Abstract
Given the contemporary polarized political landscape and the elective nature of much music teaching and learning, it is important that music educators understand how they reinforce or undermine stakeholders’ political beliefs. The purpose of this inquiry is to investigate alignment between Lakoff’s moral-political metaphors and Allsup’s main ideas and to consider the value of certain moral-political discourses for music education. I demonstrate that Allsup favors concepts that align with Lakoff’s liberal nurturant-parent metaphor, while his ideas work in tension with the conservative strict-parent metaphor. When conservative moral discourse goes unacknowledged, discussions about what kind of ethics should inform music education get misrecognized as arguments about whether ethical concerns should inform music education. I also examine the potential implications of practices aligning with music educators’ individual moral-political beliefs, a community’s moral-political preferences, or a balanced approach to the two metaphors. Yet, nurturant-parent values and associated practices often remain unarticulated and peripheral in music teacher education. I propose that music educators might name the role that conservative ethics play within the profession, provide increased attention to practices aligning with the nurturant-parent moral-political metaphor, and experiment with discourse and actions not directly invoking either moral-political metaphor.
Situated at the nexus of competing political values, educational practices have the potential to align with or contradict different political parties’ beliefs. The elective nature of much music teaching and learning makes it crucial that music educators understand and think critically about their political contexts (e.g., Schmidt & Colwell, 2017). Given the increasing political polarization within democracies throughout the world (Carothers & O’Donohue, 2019), it is urgent that music educators understand parallels between competing political ideologies and key philosophical perspectives within the profession.
Music education researchers have problematized conservative politics in England and Australia (Fautley, 2019; Forrest, 2016), and music education philosophers have critiqued populist political leaders (Hess, 2017; Woodford, 2018) and neoliberalism policies more broadly (e.g., Allsup, 2015; Aróstegui, 2020). These writers position themselves in opposition to conservative political values. Moreover, individuals’ political positions exist in integration with and often derive from central values, such as discipline and empathy (Lakoff, 2004). It follows that music education philosophies that do not directly address politics may therefore still primarily align with either conservative or liberal value systems. Given the increasingly political divisiveness within the United States (Doherty, 2018) and the anticonservative orientation of politics-focused music education research (e.g., Hess, 2017; Woodford, 2018), it is important to consider if philosophies not directly addressing politics align primarily with one political party’s values. Such action necessitates a detailed understanding of the values underlying both conservatives’ and liberals’ political positions.
George Lakoff (2016) has conducted the most comprehensive and widely cited research on how individuals conceptualize competing political value systems to date. A retired Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley and current director of the Center for the Neural Mind & Society, Lakoff’s research on moral-political metaphors has received marked attention in fields ranging from organizational management to citizenship education. 1 In his book Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, now in its third edition, Lakoff (2016) suggests that, rather than considering the complexity of each new policy issue independently, voters often make decisions by relying on values derived from limited, preformed moral hierarchies. Explaining differences in American “strict liberal” and “strict conservative” political views, Lakoff (2016) posits that the moral metaphors of a nurturant parent and a strict father, respectively, inform their reasoning (p. 15). He summarizes, “Political policies are derived from family-based moralities. Those family-based moralities are largely constructed from unconscious conceptual metaphors. Understanding political positions requires understanding how they fit family-based moralities” (Lakoff, 2016, p. 384). Values that align with these family-based moralities can inform and reinforce individuals’ political positions, regardless of whether they understand them as political values. 2
Philosophical researchers often use disciplines outside of philosophy to examine assumptions underlying philosophical thought and music education practices more broadly (e.g., Aigen, 1995; Jorgensen, 1992). Aigen (1995) explains that philosophic thought “connects to other systems of thought” (p. 457), and Jorgensen (1992) argues that philosophy “is not isolated but integrated within, or related to, other systems of thought in ways that are clarified by the philosopher” (p. 94). As such, Lakoff’s (2016) cognitive linguistics research could serve as a key point of comparison in a philosophical investigation of the alignment between moral-political values and music education thinking and action.
While music education researchers have yet to detail relationships between Lakoff’s (2016) moral-political metaphors and music education philosophies, Bates (2005) used his earlier work on the metaphors of strict-, nurturant-, and permissive-parent families (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999) to analyze the work of six music education scholars (Bennett Reimer, David Elliott, Estelle Jorgensen, Thomas Regelski, Clifford Madsen, and Patricia Shehan Campbell). He found that these scholars’ work used “a range of moral authorities and moral systems” (Bates, 2005, p. 10). Yet, Bates made minimal mention of the relationship between these moral metaphors and political ideologies, and music education philosophers have yet to update or extend his work.
