An initial ‘Smallian’ perspective

The pursuit of an ‘ideal’ partnership relationship that operates without hierarchy can be viewed in terms of Christopher Small’s extended thesis of what constitutes the meaning of musical activity, in which the notion of ‘relationship’ is pivotal. Small’s theories as expressed in his various writings provided initial direct inspiration for my research, and have subsequently become central to it. As discussed earlier in this chapter, my ontological stance has been influenced by Small’s (and others’) writings on the concept of universal musicality, as opposed to socially constructed notions of inherent talent. A core framework in which I will situate my findings is Small’s theory of ‘musicking’, which asserts that the meaning of music is to be found in the

physical act of making of music, as opposed to the music ‘object’ such as the Western classical canon of musical works.21

However, of particular importance to my exploration of the concept of partnerships, is Small’s placing of relationships between people, as well as between the music’s sonic aspects, as central in this concept of ‘musicking’. Small proposes that:

The act of musicking establishes in the place where it is happening a set of relationships, and it is in those relationships that the meaning of the act lies. They are to be found not only between those organized sounds which are conventionally thought of as being the stuff of musical meaning but also between the people who are taking part, in whatever capacity, in the performance; and they mode, or stand as metaphor for, ideal relationships as the participants in the performance imagine them to be: relationships between person and person, between individual and society, between humanity and the natural world and even perhaps the supernatural world. (Small, 1998b: 13)

Through the act of musicking and the attached exploration of ‘ideal relationships’, identities can be constructed, altered and affirmed and individuals can be empowered in terms of how they situate and perceive themselves in the world. Small himself clarifies what he means by ‘ideal’ relationships by saying:

A musical performance brings into existence relationships that are thought desirable by those taking part, and in doing so it not only reflects those ideal relationships but also shapes them […] In articulating those values it empowers those taking part to say… ‘these are our values, our concepts of how the relationships of the world ought to be’, and consequently, since how we relate is who we are, to say ‘this is who we are’. (Small, 2011: xi)

Thus, Small’s argument might be brought to bear upon the development of a model of ‘real’, ‘even’ partnership between teacher and musician through classroom musicking, as I attempted to do through my research study. Having come to see relationships as central to the way in which the previous Music Potential project ‘worked’, I intend in later chapters to apply Small’s theories to my examination of the events and insights arising from my extended research study on the topic of partnership in music education.

21_{Small’s theory of ‘musicking’ ([1987] 1998a, 1998b) and his vision for an improved approach to}

In seeking to identify an equitable partnership model, I sought to ensure that equal credence would be given to the contributions and knowledge of all, teachers, musicians and children alike. Similarly, a study of young children’s musicking by Kellet (2000) repositioned the children involved as ‘experts’ within music lessons and found that children’s musical self-esteem, listening skills and verbal responses were noticeably increased, with the greatest increases in musical progress and confidence occurring among the least musically able and least confident children. If, as in Kellet’s study, giving children ‘expert’ status and inviting them to have authority and agency over their musicking can have such a positive, transformative effect on their self-esteem, both in musical and general terms, it was my hope that the same would occur for the teachers within my study once they were repositioned as experts on an equal footing with me. As Small argued, all too often, we allow ‘experts’ to do our thinking and our feeling for us:

Music is too important to be left to the musicians, and in recognizing this fact we strike a blow at the experts’ domination, not only of music but also of our very lives. If it is possible to control our own musical destiny, provide our own music rather than leaving it to someone else to provide, then perhaps some of the other outside expertise that controls our lives can be brought under control also. ([1977] 1996: 214)

2.4 Conclusion

It is clear from the literature and themes discussed throughout this chapter that there are issues of power, hierarchy and control, which are highly relevant to my research. These themes encompass the idea of talent, who possesses it and who does not, how music is learned and musical skill acquired, along with the effect of conventional thinking about what it means to be musical on the attitudes and beliefs of teachers and the children that they teach. Taken together, these issues and prevalent beliefs directly affect the way in which music education is planned for in terms of policy making and also, how it is carried out in schools, the result of which is the vicious cycle pointed out by Mills (1994) of perpetuated beliefs and practices that open up musical opportunities for some, but not for all.

My experience of being researched in the Music Potential study (which is discussed in the next chapter) brought all of these issues to the fore, in terms of the destructive effect on musical self-confidence that can be wrought by imbalanced power

relationships. As I will now discuss in the next chapter, my thinking about why and

how I would conduct my own research was greatly informed by these issues of

hierarchy and expertise and I will draw on further relevant literature concerning these subjects during my later analysis of my findings.