‘Place’ Philosophy in the Music Classroom

Place theory education is based on a philosophy that suggests places represent a particular time, space, and experience. Places shape behavior and identity. Our identity is represented as a place we see our selves in. Identity is shaped by the places in which we identify with. All places within our identity are interconnected. “Place” education is contradictory to standardized education in which regardless the time or pace, the place is the “same”.

I imagine ‘place’ education as culturally responsive teaching; teaching that reflects the ‘time and space’. Stauffer suggests that today’s music education is ‘place-bound’, meaning that music education is only imagined in center places, which in turn impedes transformation.

Stauffer addresses music education transformation and its importance to the students we teach. I find the term ‘transformation’ is troublesome for two reasons. First, for the established ‘industries’[1] in music education (i.e. band, orchestra, chorus), transformation might in fact inhibit change. These ‘industries’ are rooted in traditions and the term transformation is seen as a threat to traditions. Basic instincts within the industry would be to protect itself and reject “transformations”. Second, ‘transformation’ places music education into a binary state; the before and after. This binary state (good/bad, before/after) is contrary to the purpose of ‘place’ education in that it is stagnant. A place, by definition, is space and time, both of which are fluid or constantly changing.

I suggest that instead of viewing ‘place’ education as ‘transformational’, we view it as ‘responsive’. Instead of viewing Jims story as a major transformation or a radical change, Jim was responsive in his practices. Unlike transformative, responsive implies constantly changing ideas through questioning and analyzing practices (the purpose of philosophy and the nature of ‘place’ education.

Within my own classroom and professional identity I relate to Stauffer’s suggestion that we should see ourselves as music educators instead of band directors, choir directors, orchestra conductors. As many undergraduate music education programs do, I was tracked as an instrumental music educator (in more honest terms, training band director). I never saw myself as a band director as I believed it limited my potential to reach the kids that I wanted to work with (urban youth). I hadn’t doubted my choice to be an educator or work with urban youth, but I wasn’t aware of the possible connections I would be able to make with the demographics I wanted to work with. This pushed me to pursue a non-traditional teaching position for my first job.

[1] Band, orchestra, and choirs are industries in the respect to specific teacher training (seen as technical trades) and the robust commercial sector of music, instruments, and other pedagogical or performance tools.