In this philosophical inquiry, I use Lakoff’s (2016) moral-political metaphors to investigate the assumptions that underlie Allsup’s (2016) book Remixing the Classroom: Toward an Open Philosophy of Music Education. I focus on Allsup’s book because it is currently the most cited original music education philosophy text by an American author published within the past five years. 3 Allsup’s text is also the most recent book to have an entire issue of Action, Criticism, and Theory in Music Education devoted to it (Bates, 2017); such attention demonstrates its import within the music education philosophy community. However, readers may also see parallels between Lakoff’s moral-political metaphors and other music education philosophers’ writings.
The purpose of this philosophical inquiry is twofold: (a) to extend Bates’s (2005) work by investigating alignment between Lakoff’s (2016) moral-political metaphors and Allsup’s (2016) main ideas and (b) to consider the value of certain moral-political discourses for American music education. Jorgensen (1992) explains examining and evaluating assumptions underlying thinking and action as a primary aim of philosophical research. She elaborates, “In the process of exposing and evaluating underlying assumptions, the philosopher makes explicit that which otherwise may remain implicit, and clarifies actions that are prior to and deeper than the actions to which they give rise” (Jorgensen, 1992, p. 13). Exposing and evaluating the moral-political assumptions underlining philosophical discourse is therefore consistent with a primary aim of philosophical research. Given that “polarization is tearing at the seams of democracies around the world, from Brazil and India to Poland and Turkey” (Carothers & O’Donohue, 2019), readers may see parallels between the ideas presented here and music teaching and learning contexts beyond the United States.
Philosophical researchers examine assumptions underlying thinking and practice by posing certain categories of questions, including ontological and axiological ones (Jorgensen, 1992). Considering the nature of Allsup’s (2016) central concepts of the museum, laboratory, and open and closed forms, 4 I begin this philosophical inquiry by asking the ontological question, How do Allsup’s main ideas align with or contradict aspects of liberal and conservative moral metaphors (Lakoff, 2016)?
Second, I consider the axiological question, What are the implications of valuing music education discourse and practice that parallels contemporary moral-political metaphors? After engaging with this question, I investigate possible paths forward and, incorporating ideas from other disciplines (Aigen, 1995; Elliott, 1995), offer possible implications for practice. Consistent with Bowman and Frega’s (2012) assertion that philosophical inquiry aims to guide practice without “insisting upon a single, definitive, or ultimate point of arrival” (p. 14), I do not intend my implications to be dogmatic or prescriptive.
Alignment With Moral-Political Discourses
Lakoff (2016) acknowledges that neither liberalism nor conservatism is monolithic, and he explains that a combination of the liberal nurturant-parent moral metaphor and conservative strict-father metaphor may inform some individuals’ political stances. However, he emphasizes that each metaphor offers a holistic, self-consistent way of engaging with the world rather than a list of unconnected attributes. The coherent, opposing nature of each metaphor can make alternating between them difficult. While I initially address the nurturant-parent and strict-father metaphors independently, I subsequently consider the potential limitations of a binary worldview.
Nurturant Parent
Lakoff (2016) defines the nurturant-parent moral metaphor as foregrounding cooperation, empathy for others, and helping those in need. For strict liberals who rely on this metaphor, “questioning by children is seen as positive, since children need to learn why their parents do what they do and children often have good ideas that should be taken seriously” (Lakoff, 2016, p. 34). Adherents to the nurturant-parent moral metaphor understand the aim of life as happiness and self-fulfillment, and they understand self-fulfillment as necessitating the nurturance of others (Lakoff, 2016).
The empathy and cooperation central to the nurturant-parent moral metaphor have much in common with Allsup’s (2016) key concept of a laboratory learning environment. For example, Allsup writes, “The subject matter contains a problem that is designed to promote mutuality—to connect self-interest to interest in others—thereby laying the groundwork for community from the first encounter” (2016, p. 97). Additionally, those adhering to the nurturant-parent moral metaphor respect “the child’s own values and allowing the child to explore the range of ideas and options that the world offers” (Lakoff, 2016, p. 110). Similarly, Allsup promotes “a vision of learning that is funded by personal history and one that engages learners in idiosyncratic, unpredictable, and nonhierarchical ways” (2016, p. 77).
