Learners or participants? The pros and cons of ‘Lifelong Learning.’

lifelong learningadult educationmusic learningcommunity musicparticipationgovernment policydiscourse analysis

Whereas adult education used to be the preferred concept for those studying adult music-making, there is now an increasing trend away from this and towards lifelong learning. Uncritically adopting government lifelong learning discourses, however, blurs the line between educational ideals and political ones. Although there may be merit in the claims for the benefits of learning throughout the lifespan, I suggest that the meaning and values of practice in community music activities far exceed that of learning for learning’s sake. I argue in this article that there are compelling reasons for reconsidering the use of the term ‘lifelong learning’ for community music activities.

Since 2003, the National Association for Music Education’s Adult & Community Music Education (ACME) special research interest group (SRIG) has sponsored a biennial conference (www.acmesrig.org). Titles are often taken, especially in academia, as indicative of content or matters of concern. Thus, the naming of the ACME SRIG’s symposia as ‘music and lifelong learn-ing’ can be understood as an intentional act of describing the activities and/or purposes of the group. At first gloss, the connection between adult and community education and lifelong learning appears well suited. The mission

IJCM 5.3_Mantie_217-235.indd 217 11/29/12 4:57:30 PM

http://www.acmesrig.org

of the ACME SRIG, as printed on the website, is ‘to promote research that fosters active involvement in the making, creating, and studying of music in the diverse and complex communities in which we live and across the lifespan through the understanding of the unique learning characteristics of adults’ (www.acmesrig.org). It would thus seem that lifelong learning is an accurate description of the group’s aims and purposes. However, as I argue in this arti-cle, there are compelling reasons for reconsidering, in spite of its apparent suitability, the use of the term ‘lifelong learning’ – not just for ACME SRIG activities, but for community music activities in general. To be clear, I am not suggesting that adult music-making activities are unimportant or that learning is not a vital component of adult music participation. Rather, I am suggesting that the phrase ‘lifelong learning’ is often used without a full appreciation of the motives behind its historical introduction and promotion.

As recounted by K. Olson, those in the American adult education movement have recognized the importance of music, as it was frequently an important part of Chautauqua assemblies, workers’ movements, the civil rights and femi-nist movements, and the Highlander Folk School (2005: 55). Scholarly interest among music educators interested in adult and older adult music-making popu-lations has increased tremendously in recent years, evident in the difference in quantity of literature presented by G. Darrough and J. Boswell (1992) and that of D. Coffman (2002a). Contemporary commentators on, and researchers of, adult and community music activities have considered a variety of problems related to learning and participation. These include: community music as music education (Augustin 2010; Koopman 2007), music as leisure (Belz 1994; Pike 2001, 2011; Rensink-Hoff 2009; Rybak 1995; Spencer 1996), adult learning and pedagogy (Boswell 1992; Cope 1999; Darrough 1992; Ernst and Emmons 1992; Myers 1992; Taylor and Hallam 2011), learning and participation (Arasi 2006; Bell 2008; Belz 1994; Boswell 1992; Busch 2005; Dabback 2007; Darrough 1990; Kruse 2009; Olson 2005; Powell 2003; Tsugawa 2009; Wilhjelm 1998), lifelong participation and its connection with schooling (Arasi 2006; Holmquist 1995; Lonnberg 1960; Myers 2008; Nazareth 1998; Thorton 2010; Turton and Durrant 2002), benefits of adult participation (Arasi 2006; Campbell 2010; Chiodo 1997; Coffman 2002b; Dabback 2007; Ernst and Emmons 1992; Rohwer 2008; Rohwer and Coffman 2007; Spencer 1996; Taylor and Hallam 2011; Vanderark 1983; Wise et al. 1992), lifespan commitment (Belz 1994; Chiodo 1997; Coffin 2005; Larson 1983), lifelong learning’s relationship to the vocations of performers and music teachers (Shuler 2012; Smilde 2008, 2010; Smith and Haack 2000), and the largest group of studies, investigations into needs, interests, and moti-vations of adult participants and non-participants (Bowen 1995; Coffin 2005; Coffman 1996; Faivre-Ransom 2001; Griffith 2006; Heintzelman 1988; Larson 1983; Patterson 1985; Rohwer 2010; Seago 1993; Spell 1989; Tatum 1985; Thaller 1999; Tipps 1992; Waggoner 1972).1 What is interesting to note in this body of literature is the distinction between those who use the phrase ‘lifelong learning’ and those who use adult education.2

