You would not believe the number of false starts on a blog entry that litter my hard drive. Or if you’re a writer, perhaps you would. Too many topics, not enough time, and the end consequence for me has been a kind of literary paralysis which, judging by the interval between this entry and the last, has been in effect for almost two years.
The Sistema chapters are largely closed at this point. Most of the world has mercifully moved on, with the disiecta membra occasionally reanimated Frankenstein-style for a moment by an under-researched production team whose portfolio likely includes a documentary on the innovation of bread slicing. Overall, the Sistema recession must be considered a positive development, because there are larger and more pressing problems to investigate and questions to answer within music education. What of the answers to the Sistema questions and problems? We have many of them – we as a sector just didn’t want them. The number of former Sistema advocates who have become extremely autocratic, authoritarian conductors in the last few years is truly remarkable, demonstrating that most of those who profess to serve also believe their service is best bestowed by the unchecked exercise of their own power in the imposition of their singular vision.
Yes, this is a problem fundamental to human nature, not exclusive to Sistema or music education. Within music education, instructor authoritarianism is a product of 400-plus years of tradition where unconditional deference to the teacher was demanded and rigorously enforced on pain of expulsion. Advocates of this system point to highly refined and accomplished practitioners as proof of its success. This is naked survivor bias. The examples cited are always the few individuals who made it through. What about all the others, forever unaccounted, who could not find a pathway within music because of antiquated, rigid instructional practices? Proponents of the conservatory system also must ignore the incredible potential and corresponding history of psychological, physical and sexual abuse. Even if the most egregious offenders have now been identified, disavowed, and in rare cases incarcerated, institutional instructors still hold ludicrous amounts of power over the students in their studios. The problems of abuse aren’t going away, they’re just finding new rocks to hide beneath, and institutions still show a marked propensity for removing students who speak up rather than terminating misbehaving white faculty.
They’re called “conservatories” for a reason. Their mission is not to innovate or evolve, but to preserve, and even self-professed liberal arts institutions cling to the model in actual practice of music teaching.
The unfortunate intersection of base human nature and power is an interesting digression, but a digression nonetheless. The “problem” whose introduction was promised is not such a casual and unoriginal observation: human nature is mere context. The “problem”, most specifically applied to music education and most succinctly expressed, is that we teach the way we were taught. How we break that paradigm of unthinking replication of an extremely dangerous, anti-social model is the bigger and far more interesting question to be answered. Understanding and addressing this phenomenon is the key to changing music education to where it more closely resembles the professed ideals and values of Sistema both in practices and outcomes, where the potential for abuse is minimized, and where there is a pathway for those for whom a conservatory model is not helpful.
To be continued – and hopefully within two years.
Jonathan Andrew Govias 