This agreement continues as Allsup (2016) enumerates specific key practices associated with his open philosophy of music education. He offers that “open-ended instruction” might involve the following:
Communication. The social aspect of learning: the urge to share.
Inquiry. Asking questions and solving problems: the desire to find out.
Construction. Shaping materials, finding divergent means: the need to make.
Artistic expression. The aesthetic domain: the urge to say something new, to reveal an aspect of one’s self. (Allsup, 2016, pp. 93–94)
Such language aligns with Lakoff’s (2016) claim that the nurturant-parent metaphor supports art making that is playful, is probing, develops one’s imaginative capacity, and involves “an exploration of form and of materials” (p. 238). It also echoes his statement “Nurturant parents encourage questioning, self-examination, and openness” (Lakoff, 2016, p. 111). As such, the very term open philosophy suggests agreement with the nurturant-parent moral metaphor. 5
More specifically, when Allsup (2016) directly attends to morals, his ideas often rely on the aforementioned variability, personal fulfillment, and diversity key to the nurturant-parent moral metaphor. For example, in the chapter titled “Looking, Longing for Moral Openings,” Allsup begins by proposing five ideas, the first four of which are the following: 6
Norms and traditions should be understood and communicated to learners as provisional, ongoing, personal, and negotiable.
Although their purpose is to generalize, norms should be tested and retested across a span of lived and evolving contexts and deemed useful or not by the learner.
Norms and traditions should be continually expanded to include those voices, ways of knowing, and emerging practices that have been hitherto silenced or disregarded.
Practices that eventuate harm must be named, and then altered, repaired or discarded. (2016, p. 107; emphasis added)
Points 1 and 4 emphasize the importance of variability, and Points 1 and 2 center personal fulfillment, while Point 3 suggests valuing diversity. Although elsewhere in the chapter Allsup briefly implies an even more open Dewey-inspired ethics, which would avoid presupposing specific moral values, this list demonstrates a clear preference for values key to the nurturant-parent moral metaphor. This agreement with the nurturant-parent moral metaphor pervades the chapter at large, including Allsup’s extended attention to a variable, personally fulfilling “third meaning.”
The only key point of the nurturant-parent moral metaphor not fully developed in Allsup’s (2016) text is an emphasis on fair distribution. Lakoff (2016) describes that fair distribution involves the allotment of resources, opportunities, rights, responsibilities, power, and procedures (e.g., playing by the same rules) as well as needs-based fairness. Allsup’s critique of musical and pedagogical “laws” and oppressive teacher–student relationships suggests that he favors an age-appropriate fair distribution of responsibility and power within music teaching and learning settings. Allsup also names forms of systemic oppression, such as racism and homophobia, that inhibit the fair distribution of resources and opportunities. Yet, as Bradley (2017) observes, Allsup often subsumes these justice-related ideas “under calls for human relationships and human flourishing” (p. 38), rather than treating them as a central value. The absence of emphasis on fair distribution creates a slight tension between Allsup’s text and the nurturant-parent moral metaphor. However, his main ideas stand in almost complete opposition to the key values constituting the strict-father moral metaphor.
Strict Parent
Lakoff (2016) draws a stark divide between the values constituting the nurturant-parent and strict-father moral metaphors. He explains moral strength, including self-control, “respect for obedience to authority,” competition, and “the setting and following of strict guidelines and behavioral norms,” as central to the strict-father metaphor (Lakoff, 2016, p. 35). In this metaphor, it is immoral for a parent not to exert authority: “A parent must know better than the child what the child’s and the family’s best interests are” (Lakoff, 2016, p. 79). Through the pursuit of self-interest, strict conservatives understand their aim as “using self-discipline to achieve self-reliance” (Lakoff, 2016, p. 35).
Lakoff (2016) chose the term “strict father” in order to illuminate how an emphasis on moral strength encourages a prioritization of male over female authority in strict conservatives’ personal and political life. However, he acknowledges that the strict-father moral metaphor can and does inform females’ decision making. In addition to its offensive sexist implications, the term “strict father” suggests a problematic binary and solidified understanding of gender identity. Since within this metaphor the teacher should possess more moral strength than students, and the music education discourse I investigate primarily attends to relationships between a single teacher and one or more students, gender-based hierarchies between teachers or between students do not have particular relevance for this inquiry. As such, when referring to Lakoff’s strict-father moral metaphor, I substitute the term “strict parent” for the remainder of this inquiry.