Whereas adult education used to be the preferred concept for those studying adult music-making, there is now an increasing trend away from this and towards lifelong learning. For example, whereas C. C. Wilhjelm (1998) studied a community band he initiated that was formally dedicated to lifelong learning, F. C. Patterson (1985) does not mention the term, despite asking questions of directors and band members that today would almost certainly result in responses where lifelong learning was mentioned. This led me to further consider the concept’s historical emergence in the discourse of


http://www.acmesrig.org

music education in the United States.3 Although there are references to ‘life-long interest’ in music education writings as early as the 1930s, my JSTOR search revealed that the first appearance of the term ‘lifelong education’ in Music Educators Journal surprisingly did not occur until 1968 in a minor arti-cle entitled, ‘Designing music programs for junior colleges’ (Mason 1968). The phrase ‘lifelong learner’ appeared for the first time two years later (Allen 1970); ‘lifelong participation’ first appeared in 1975 (Campbell 1975). The first major appearance of lifelong education or lifelong learning as an identifiable concept appeared in a December 1975 article promoting the International Society for Music Education conference in Montreaux, the theme of which was ‘Music as a dimension of lifelong education’.4 It would take until a December 1978 article presciently entitled, ‘A look to the future’ (Mason 2008), however, before the actual phrase ‘lifelong learning’ would grace the pages of the journal, although it did not become a widely used term in the journal until an October 1980 article (Ball et al. 1980) detail-ing an MENC commission on graduate music teacher education. A special focus issue on lifelong learning appeared in 1992. The phrase ‘lifelong music learning’ appeared in Journal of Research in Music Education in 1981 (Caimi 1981) – the first reference to the concept of lifelong learning in that journal – although the first sustained usage as the term is used today did not appear until the following year (Gilbert and Beal 1982).

In this section I consider a brief overview of the history of lifelong learning in order to contextualize the discussion to follow. Specifically, I consider how and why the phrase lifelong learning has come to dominate policy discourses and the way we currently think about learning and education. There are many important concepts and issues, both philosophical and pragmatic, and I cannot possibly cover them all in this space.5 I concentrate here on just two: educa-tion as a problem of the individual and education as a problem of government (as strategy and as policy: welfare and competition).

Depending on how one wishes to define it, adult education has a history dating back many centuries. In contemporary terms it is discussed dating to the nineteenth century in Europe and Russia (Zajda 2003). In Anglo-American terms, the 1919 Final Report of the British Ministry of Reconstruction, Adult Education Committee is often considered a defining moment in adult educa-tion (Merriam et al. 2011). In the United States, the development of adult education is usually associated with the work of John Dewey and Eduard Lindeman and the adult education movement of the 1920s and 1930s.6 Theories vary, but for many commentators the rise of adult education was an outgrowth of concerns over idle time and fears over adults filling this time with ‘vapid leisure’, rather than more so-called desirable activities. Significantly, the push for adult education was connected with a belief in realizing human potential and coincided with the rise, at least in North America, of increased schooling among the population at large. Education was no longer just for the elite or for the young, it was to be for everyone of all ages. Notably, however, the phrase or concept of lifelong learning was not invoked. The goal was education in its more liberal or Deweyan sense. That is, learning was connected to a belief that human growth, understood primarily as intellectual growth, was necessary for happiness, well-being and ancient Greek ideals of ‘the good life’.


