XVI Colloquium: July 12 - 19, 2005:
The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
"Discourses and Practices of Hegemony, Power, and Exclusion in Music Education"

A Brief Overview of the Symposium
Wayne Bowman

This second MayDay Group colloquium in Vancouver was devoted to discussions of the theme (or themes) of hegemony, power, and exclusion. The presentations and ensuing discussions were stimulating, open, and constructive. If any one thing was accomplished it was, I venture to say, a renewed appreciation for the complexity of these issues and their significance to music education. In her keynote address, Hildegard Froehlich reminded us of the complexity of systemic change, and that concerns over exclusion are nothing new to music education, having been raised repeatedly, decade after decade: Little has changed, she suggested, since the time of Mursell. On one level she is right, of course; and the point of discussions like the ones initiated in Vancouver should be to help us better understand why that is so. How are power and exclusion related? Why do we persist in musical and instructional habits that are at odds with our educational and social goals as educators? How do hegemonic forces maintain their influence when we should "know better"? Perhaps one explanation lies in the extent to which we continue to trust enthusiasm, experience, and charisma over evidence-based and critically-informed practice. Or perhaps that only describes another of the ways hegemony manifests itself and power maintains itself - instead of helping us understand how these tendencies remain so pervasive and how we might change them.

What was accomplished in Vancouver was probably the barest of beginnings. However, the importance of these topics was made abundantly clear by those who presented papers, and there is considerable interest in seeing such discussion continue. The abstracts that follow will help those of you who were unable to attend get a feel for what went on. But, as is always the case, there was much that happened between sessions, in less formal exchanges, and in dialogue with participants who did not themselves present papers. In particular, the issue of racism and the challenges of talking about race seemed to emerge as concerns that would warrant further, and more focused discussion at some future meeting. Additionally, there seemed to be some general agreement that our understandings of hegemony, power, and exclusion would be enhanced by looking at the way these operate within the MayDay Group itself - a point well taken. And finally, there was widespread interest in advancing our understanding of power: in particular the ways it circulates in networks and becomes embodied in "mentalities of rule" (identities, disciplinary and other?), and, in turn, pedagogical practices.

Hildegard Froehlich challenged us to think about hegemony, power, and exclusion from a social interactionist perspective, and to examine our biographies for a fuller understanding of the ways these operate in our personal lives - the ways we enact, experience, and (inadvertently) perpetuate such influences. David Bruenger's economically-informed analysis of rock music's situation in the academy probed a value system that excludes more than 90% of Western society's purchased musics, and raised questions as to whether the incorporation of popular music can actually be expected to change that value system. Peter Gouzouasis urged us to look at recent developments in narrative with a view to restoring the unity and integrity of teaching, music, and research. Melissa Edwards explored with us how festival adjudications function as standardized and standardizing tests, and their potent influence on curricular and professional expectations. David Lines explored Foucault's ideas on power and its circulation through networks, encouraging us to think about "border practices" where the "docile bodies" of musical subjectivity may be challenged. Debbie Bradley presented us with probing analyses of the potentially racial undertones of musical instruction and experience (even of putatively "multicultural" instruction), sharing a number of provocative insights drawn from interviews with members of a youth choir. Alexandra Kertz-Welzel offered a fascinating examination of Adorno's views on music education, and in particular of his rejection of idealistic, utopian visions of music making. Scott Goble advanced what he called a "radical relativist" orientation to musical pluralism, one that would disavow the idea of universally shared musical traits or goods. And finally, John Kratus rounded out the days' deliberations with a powerful critique of school-based music as it has reached (and passed, Kratus suggests) what Gladwell calls its "tipping point" -- the point where little problems suddenly coalesce into major and irreversible "epidemics." In this, Kratus points to the critical necessity both for improved understanding and strategic action toward inertial tendencies in our profession.