In music education, the strict-parent metaphor aligns with what Allsup (2016) defines as closed forms. He writes that closed forms “exist in proximity to the authoritative, the certain, and the canonic” (Allsup, 2016, p. 48). Allsup continues that closed forms rely on structure, stability, and norm-driven literacies, and they are often “attached to a well-known competition” (2016, p. 55). 7 Likewise, Lakoff (2016) notes that those following the strict-parent model think that “survival is a matter of competition” (p. 66) and conceive of artistic standards as “absolute and lasting” (p. 237). For such thinkers, it would be immoral not to have clear criteria for excellence or to bestow rewards not earned through competition.
As Bowman (2017) and Marsh et al. (2017) explain, Allsup (2016) ultimately positions himself in opposition to closed forms. For example, Allsup writes, “To think of young people as ‘needing’ tradition bothers me” (2016, p. 79). Given that the survival of traditions and values is a “major concern” for those following the strict-parent moral metaphor (Lakoff, 2016, p. 65), Allsup’s statement suggests moral understandings that directly contrast strict conservatives’ thinking.
Similarly, much of Allsup’s (2016) explanation of the laboratory works in tension with the strict-parent metaphor. For example, he writes, “I want to see aesthetic criteria from the past destabilized and thrown into strange combination. I want to see standards of practice challenged, norms negotiated or refigured, and contexts confused” (2016, p. 87). Those relying on the strict-parent moral metaphor oppose such aims. For these individuals, “immoral behavior is ‘deviant’ behavior, a form of metaphorical motion into unsanctioned areas, along unsanctioned paths, and toward unsanctioned destinations” (Lakoff, 2016, p. 84). Understanding life through a strict-parent metaphor involves not only bypassing unfamiliar routes but avoiding people, including teachers, who might promote them.
More specifically, when Allsup (2016) directly attends to morals, his main ideas contradict the strict-parent moral metaphor. For example, Allsup writes, “Moral principles, with no fixed ends to govern behavior, depend on inquiry, dialogue, and communication with others. They are directive, but open. They are tools, not Laws” (Allsup, 2016, p. 108). 8 The flexibility and uncertainty within such statements clearly contrasts the moral strength and long-standing moral principles central to the strict-parent moral metaphor. Similarly, those adhering to the strict-parent moral metaphor center “moral wholeness,” which involves unity, stability, consistency, and predictability. Those possessing moral wholeness are not “easily swayed by social or political pressures or fashions” (Lakoff, 2016, p. 91).
Furthermore, at the beginning of the aforementioned “Looking, Longing for Moral Openings” chapter, Allsup’s (2016) fifth proposed idea reads, “There are fields of interest and longing beyond traditional norms and authorial intentions toward which a learner may choose to stray” (p. 107). By transgressing boundaries and creating new paths, those not adhering to the strict-parent metaphor may undermine the moral order as they “lead others astray” (Lakoff, 2016, p. 85). As such, the strict-parent moral-political metaphor directly contrasts key aspects of Allsup’s moral framework.
Potential Value of Moral-Political Discourses
Misunderstanding and Misrecognizing Conservatism
Interestingly, Allsup (2016) does not view his work as necessarily favoring liberal over conservative thinking. He states, “I have taken pains in this chapter to describe the ideals of the laboratory as the result of a beautiful dialectic of the conservative and the forward thinking” (Allsup, 2016, p. 92). If one understands conservative thinking primarily as the desire to conserve tradition, then Allsup indeed attends to such practices. He repeatedly emphasizes the necessity of preserving and transmitting alongside rectifying and expanding, summarizing, “I seek a vision of laboratory learning that engages the traditional without worshipping the past” (Allsup, 2016, p. 77). Yet, for those reliant on the strict-parent moral metaphor, conservatism demands more than including certain music traditions. Honoring the transmission of traditions but not discipline, competition, and self-interest undermines key aspects of the strict-parent moral metaphor and therefore may inhibit teachers’ engagements with parents and students adhering to all or part of such thinking.