This concern for the individual eventually took on added dimensions of global human equality, as expressed by the related but slightly different concept of lifelong learning. UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, adopted lifelong learning as a developmental initiative where learning was viewed as a human right. In their 1972 publication, Learning to Be, UNESCO proposed lifelong learning as ‘the master concept for educa-tional policies in the years to come’ (182, as cited in Peterson 1979: 6). Rather than promoting adult education, which at the time was considered a privilege of ‘First World’ countries, lifelong learning was a seemingly more egalitarian concept, not necessarily dependent on planned programmes of instruction (although planned instruction was certainly actively promoted by UNESCO). This hopeful belief in the ideal of lifelong learning continued throughout the 1970s. A year in advance of the passing of the 1976 US Lifelong Learning Act, sponsor Walter Mondale wrote, ‘Lifelong learning offers hope to those who are mired in stagnant or disadvantaged circumstances – the unemployed, the isolated elderly, women, minorities, youth, workers whose jobs are becom-ing obsolete. All of them can and should be brought into the mainstream of American life’ (Hartle and Kutner 1979: 276). In other words, the benefits of lifelong learning extended from the individual to society.

Although largely driven by an interest in fulfilling human potential and ameliorating class differences, both intra- and internationally, the expansion of adult education and lifelong learning through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s was also a response to the changing nature of work, something that led to both increased leisure time (and attendant fears over how this time would be spent) and concerns about vocational adaptation. As technology contin-ued to alter the landscape of work it became increasingly apparent that adults would have to learn new skills, not just for self-preservation, but in order to further the production interests of commerce and industry. Without a work-force capable of embracing new job requirements, the potential of techno-logical enhancements would remain unfulfilled. Hence, adult education and lifelong learning were embraced not only as part of a benevolent concern for individual welfare, but for their potential to further the interests of employers, thereby reducing education to the expansion of training opportunities.7

The contemporary rise of globalization has brought with it new concerns. Whereas government once viewed adult education as part of its paternalistic responsibility for individual welfare, this concern has shifted towards interna-tional competitiveness where global superiority is thought to hinge, especially in Human Capital Theory, upon the education level of the population.8 The line between educating the young through schooling and adult education – to which in the 1980s was added the term ‘continuing’ – has been obscured, replaced by a generic concept of learning, specifically lifelong learning.9 Social policies once aimed at welfare have been co-opted by government and economic interests; productivity, not humanistic notions like self-actualization, is the goal. Although the phrase ‘lifelong learning’ likely arose as a natural outgrowth of adult education, and the field of practice known as adult educa-tion continues strongly, one need only look at the publication dates of books using the words ‘adult education’ and ‘lifelong learning’ in the title to see evidence of how lifelong learning began to supplant adult education as the dominant concept, at least in terms of policy and rhetoric, through the 1970s and 1980s.10

As many authors (Fejes 2008; Lambeir 2005; Olssen 2008; Warren and Webb 2007) make clear, much of the contemporary discussion of lifelong


learning – especially in, but not restricted to, European countries – is driven by an economic imperative, one in turn propelled by a struggle for international economic dominance. Politicians and government policy documents repeat-edly reinforce the idea that education is central to individual, national and international ‘success’ (see Gorard et al. 2002). One of the five recommen-dations in the 1997 report of the US Commission for a Nation of Lifelong Learners, for example, explicitly mentions the link between lifelong learning and global economic success (Merriam et al. 2007: 48). And as US President Barrack Obama warned, ‘The nation that out-educates us today is going to out-compete us tomorrow’ (Lauder et al. 2012: 2). Similarly, S. B. Merriam et al. (2007) point out that European countries have been actively promoting lifelong learning for decades. The Commission of the European Communities writes about how in the new ‘knowledge-based society and economy’ learn-ing is advanced as the ‘key to strengthening Europe’s competitiveness and improving the employability and adaptability of the workforce’ (Commission of the European Communities 2000: 5).

