agents of social and cultural reproduction, meaning that they reproduce social class lines, gendered knowledge, language, and so on. Sociologists who advanced thinking in this theory include Coleman, Bernstein, Bowles and Gintis, and later Apple. Both functional and conflict theories could be used probably most effectively at the macro level and less so at the micro level in examining the details of social interaction.

That brings us to interaction theory. Already I referred to the work of philosopher George Herbert Mead who is known for his theory of symbolic interactionism. He recognized the vital role played by symbols (language, gestures, appearance, behavior) in the creation and acting out of social reality. The concern here was with how people behave in relation to one another within the constraints of the social system - the interface between people and social systems: status, role, or social position. Some argued that social systems are not external to who people are; instead they emerge from social interaction. People create social reality (for example, see Berger's 1963 book, The Social Construction of Reality).

... top

Sociology Takes Root in Music Education: A paradigm change in the late 20th century

How and when did sociological perspectives begin to be acknowledged as valid and important to understanding music teaching and learning? In the 1970s and 80s we begin to see a greater openness on the part of some music educators to embrace ideas and theories from fields such as sociology of education, cultural studies, sociology of music, and ethnomusicology. In the following section I identify some sources of change.

a. Re-thinking the meaning of "music"

Consider the impact of John Blacking's groundbreaking work, How Musical is Man? (1973), John Shepherd et al book, Whose Music? A Sociology of Musical Languages (1977), and of course Christopher Small's Music, Society, Education (1977). While some educators already appreciated the value and relevance of these works to music education at the time of their publication - Abraham Schwadron, Barbara Reeder Lundquist, and James Standifer, for example - it wasn't until much later in the 1980s and early 90s that such ideas came into the mainstream of music education inquiry. The multicultural movement in education, I believe, served as the catalyst for broadening the view of music's meaning.

b. Impact on philosophy of music education

There was a questioning of the aesthetic philosophy as the sole answer to music education, particularly in the publications of David Elliott.

c. Relevance of social learning theories

At the same time that theories from ethnomusicology and cultural studies came into popularity, social learning theories were coming into their own - the social-cognitive theory of Lev Vygotsky, motivational theories of Albert Bandura and Bernard Weiner, and later the emphasis in many theories on the social construction of reality and of knowledge.

d. Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences

This theory had a transforming effect on the perception of musical 'intelligence'. Other books by Howard Gardner examined the relationship between the culture and competence, and the relationship between musical and social values in culturally diverse societies.

e. Developments in social psychology

One of the first ways in which social perspectives began to penetrate music education thought was through the psychological literature. Psychological paradigms and models dominated music education research from its beginnings in the early twentieth century; now in the 1970s social psychology began to draw heavily on sociology to explain human motivation and behavior. For example, in Rudolph Radocy and J. David Boyle's 1979 book on the Psychological Foundations of Musical Behavior, the authors argued at "music is a sociocultural force which must be studied within its social and cultural framework" (p 178).

f. Research agendas and methodologies

Barbara Lundquist was an active sociologist of music education in this time period. In 1986, she outlined a sociomusical research agenda for music in higher education. What needed to be done, in her opinion, was to explain the complex relationships between human beings and music - for example, the behaviors of musicians, structures and organizations involved in music making; also, social stratification and music, mass culture, and taste culture. She was fully aware of the need for cross-disciplinary, cross-cultural, and multilevel analyses of musical contexts. "Interest in relationships between music and society", she wrote, "lies at the cusp where many disciplines meet." (pp. 53-55) Lundquist's thoughts on a research agenda were by no means the norm in music education research. However, sociological studies, or studies that considered social factors as variables (gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic factors) were becoming more popular.


Confluence of Sociological Influences in the 1990s

As the 20th century drew to a close, the paradigm shift that I just described became more evident in the literature and the general discourse of music education, bringing the social dimensions of music teaching and learning into the foreground at many levels - through the writings of several music educators. I believe that the most profound changes occurred in the ream of philosophy, in the writings of Wayne Bowman, David Elliott, Estelle Jorgensen, and Thomas Regelski. Psychologists, too, incorporated social dimensions into their writings. A striking example is David Hargreaves and Adrian North's work where they bring together research findings on youth and popular music, youth and media, music and identity. Historians also advocated the revision of history using social and cultural perspectives; in particular I'm thinking of the work of Jere Humphreys, Gordon Cox, and Stephanie Pitts. It is clear from the session on feminism earlier this week that these scholars are far ahead in embracing social theory, particularly conflict theory. Another area in which researchers grounded their research in sociology was teacher education: consider the work of the late Steve Paul, Hildegard Froehlich, Brian Roberts, and Paul Woodford. Then there's a group of scholars working in related disciplines who have inspired music educators: for example, Ruth Finnegan, Charles Keil, John Shepherd, and Christopher Small. Thanks to their work and that of others, phrases such as "music as social action", "the social construction of musical meaning", "music as social text", "the social functions of music", are now more central to thinking and practice in music education.

Individuals working alone and in isolation do not change the thinking of a profession. Institutions and conferences also provided support for the dissemination of ideas. I refer in particular to the influence of the Social Science, Gender, and Community Music SRIGs of the MENC, the MayDay Group founded in 1993, the two conferences in the sociology of music education at the University of Oklahoma in 1995 and 1999, the Mass Media and Cultural Policy Commission, and the Community Music Commissions of the International Society for Music Education, and the conferences on qualitative research and music education held at the University of Illinois during the 1990s.

And that brings us to the present, to a tome published just months ago - The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning - in which a broad spectrum of issues and research studies are published, all focusing on "Social and Cultural Contexts of Music Education". (See the chapter titles and authors of this 200-page section in the sociology bibliography on this web site.)

... top

Concluding Thoughts

When we focus on social dimensions of music education, we are bringing together music and education at a profound level. What I mean is that music is a social act and it is embedded in social structures and cultural values; so also is education a social system, with the values and practices of schooling embedded in sociopolitical, socioeconomic and sociocultural values. So music education represents sociomusical actions played out in a sociopolitical space.

Sociological perspectives are found in multiple disciplines, from sociology of music and sociology of education, to ethnomusicology, anthropology, cultural studies, popular music studies, or comparative aesthetics. Thus, rather than constituting an autonomous foundation of music education, I see sociological perspectives as permeating all discourse in music education: historical studies (helping us to access insight into past structures and processes); philosophical perspectives (informing the meanings of music, musical values, responses, and preferences); psychological constructs (motivation, self-regulation, learning theories, participation), as well as curricular theory and frameworks. In a related sense, social theory will permeate all research methodologies, and not remain limited to quantitative research with which is has been traditionally associated.

The painfully slow incorporation of sociological perspectives into professional thinking over the past century provides some insight into the sociology of the music education profession itself. It seems that adherence to Western aesthetics and the lack of interest in the situated meanings of music was in part responsible for this time lag. Tensions arose between the social and the intrinsic values of music, with social values regarded as secondary to aesthetic values. In addition, the profession's relationship with the education profession was weak for the greater part of the 20th century. This impoverished the theoretical scope of the discipline.

Activities of the last decade have made up for lost ground; we now need to invest fully in sociological perspectives and social theory, constantly asking the central question: "What does it mean for music education if we understand music as a social act and music teaching and learning as a social phenomenon?"