When music educators rely on a limited understanding of conservatism, they may assume that all or most stakeholders agree with their central values. For example, consider Allsup’s (2016) assertion, “I worry that well-intentioned conservators issue the traditions they think others should value, or assume that the artistic procedures and processes of an earlier generation are compelling enough in extant form that they need no classroom reconstruction or revitalization” (p. 84). This argument omits that those working in agreement with the strict-parent moral metaphor understand being “well intentioned” as necessitating the moral duty of conserving the traditions they, as morally strong adults, deem valuable.
Additionally, moral positioning involves not just what one values but also how one orders those values. Consider Allsup’s (2016) statement, “Few would disagree that the ends of a music education should be human flourishing and a commitment to individual and social well-being” (p. 111). I agree with Allsup that most music educators value human flourishing, at least to some extent. However, Lakoff (2016) explains that in the strict-parent moral metaphor, respect for moral authority matters more than human flourishing; for adherents to this metaphor, lack of flourishing is justice for a lack of discipline. Allsup’s assertion that music educators understand flourishing as a primary aim of their work neglects that they may place a greater emphasis on values, such as discipline, aligned with the strict-parent moral metaphor. While discipline and human flourishing need not be mutually exclusive, how music educators order those values can encourage contrasting practices and student experiences.
Furthermore, the title and content of Allsup’s (2016) “Looking, Longing for Moral Openings” chapter suggests that current music education practices often lack moral direction. Yet, moral values associated with the strict-parent metaphor permeate the profession. For example, consider the values of discipline and adherence to authority favored in some band, choir, and orchestra ensembles (e.g., Allsup & Benedict, 2008). As explained earlier, self-control, following strict behavioral norms, and “respect for obedience to authority” constitute key components of the strict-parent metaphor (Lakoff, 2016, p. 35). As such, there exists alignment between the values favored by some ensemble directors and the strict-parent moral metaphor. These educators’ practices lack not moral values but an emphasis on nurturant-parent moral values.
When philosophers like Allsup implicitly equate morals with the nurturant-parent moral-political metaphor, they omit how other moral frameworks, including the strict-parent moral metaphor, may inform or align with music education practices. When the strict-parent moral metaphor goes unacknowledged, music educators may come to understand emphasizing its associated values (e.g., self-control and competition) as natural and normal rather than as reinforcing a particular moral worldview. This misrecognition causes adherents of values aligned with the nurturant-parent moral metaphor to defend why their moral framework should be brought into what they (and likely others) understand as a primarily amoral or morally neutral space. Such action enables those favoring the status quo to assert that morals, and, by extension, politics, have no place in the music classroom. In short, absent recognition of the strict-parent moral metaphor, discussions about what kind of moral values should inform music education may get misrecognized as arguments about whether or not moral concerns should inform music education.
Attending to both the strict- and nurturant-parent moral-political metaphors involves acknowledging the moral-political nature of everyday music education practices. It follows that incorporating practices aligned with the nurturant-parent moral metaphor, such as those related to social justice, does not involve inserting moral-political discourse into a morally neutral and apolitical space. Rather, these practices enter a learning environment already aligned with some combination of the strict- and nurturant-parent moral metaphors. If music educators want to defend the status quo, then they might explain why the moral values aligned with their current practices deserve more attention than other alternatives. How might music educators who have acknowledged alignment between their chosen philosophically-informed practices and moral-political frameworks proceed?
Working With and Within Moral-Political Dichotomies
One possible response would be for music educators to favor the moral-political practices they personally deem most important for their teaching context. Although such action emphasizes educators’ autonomy and treats them as professionals trusted to make their own decisions, it denies that music educators individually or the music education profession at large have any responsibility for engaging students with different perspectives. While one might feel excited by the prospect of teachers advancing the moral-political philosophy that aligns with their own, imagining how a teacher espousing a primarily opposing moral-political philosophy would impact students illuminates the problematic nature of this stance. Additionally, since such action can produce markedly divergent learnings based on teachers’ idiosyncratic interests and biases, it may encourage stakeholders to understand music education as a random activity rather than as subject worthy of serious study and funding.