The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), a group representing the interests of mostly affluent countries, has been especially strong in advancing the rhetoric of lifelong learning. Although the OECD followed on the heals of the 1972 UNESCO publication Learning to Be with their own effort in 1973, Recurrent Education: A Strategy of Lifelong Learning: A Clarifying Report, it would take until the 1990s for the OECD to effectively establish a dominant political-economic ideology with their 1996 publication, Lifelong Learning for All (Merriam et al. 2007: 47).11 A more recent OECD document entitled, Motivating Students for Lifelong Learning, for exam-ple, emphasizes the ‘costs of failing to become educated, and staying educated’ (OECD 2000: 18). This particular document speaks of how ‘educational failure and inflexibility’ punishes both the individual and society ‘in terms of reduced economic competitiveness and social cohesion’ (OECD 2000: 18). Similarly, a 2003 report from the World Bank, an organization committed to international trade and investment, states that the aim of lifelong learning is the creation of a workforce ‘able to compete in the global economy’ (as cited in Merriam et al. 2007: 48).

The ubiquity of the phrase ‘lifelong learning’ is almost numbing; so pervasive is the appeal of lifelong learning that a quick Internet search reveals a practi-cally endless list of ‘academies’, ‘centres’ and ‘institutes’ of lifelong learning all over the world. There seems to be an irresistible cachet in the phrase that is at once appealing and legitimizing. Who can argue against the necessity for adaptation in a changing world and the ‘promise of betterment for all’ (Fejes 2008: 87)? Lifelong learning has become what F. Coffield (1999) has called a ‘wonder drug’ that possesses what B. Lambeir refers to as ‘the magic spell’ in the rhetoric of educational and economic policymakers (2005: 350). And yet, as S. Warren and S. Webb point out, ‘In a very real sense, lifelong learning is “talked” into reality, discourse defining what is necessary/unneces-sary, sensible/nonsense, meaningful/meaningless’ (2007: 7). This is to say that lifelong learning must be understood as the product of language rather than an actual field of practice analogous to that of adult education.

My argument here, and throughout this article, rests on currents of think-ing that fall under the ‘ism’ banner of post-structuralism, particularly thought


associated with the work of Michel Foucault (e.g. Foucault 1972; Foucault et al. 1980). Post-structuralism is a broad umbrella term; salient here is the general idea that language helps to construct what we consider to be ‘the real world’. Hence, when Warren and Webb suggest above that lifelong learning is talked into reality, what they mean is that when particular ideas are repeated often enough, especially by those individuals, agencies or institutions recog-nized as knowledgeable or authoritative, these ideas become part of the ‘discourse’, or the consciousness of what people consider to be common sense. The logic of this is relatively easy to see. As evident in my review of how adult education became lifelong learning and my textual analysis of Music Educators Journal and Journal of Research in Music Education, lifelong learning is clearly a historical construction that has come into being through discourse. Prior to the early 1980s, for example, no one in music education – or at least no one in American music education – used the term to describe practice. Today, however, it has become so interwoven into the fabric of educational common sense that it is considered heresy to speak against its ‘magic spell’.

A subtler part of the argument here is the distinction between viewing the push for lifelong learning as a rational response to society’s natural evolu-tion and viewing the invocation of ‘lifelong learning’ as a power mechanism (Lambeir 2005):

[T]he call to become lifelong learners gets louder and more intense every day. For how can we be citizens of a rapidly changing world, if we are not capable of changing along with it? Do we not need to update our knowledge and skills again and again in order to keep up with the pace of the ongoing transformations? Should we not explore, develop and exploit our (hidden) talents to apply for or keep our standing in respectable places in our social environment?

