A ten minute presentation at the recent online seminar Paynter organised by the Birmingham Music Education Research Group at Birmingham City University alongside co-editors Gary Spruce, Chris Philpott of Creative and Critical Projects in Classroom Music: Fifty Years of Sound and Silence.
Paynter and Aston’s Sound and Silenceof 1970 begins with three stories of children and young people making music. The first tells us about Alan, aged 6, moving stealthily across the classroom.
‘He is a ‘wolf ‘creeping out of the deep, dark forest. As he creeps he makes music: a pattern of mysterious taps and scraping sounds which tell us that the Wolf and the forest are sinister and fearful. No-one has instructed him: Alan chose the drum himself and decided for himself how the wolf’s music should go.’ [1]
What I want to explore here is how at the time this represented a particular view of childhood and ask what kind of view we might wish to hold at the present time. By childhood I refer to age 0 to 18.
I suggest that this is a crucial question and one often lying in the shadows or hidden under the floorboards of what we do in the name of music education. The assumptions we make about the nature of childhood are of course deeply engrained in society and embedded within our practices..
The image of Alan inventing music as he creeps stealthily across the classroom is a powerful one. It’s an image of a child engrossed in imaginative thought and feeling that fits easily into the tradition of child-centred education emerging from the thought of philosophers John Locke [2] and Jean Jacques Rousseau [3] in the 18thcentury and stimulated by the English romantic poets of the early nineteenth century. Wordsworth, for example, idealised childhood as a time of innocence and closeness to nature, a time when the child’s way of seeing the world allowed for a unique perspective on reality. It was thought that the innocent seeing and hearing of the child was paralleled in the visionary seeing of the artist. And this gave the artist a privileged place in society. [4] If the ideal of perpetual childhood was not possible then it was the child-like adult artist who would be able to sustain this vision of transcendent reality. And indeed we may still think about the artist as foreseeing and visionary.
In John Paynter’s view the child possessed above all else an imagination – the ability to respond to the world, its sounds, its music and whatever other images were there to be encountered. It was simply a case of being responsive to the here and now and finding an impulse to express thoughts and feelings, and in the case of music, through sound. The child possessed a nascent creativity and was blessed with an innocent ear.
For the most part, we have come to see this view of childhood as naively romantic – verging on the sentimental, a childhood from which fables are made. Yet it was this belief that enabled Paynter, together with Aston, to realise a highly original book comprising thirty-six projects and a vast number of novel assignments. The tasks set were supported by exemplarly work created by children providing proof of the pudding. But as the authors made clear, this is not just about the process of ‘making’. There needed to be a process of ‘taking’ too. Thus there was the expectation that the maker would be refreshed and come to know a repertoire of musical works. But, and it is a big but, contact with existing repertoire was to be seen as subordinate to what the child had to say musically. While the teacher may take their starting point from the techniques and practices of other composers in order to create a subtle scaffold, the child responds largely unburdened by this knowledge. The child’s newly created piece for prepared piano comes to live alongside the prepared piano music of John Cage, for example. Thus the sovereignty of childhood is celebrated with the child more expert than novice. And this has considerable implications for the way childrens’ work would be given value – that is, assessed.
In Paynter’s scheme childhood was thought of as a time apart from adulthood – ‘a time in itself’. Childhood was simply different to adulthood, the two were largely unconnected. Childhood was neither inferior nor superior to adulthood. The child was neither immature or mature. The child was just different and this meant, as the child-centered educators saw it, that music education could offer a space in which, with suitable support and guidance, children could be composers. And this would be in a climate where directions of travel were open rather than closed or pre-determined. The classroom was a place where time could be made for ‘interesting conversations to take place’.
Come forward fifty years. Are our classrooms places where there is time for interesting conversations to take place?
And what conceptions of childhood dominate now and impinge on music education?
Wyness maintains that today children are thought of as having inferior status to adults and as being limited to subordinate roles. They are thought of as a minority group and above all else dependant. [5] Henry Giroux points out that not only are children presented as dependant but also innocent. Once presented as innocent they are in need of protection, and once protected they are available for exploitation. [6] But perhaps the dominant conception is of the child is one of being immature, becoming something, rather than being something, on a rung of a ladder, becoming school ready, phonics test ready, secondary school ready, always being prepared for the next stage, on a flight path rather than being capable here and now of mature actions.
On the other hand, Elizabeth Beck-Gersheim referes to children today as freedoms children. Perhaps Greta Gunberg comes to mind. These children don’t accept the agenda given. Freedom has arrived and this means that they expect to have an opportunity to shape their own education. They are ready participants. Elizabeth writes:
‘They practise a seeking, experimenting morality that ties together things that seem mutually exclusive: egoism and altruism, self-realisation and active compassion’. [7]
What is clear is that the child is wanting respect and recognition as a potential agent in their own being and becoming, and in conjunction with adults, having a desire for some degree of self-determination.
Distinctions between a child-centred and a subject-centred curriculum no longer make much sense. Even Sound and Silencecan be read as concerned with music’s deep structure as it engages with a vast range of musical techniques. [8]
What it does signal still is that there can be a space in the process of learning where the child feels free to know agency and a good degree of self-determination. We hope that our fifty years on book provides for this and for the dialogic space where knowledge and meaning can be made. And of course there can be no knowledge without meaning.
Notes:
[1] Paynter, J. and Aston, P. (1970) Sound and Silence. CUP.
[2] John Locke’s Treatise on Education and the recognition of childhood play is often seen as a foundational text within the child-centred tradition. Locke has no place for music aligning it with the singing of bawdy singing behaviour in public houses.
[3] Rousseau’s fable Emiledevelops ideas from Locke. There is here however, a substantial commitment to music. Rousseau attends to suitable vocal repertoire and to the child’s capacity to compose music.
[4] See Wordworth’s ode ‘Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Childhood’.
[5] Wyness, M. (2000) Contesting Childhood. Sage.
[6] Giroux, H. (2006) The Giroux Reader. Paradigm Publishers.
[7] Beck, U. and Beck-Gersheim, E. (2008) Individualization. Sage.
[8] For a discussion of the place of pupil voice within music education see Finney, J. A Question of Voicein National Association of Music Educators Magazine, Issue No. 31, Autumn 2010.