A related potential response involves encouraging music educators to favor the moral-political metaphor that best fits their teaching context. Since many schools, states, and countries do not require mandatory amounts of music instruction, music educators’ continued employment typically necessitates support from administrators, parents, and communities. Music educators may find that reinforcing their local community’s predominant moral-political consciousness increases their program’s funding and longevity. Music educators working with more politically conservative populations may find it productive to emphasize strict-parent values, such as discipline, self-reliance, and competition. Alternatively, educators in more liberal communities may find added support by emphasizing qualities, such as imagination and empathetic cross-cultural understandings, generally favored by those working from the nurturant-parent moral metaphor.
While adapting one’s music education program to align more heavily with a community’s prevailing moral metaphor may assist music educators in maintaining and growing their programs, such action is problematic because it propagates existing moral-political divisions. In the process, teachers deny students opportunities to understand potential alternatives to their family’s and community’s predominant beliefs. Moreover, favoring practices that align with the majority’s moral values can work against the interests and needs of those already marginalized by their minority status within a school or community.
A third option, one that Lakoff (2016) advocates for education in general, involves purposefully balancing the teaching of strict-parent and nurturant-parent moral metaphors. He proposes that teachers provide examples of both metaphors, explain how adherents of each metaphor would criticize the other, and note their links to political thought. While extended discussions about moral metaphors may be more easily integrated into subjects such as English literature or social studies, music educators might adopt subject-specific variations. For example, a music educator might intentionally divide their curriculum so that the first half of the year centers on Allsup’s (2016) closed musical forms and the second half centers on open musical forms. They also might facilitate discussions regarding the moral-political implications, including potential overlaps and integrations, of these contrasting musical practices. Although such a prescribed balance partly undermines teachers’ and students’ interests and agency, it promotes knowledge and experiences important for democratic engagement. Lakoff explains, “In a democratic country we have to live with people who have very different moral views than our own. We need to be able to pick out those views, name them, and discuss them openly” (2016, p. 243). 9 This also involves acknowledging that political viewpoints range from those of far-right conservatives to moderate conservatives and liberals to independents to far-left liberals.
Any of the three aforementioned possible ways forward depends on a deep understanding of music education practices related to both the strict-parent and nurturant-parent moral-political metaphors. However, Lakoff (2016) explains that, unlike liberals, conservatives have “to a significant extent, come together on the question of their central values” (p. 426). Likewise, most music education programs occur within schools of music, which remain largely devoted to a conservatory model emphasizing the traditions, individual achievement, and discipline that align with the strict-parent moral metaphor.
Although policy makers have advocated for more divergent thinking and musical diversity consistent with the nurturant-parent moral metaphor (e.g., Campbell et al., 2016), preservice teacher curricula largely devoted to apprenticeship-based private lessons, conductor-led large ensembles, and lecture-driven Western music theory and history continue to favor the strict-parent moral metaphor. Even within music education course work, nurturant-parent values, such as empathy, cooperation, and self-fulfillment, often remain peripheral and unarticulated. Unless music teacher preparation programs provide preservice teachers the skills and dispositions needed to enact the nurturant-parent moral metaphor, music educators risk defaulting to practices aligning with a strict-parent worldview. Yet, even if preservice teacher educators create more politically balanced programs, framing music education primarily in terms of philosophical concepts that reinforce existing moral-political dichotomies still carries marked limitations.
Limits of Division
While those music educators who work within contemporary politically polarized societies cannot necessarily escape or disregard binary thinking, they might acknowledge the limitations of such conceptualizations. Balancing the strict- and nurturant-parent moral-political metaphors necessitates moving among what Lakoff (2016) explains as “radically opposed” systems (p. 35). For example, engaging with closed musical forms necessitates disciplined attention to standardized practices over an extended time. Such focusing may make the transition to experimenting with open forms confusing and superficial. Rather than freely remixing divergent musical practices, students and teachers who spend substantial time championing formal jazz music-making standards could likely use those standards to construct and evaluate their cross-genre experiments. Conversely, students who have bought into the values of personal fulfillment and openness to uncertainty as they experiment within a musical laboratory could likely find the imposition of closed hierarchies jarring and stifling.