(Lambeir 2005: 350)

For Lambeir and others (see e.g. Nicoll and Fejes 2008), the insistence of neces-sity for lifelong learning functions as part of a neo-liberal discourse involv-ing globalization, international competitiveness and perceived threats to the nation state – aspects Warren and Webb (2007) suggest are related to Human Capital Theory, which considers populations as resources to be managed and developed.12 By emphasizing the changing nature of work, government rheto-ric is able to rationalize such things as ‘the learning society’, ‘the responsible learner’, a ‘learning culture’ and a ‘learning career’. In short, lifelong learning becomes accepted not as a historically grounded outgrowth of global capital-ism, but simply as ‘the Human Condition’ (Lambeir 2005).13

My overarching concern is that too many people, especially those work-ing in community music fields, invoke the phrase ‘lifelong learning’ without a full appreciation of its historical and rhetorical aspects. Too often the phrase is employed without a critical examination of the question, ‘What do we mean by lifelong learning and knowledge?’ (Gustavsson 2002). Through careless or mindless engagement with the phrase we risk falling prey to the ways in which its use helps to construct one kind of society rather than another. For example, as many commentators have observed, the rhetoric of lifelong learn-ing is so strong that learning has shifted from a choice to an obligation. The line between opportunity and compulsion thus becomes blurred (Tight 1998), and the failure to learn is considered a problem (Quinn et al. 2006), both in material and moral terms. Not learning is not an option. As B. J. Hake points


out, ‘Societies, organizations and individuals have to learn in order to survive in the lifelong learning society’ (1999: 79). One sees evidence of this in policy documents. The Commission of the European Communities writes, ‘Lifelong learning is no longer just one aspect of education and training; it must become the guiding principle for provision and participation across the full continuum of learning contexts’ (2000: 3, original emphasis).14 The necessity of lifelong learning is so strong that it is regarded not just as a matter of survival, it is ‘positioned as a moral obligation’; people believe they must recognize their obligations ‘by accepting their responsibility as individuals’ (Edwards 2008: 31, original emphasis).

It is difficult to argue against learning. And if learning is good, then lifelong learning must be even better. If there is one thing that people of almost any political persuasion can agree upon it is the value of learning. And yet, claims about learning and lifelong learning are rarely interrogated. Is all learning inherently good, or is some learning to be preferred over other? More impor-tantly, what distinguishes learning from learning something? Are not some things simply a part of living a life – and if so, are there criteria for distinguish-ing a doing activity from a learning activity? Why, for example, should one assume that involvement in recreational music-making is driven by a desire for lifelong musical learning rather than other motivations, and why is learn-ing implied as being a (or the) preferred motivation? I personally enjoy doing many things (spending time with my children, for example) that are not moti-vated by ‘lifelong learning’. In this section I consider four possible problems related to the insistence of lifelong learning as a guiding principle.

C. O. Houle’s (1961) typology of three kinds of adult learners (motivated by goal, activity and love of learning) continues to inform adult education prac-tices. Key to unravelling the problems of lifelong learning rhetoric is to differ-entiate between learning as a means and learning as an end. So much of lifelong learning rhetoric rarely acknowledges that while the intrinsic love of learning is certainly to be admired and applies to a minority segment of the population, most people do not engage in learning for the sake of learning alone. One’s purpose for learning is most often to do something: golf, play tennis, swim, build a shed, navigate, sew, find out about, bake, fix the bicycle, paint, shop, and yes, make music. Every activity arguably involves some form of learning as a prerequisite; it may or may not involve explicit teaching or instruction. That is, we do not do things in order to learn, we learn in order to do things. When learning takes precedence over doing this distorts the nature of the activity. I play squash each week for the enjoyment and health benefits it affords, not for any collateral learning that might occur along the way. I do this with music also, and suspect that many others do as well.

In many ways the means/ends aspect of learning can be traced to the very concept of education and the institution of schooling. I suggest that there is a subtle paradox embedded within our understanding of education, perhaps best illustrated through the French concept of ‘éducation permanante’, which stresses the continuity between the education of young people and the educa-tion of adults. Historically, conventional philosophy of education has stressed


the necessity of schooling to bring about personal autonomy, a state of arrival that implies a ‘finishing’ or completion.15 In the contemporary rhetoric of human development and progress, however, there is no idealized or identifi-able end point. A. Fejes notes that whereas earlier adult education discourses may have been constructed upon the premise that the ‘uncultivated subject’ had a ‘dull/vapid leisure time’, it was at least thought possible to foster this immature subject to maturity (2008: 94). Under lifelong learning rhetoric, however, people are condemned to a never-ending life of learning.16 This leads Lambeir (2005) to wonder if there is not something frightening about the notion of ‘permanent education’ where society is viewed as a school with-out the promise of graduation.

