3/6/2017 0 Comments Course ReflectionsHenry Cobb
Throughout the duration of this course, I have had the opportunity to hear many different perspectives on the current state of music education. On top of this, the very concept of—and philosophy behind—music education as a whole has come up through our course discussions. Most of these perspectives have been pointing out the numerous flaws within the system of music education; the theme of the disconnect between music as an interest has come up multiple times in different readings. I enjoy discussing this, because I think it is an issue that is the plague of music programs across the country and as the potential next generation of music educators, it will be our duty to combat it. Some of the articles, namely articles #1, #3 and #4, were in my opinion written by ideologues with a political agenda—more focused on forwarding their own political beliefs through music education rather than the actual subject. I recall in the first article the authors took fault with the very concept of musical notation because it excluded people who could not read music. Inclusion is everything, right? No matter how much we have to lower our standards? Article #3 was more about social justice than it was about music, encouraging the policing of speech to avoid what the author calls “ableist” language. If the author of this article was in charge of our nation, we’d likely all be conversing in a form of newspeak from Orwell’s 1984. After all, the only safe language is language that cannot possibly offend anyone in any way possible. Throughout reading this article, I was hearing a George Carlin quote echo in the back of my mind over and over again: “These people have been bullsh—ted by the system into believing that if you change the name of the condition, somehow you’ll change the condition.” The author paints a picture of the world where if we simply change our language, disability ceases to exist. It’s a lovely idea, but it doesn’t quite translate to the real world. Nevertheless, I enjoyed reading these perspectives and getting the chance to write a reflection on them. As one of my all-time favorite philosophers John Stuart Mill said, “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may be able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.” I kept this quote in mind as I read many of the articles. I have enjoyed this course thus far because I enjoy my opinion being challenged, and I especially enjoy a stage to challenge the opinions of others. However, I very much dislike the different “rules” of speech that are periodically enforced when we are having discussions. It makes discussion extremely inefficient and it only serves to disguise and suppress a student’s opinion behind useless “soft language” (to reference George Carlin again.) Speech in these discussions should be entirely free, as is entailed by Section 2(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is my opinion that the classes where we meet separately are vastly superior to the classes in TC-307. The discussions feel much more free and I feel as though we accomplish more.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
|