Although one might try to move seamlessly between open and closed forms or laboratories and museums, the mere act of invoking a dichotomous frame reinforces that frame. In Lakoff’s (2016) words, “to carry out the instruction ‘Don’t think of an elephant’ you have to think of an elephant” (p. 420). As such, just as voters typically default to either a liberal or a conservative position on most issues, 10 teachers and students may default to favoring one set of moral-political values, through which they will frame the other side of the dichotomy. Stated differently, concepts that align with contrasting moral-political positions resist juxtaposition and integration. Yet, given the current polarized political climate in the United States, Brazil, India, and elsewhere (Carothers & O’Donohue, 2019), many music educators and students cannot necessarily circumvent dichotomized worldviews.
Additionally, regardless of whether such music educators align their practices with moral-political metaphors based on their own beliefs, a community’s preferences, or a balanced approach, dichotomous conceptualizations may encourage stakeholders to perceive all music teaching and learning as primarily a matter of political preference. Mehta and Fine (2019) explain that education in general has “a weak foundation of professionally accepted definitions of the nature of the work and the ways it should be carried out—which has made it particularly vulnerable to changing public priorities” (p. 400). Just as conservatives and liberals have competed to control the narrative about climate change within science classrooms, 11 one can imagine political stakeholders arguing over the value of music education primarily reliant on museums versus laboratories (Allsup, 2016) or transmission versus transformation (Jorgensen, 1997). Although it would be utopian to think that music educators can always avoid binary concepts, it is important that they understand the limits of invoking and drawing upon such discourse.
The potential undercutting of professional expertise is particularly troubling given the recent rise of populist politics in Brazil, the United Kingdom, the United States, and elsewhere. Populist politics that is “skeptical about knowledge, dismissive of expertise, [and] distrustful of educated people” (Mehta & Fine, 2019, p. 399) undermines education, educators, and educational institutions at all levels. A key point unacknowledged by Lakoff (2016) is that education discourse that aligns with existing moral-political metaphors has the potential to reinforce the populist position that professional knowledge is capricious and potentially untrustworthy. Although the construction of knowledge within and across disciplines demands continued critical attention, music educators might acknowledge that when they align their practices with one or more competing moral discourses, they risk furthering a perception that all knowledge is relative and thus malleable to one’s political aims.
Conceptualizing music education as dichotomous, particularly in a way that parallels contemporary moral-political frameworks, omits both opportunities for compromise and ways of thinking and being not beholden to a dualistic liberal–conservative mindset. Yet, music educators alone cannot overcome the political polarization pervasive in many contemporary societies. As such, the profession might acknowledge the limitations of dichotomized systems while recognizing that music educators in certain contexts are constrained in part to working within them. Drawing on these arguments, I suggest three implications for teachers and students navigating contemporary divisive political environments.
Implications
First, teachers might acknowledge that in addition to an emphasis on transmitting traditions, conservatism involves the values of discipline, self-reliance, and competition pervasive within the music education profession. Possessing a more holistic understanding of the rationale underlying the strict-parent moral-political metaphor can facilitate richer, more meaningful dialogue important for democratic institutions. In particular, when considering the role of morals, music educators might acknowledge that they often are choosing not between apolitical practices and political alternatives but among practices favoring particular aspects of the strict- and nurturant-parent moral-political metaphors.
Second, perhaps building on Bates’s (2004) writings about a nurturant ethic for music education or Allsup’s (2016) open philosophy, music educators might dialogue about how values and practices related to the nurturant-parent moral metaphor could play a more significant role within the profession. 12 Imagine, for example, preservice teacher education programs grounded in the values of empathy, cooperation, diversity, and self-fulfillment. I wonder, What cooperative projects and musical events could explore and develop empathy? What elective options could facilitate culturally relevant teacher preparation while enabling divergent, self-fulfilling paths? The online spaces and creative responses necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic may provide an unprecedented opportunity to experiment with nurturant-parent values at both the preK–12 and collegiate levels.
Finally, while still acknowledging the politically polarized contexts in which they work, music educators might question when, why, and how discourse and practices not central to either moral-political metaphor could benefit teachers and students. This might include ideas, like balance, that pervade Chinese philosophical traditions (e.g., Fung, 2018; Tan & Lu, 2018) or Sedgwick’s (2003) feminist “positionality of beside,” in which ideas or elements lie alongside one another, thus avoiding the “linear logics that enforce dualistic thinking” (p. 8). Alternatively, consider the epistemological understandings that Mehta and Fine (2019) explain as key to promoting “deep learning.”
