I was delighted that Ann Sloboda, Alexia Quin, Sarah Hadley, Karen Sharp and Neta Spiro had agreed to be on the panel for this roundtable discussion. This was an interesting process, as when we met for our pre-conference discussion it became clear that we could talk on the subject for a lot longer than the allotted 90 minutes. I had invited each person because of their particular experiences of having to communicate about music therapy, so we would have perspectives from the course leader, the head of a charity, the NHS service manager, the trainee and the researcher. We decided that, instead of following the usual model of having a series of short presentations followed by a discussion, we would simply introduce ourselves and then launch straight into the latter part. I had certain ideas about what each of the panellists might bring to the table, based on their professional experience and positions. What I certainly didn’t know was how much the rest of the people in the room would bring to the discussion which, as it turned out, was a lot.
We considered whether we even need a definition for music therapy, whether this is a useful concept, or whether it is more helpful to describe what music therapy might achieve in a specific context. Part of this process was stimulated by some attempts at definition which Neta presented to the room. She had a number of these at the ready, but in the event we looked at only two, so lively was the ensuing discussion. These were the BAMT definition, which was relatively succinct, and the definition of the American Music Therapy Association, which was lengthy and seemed to be attempting to cover all bases, perhaps as a response to the legalities of the medical insurance system in the USA. Both definitions had parts which people found contentious, while both had useful content as well. Parts of the American definition were very clear and definite, which was good, but there was a danger of promising too much. Is it still ‘music therapy’ if ‘therapeutic aims’ are not wholly met?
The diversity of contexts in which music therapists find themselves, along with the variety of personal experiences which they bring to the work, both have an impact on the way the work is talked about. One person, who came from a business background before becoming a music therapist, compared our task to that of marketing a product. Do we describe a bottle of Domestos as ‘blue and made of plastic’, or do we say that it ‘kills 99% of known germs’. In other words, is it more useful to talk about what music therapy might achieve than trying to pin down what it ‘is’? Another person described their work in a Steiner school, where the process of music therapy might be described as ‘soul care’, acknowledging that such a formulation is very context-specific and would probably not be useful in a mainstream school or within a ‘medical-model’ culture.
There was some discussion about the importance of the way we talk about music therapy. Do we try to present ourselves as ‘knowledgeable experts’, using fancy language to demonstrate our level of training and experience, or should we always aim for clarity and simplicity? (I think it would be fair to say that the consensus was towards the latter.) Certain statements seemed to be at the core of what most people in the room thought about music therapy, such as the idea of ‘the power of music’ and the idea that ‘music is essential to every human being’. Had we had more time it would have been interesting to explore these assumptions a bit more. I asked, ‘Is music always powerful?’, which met with some acknowledgement of the validity of the question, but we didn’t explore this in depth.
A couple of things seemed clear. One was that music therapists, or at least the ones who came to this roundtable, are pretty good at talking about their work with non-music therapists, and they think carefully about the language they use to describe it, adopting a pragmatic approach which can adapt according to the situation. Another was that an important aspect of this is confidence. People were sometimes uncomfortable with being asked to give a definition, and I put the panel members on the spot a couple of times with his one. The aim of this discussion was never to arrive at an agreed definition, but rather to explore the challenges that the idea presents, and to share approaches. This felt like an appropriate thing to be doing as part of a conference which was exploring the developing identity of the profession. It has given all of us plenty of food for thought. No doubt the discussions will continue.
No comments:
Post a Comment