Editorial

This special issue of the Philosophy of Music Education Review entitled, “Sociology Meets Philosophy of Music Education,” was born of a conversation with Sean Powell at a qualitative inquiry conference held at Boston University that developed into a fruitful collaboration. Too often, academics are trapped within silos of their own making constrained by the specialized scholarly traditions in which they are steeped and unable for want of time, training, inclination, or opportunity to converse beyond these narrow boundaries. Philosophy, being a discipline focused on ideas and practices of all sorts, gathers ideas not only from its own particular traditions but beyond itself. Why not consider what an allied field of theoretical sociology might offer philosophers of music education? Asking the question “Why not?” opened the prospect of a focused issue of PMER of interest to philosophers, sociologists, and those interested in the intersections between sociology and philosophy. The quintet of articles that comprise this issue is contributed by an international group of writers and encompasses a broad array of themes that illustrate the ways in which philosophers and sociologists may find common ground. Our writers illumine the value of thinking beyond narrow and hard boundaries to grapple with the often broad and complex philosophical and practical questions that music educators confront. They further underscore the importance of regarding disciplinary borders in ways that Claire Detels might think of as “soft-boundaried” and that allow separate scholarly traditions to cross-fertilize others. And they illustrate the contributions and detractions of theoretical sociology for music education thought and practice.

Beginning with a discussion of the consonances and dissonances between sociology and philosophy, Sidsel Karlsen critically examines the role of sociological theory in music education scholarship, in particular the use to which it is put. In so doing, she unmasks something of the “epistemic unconscious” in music education research. Karlsen finds evidence of a comparative lack of theory creation on the part of sociologists of music education. For her, most researchers seem more interested in sociological intersections with or applications to practice (or what she calls the “logic of practice”) rather than in producing foundational, academically-oriented scholarship. Moreover, she finds their perspectives to be predominantly Western-centric.

Joseph Abramo examines some of the recent epistemological and cultural turns in the sociology of music education. These turns reflect forces of economic and cultural “dematerialization” that have privileged non-material symbols, culture, and mental processes and have led sociologists of music education to likewise focus on these non-material aspects. Applying Marx’s dialectical materialism to these turns in sociological music education research, Abramo traces the impact of economic and cultural changes in sociological research in music education and suggests philosophical and sociological questions for scholars and policymakers in music education.

Nasim Niknafs posits that the social assumptions and practices underlying notions of democratic music education and citizenship are generally presented as if they are unmixed goods to which all music teachers should aspire. Drawing on sociological literature in education and music education and on Achille Mbembe’s concept of “necropolitics,” she critiques the use of the adjective “democratic” in education and its associated cultivation of citizenship to expose its dark side and even lethality. In her critique, she underscores the violence that can be done in the name of music education ideas and practices based solely on democratic ideals. When this is the case, music education becomes an “effigy” of what it claims to be. Her analysis constitutes a corrective for the uncritical embrace of democratic and citizenship education as ideals in music education philosophy and practice.

Sean Powell proposes three principal reasons why social theory is important for music education scholarship. First, it can contribute importantly to empirical research in ways that “abstracted empiricism” cannot. Second, when “developed, extended, and advanced through empirical research” it can contribute importantly to philosophical propositions that relate to music education. Third, it provides an important window into crucial matters concerning “power dynamics,” “ideologies,” and the development of relevant scholarship for the field.

Vincent Bates draws on Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of “cultural capital,” particularly his notion of habitus, to critique music education’s emphasis on cultural refinement that aims...