Findings from Mehta and Fine’s (2019) 6-year qualitative case study indicate that secondary school teachers who best promoted deep learning understood their fields as “places where different people would develop different interpretations, experiments, and approaches to problems”; such understandings made it seem “natural to invite students into the process of inquiry, connecting them to the generations of scholars and seekers of knowledge who had come before” (p. 352). Attending to prior generations’ knowledge aligns with the strict-parent metaphor’s emphasis on maintaining standards and traditions, and acknowledging different seekers of knowledge, including presumably those historically excluded from academia, agrees with the nurturant-parent metaphor’s emphasis on diversity. Additionally, the word connecting allows for some of the unpredictability important for the nurturant-parent metaphor, but it avoids making uncertainty an aim in itself, which would directly contrast the strict-parent metaphor.
Since understanding education as a “process of inquiry” (Mehta & Fine, 2019, p. 352) involves knowledge of musical processes as well as a curious disposition, such action marries a degree of standardized, self-interested achievement with the ongoing investigation indicative of the nurturant-parent metaphor. Similarly, starting from a problem, rather than from a preset goal, avoids understanding individual gain as the primary aim of education, as the strict-parent metaphor demands; however, it still enables opportunities for individual achievement. Simultaneously, Mehta and Fine’s (2019) emphasis on different interpretations aligns with the nurturant-parent metaphor’s attention to questioning and students’ ideas, yet it resists the markedly deviant paths and significant uncertainty antithetical to the strict-parent moral metaphor.
While acknowledging the impossibility of completely bypassing the binary moral-political orientation of societies at large, music educators and students might at times emphasize thoughtful discourse that resists entrenchment in the aforementioned moral-political metaphors. Such action may mitigate the worst effects of political divisiveness, including the potential for populist political practices to undermine scholarly knowledge and skill. It may also make moments when music educators choose to take a moral-political stand on issues more meaningful and palatable to skeptical stakeholders. For instance, a teacher who incorporates a Black Lives Matter musical unit into curricula not otherwise overly reliant on either moral-political metaphor may confront less resistance than one who constantly invokes discourse associated with the nurturant-parent moral metaphor.
However, since dichotomous categories constitute a key aspect of many societies’ democratic governance, music educators cannot easily overcome or avoid them. Music educators, students, and communities inevitably need to make choices about how the strict- versus nurturant-parent moral-political metaphors will play out in their classrooms. Drawing on the three potential responses presented, teachers and students might consider the advantages and disadvantages of foregrounding a metaphor based on their own preferences or their community’s preferences or dividing their time equally among the two metaphors.
Yet, this does not mean that teachers’ morals are relativistic. Educators, profession leaders, and other stakeholders still have an obligation to name and discuss problematic practices, regardless of whether they fit within a moral-political metaphor. For example, the music education profession currently positions the values of diversity and equity, which align primarily with the nurturant-parent metaphor, as universally important (e.g., International Society for Music Education, 2019; National Association for Music Education, 2017a, 2017b). Acknowledgment of intersections between music education discourse and prevailing moral-political metaphors might serve as a starting point for discussion rather than as an end in itself.
Since this inquiry is premised on Lakoff’s (2016) cognitive linguistic research, any limitations of that work would inform these arguments. Given contemporary divides within liberal and conservative politics, one possible limitation is that more than two main moral-political metaphors may currently inform individuals’ thinking and action. Another possible limitation is that Lakoff’s research overly dichotomizes the strict- and nurturant-parent metaphors; instead, these metaphors may function on more of a continuum than Lakoff acknowledges. Given these potential limitations, music educators might take the ideas presented here as a starting point for understanding their own and others’ potentially fluid moral-political positionality rather than as an immobile framework.
In summary, music educators might name how their discourse and actions align with contemporary moral-political metaphors. In particular, they might acknowledge the pervasiveness of teaching and learning practices aligning with the strict-parent moral metaphor and avoid misrecognizing such action as ethically neutral and apolitical. Given that much current music teacher preparation favors the strict-parent moral-political metaphor, music educators might consider providing significantly increased attention to the nurturant-parent moral-political metaphor and its associated practices. Music educators might also experiment with discourse and practices that do not directly invoke either moral-political metaphor. Although teachers and students cannot necessarily escape existing moral-political categories, by considering when and how they want to engage with them, they might take more agency over their moral-political positionality.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Phil Richerme for reading an initial draft of this piece and providing insightful observations and suggestions.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