Images of Sisyphus are brought to mind here, but so too are the ideas of the ancient Greeks, Dewey and the progressive educationalists. Learning as a means is often debased as training and skill (techne in Greek, for exam-ple). Learning as ‘education’, on the other hand, is usually exalted as a noble purpose of human existence.17 And yet, one wonders where living factors into the imperative of permanent education. While perpetual learning seems laud-able, this seems to diminish the value, let alone the possibility of doing.18 In reflecting on his experiences as a child initially excited about attending school, M. Tight recalls asking his parents after several weeks of ‘learning’ when the fun would start (1998: 251).19 The paradox embedded in society’s conception of education, then, is that rather than treating schooling as a site for the cele-bration of iterable activities (e.g. music-making) – something20 that would play up, rather than down, learning as a means – it has conceptualized schooling on the basis of the mastery and achievement of subject matter, i.e. learning as an end.21 As a result, ‘lifelong learning’ is needed to combat a schooling/education system that deprecates activity as inadequate or insufficient, and has no choice but to package learning as an end, something that renders iterabil-ity of activity unnecessary.22 In order for lifelong learning rhetoric to succeed, people must be made to feel incomplete, thus requiring perpetual ‘education’ post-schooling. The goal of this learning, however, is never stated, leading to the inevitable question: ‘What’s the point of lifelong learning if lifelong learn-ing has no point?’ (Biesta 2006).

Another effect of lifelong learning rhetoric is that by painting everything in life as learning, or at least the potential for learning, it throws into question what the word ‘learning’ really means. With the addition of the term lifewide to the lexicon,23 the emphasis on learning would seem to infiltrate every aspect of our daily lives. As advanced by politico-educational rhetoric, learning is an imper-ative that is to imbue everything one does from the moment one wakes until one falls asleep, and all aspects should ideally be coordinated. Commenting on a report by the Commission of the European Communities that suggests, ‘The “lifewide” dimension brings the complementarity of formal, non-formal and informal learning into sharper focus’ (2000: 9), P. Alheit and B. Dausien argue that learning should not only be ‘systematically extended to cover the entire lifespan’, but should also include all aspects of a person’s life in a purposeful way: ‘learning environments should be engendered in which the various types of learning complement each other organically’ (2002: 4).

The omnipresence of learning, however, raises questions about the mean-ing and value of context.24 Indeed, educational discourses from at least the


time of Dewey onwards emphasize the problem of context and transfer where learning in school is scrutinized according to its impact on life outside of school. Learning, in other words, should no longer be confined to formal settings; the informal and formal need to be integrated and synthesized. One finds examples of this in recent music education discourses aimed at reducing the so-called ‘gap’ between formal and informal music and music learning practices. And while the idea of school learning having a more direct bear-ing on outside-of-school life has a certain intuitive appeal to it, especially if one conceptualizes schooling as preparation for life, the idea of learning as permeating all aspects of life has a potentially detrimental effect on the value of learning. Learning becomes a redundant concept if it is omnipres-ent and assumed to occur at all times and places. Such an all-encompassing conception of learning displaces the specificity of what is being learned, erod-ing the notion of learning as contextually bound. As R. Edwards points out, discourses of lifelong learning ‘trouble the notion of context as container precisely because it becomes possible for all situations and domains, indeed all social practices, to be learning contexts’ (2006: 29). Eliminating context as a defining feature of learning also contradicts educational discourses that posit knowledge and learning as ‘situated’ (Lave and Wenger 1991). Ironically, perhaps, treating learning as omnipresent would seem to render moot the very problem of transfer and the need to coordinate and complement lifelong and lifewide learning. When learning is no longer confined to specific spheres with clearly defined uses and purposes, learning and life are considered to be inextricably linked, leading Field (2000: vii) to write of the ‘university of life’ and Lambeir to question ‘whether almost everything we undertake, expe-rience, or encounter during our lifetime, needs to be labeled as learning in accordance with the contemporary hype, or whether some of these things just have to do with living a life’ (2005: 351).

Lifelong learning rhetoric is not just problematic because it blurs the means/end distinction, but because it turns people from doers into learners. When the ‘social order… is positioned as a learning order’, it recontextualizes our motivations for, and understanding of, practice (Edwards 2008: 28). The reti-ree who starts to play the clarinet in the New Horizons band25 because this is thought to maintain neural activity or because she or he feels an obligation to keep learning throughout the latter stages of life is engaging for a very different reason than the person who participates because he or she loves playing (or would like to play) in wind bands and wants to keep doing so regardless of whether any learning might take place. The person who signs up for a Ghanaian drumming class because he or she has always enjoyed the communal experience of drumming is doing so for very different reasons than one who believes that partaking of such classes represents a form of self-im-provement. It is not just the matter of motivation that is important, however, but how such motivations contribute to a changed sense of self in the world. Being a learner is favoured over being a participant. As a result, focusing on learning changes practice from a social activity to an individual one.

Buying into lifelong learning rhetoric also causes us to reconceptualize the people around us. Rather than thinking of people as clarinetists or pianists or musicians, or, simply as people who do things (pick an activity), we begin to think of everyone first and foremost as learners. This is not just a matter


of terminology; thinking of people in specific ways and attributing particu-lar motivations to them influences our actions. Consider the following: how does thinking of New Horizons members as lifelong learners position them as one kind of musical being rather than another, and, more importantly, how does this influence the actions of those who are tasked with leading such ensembles?

It is a slippery slope when our instructional activities as music leaders are oriented towards ‘teaching people’ rather than facilitating their desire to make music – what R. Murray Schafer refers to as ‘ongoing musicianship’ (Achilles 1992). Appropriating instructional practices from schools, such as ‘Comprehensive Musicianship’,26 helps to turn a participatory relationship into a pedagogical one, where those who show up to sing or play become objects of concern based on the premise that the ‘student’ is deficient and in need of edification.27 In other words, rather than simply helping people to make music together, community music leaders must educate them. Put another way, how might recreational music-makers and community music leaders conceptualize themselves, their practices and the people around them differently when they think of what they do in terms of community service, personal well-being or enjoyment rather than as a lifelong learning activity?

Lifelong learning rhetoric does not just turn people from doers to learners; in the process it also turns them into subjects of knowledge. That is, when social practices are recontextualized as learning practices as suggested by lifelong learning rhetoric it creates a situation where engagement begins with an a priori belief that the musical leaders are experts that have specific knowledge that those around them are in need of. When people are made to feel that they are missing out on musical enjoyment if they fail to understand music’s ‘intri-cacies’ (Augustin 2010) this sets up power differentials between those who know (us) and those who do not (them) – differentials that T. Popkewitz and S. Lindblad (2004) suggests lead inevitably to salvation narratives. On the one side are the experts (the teachers/leaders) who know the truth about music and do the saving. On the other are those who do not know the truth (the students/participants: the subjects of knowledge) and are in need of saving. G. Berglund (2008) metaphorically describes this relationship in tripartite terms: doctors (in this case high status professionals such as professors) who generate knowledge, nurses (the teachers/leaders) who administer knowledge and patients (the students/participants) who are thought to benefit from the knowledge.

To understand the idea of the ‘subject of knowledge’ better, consider the work of the French philosopher, Foucault (1995, Foucault et al. 1980). The knowers in the scenario described above are legitimated by a process Foucault describes where a reciprocal relationship of power and knowledge (which Foucault writes as ‘power/knowledge’) ensures that those in positions of authority (e.g. those in academia with the ability to credential and set curric-ula) strengthen their position through the creation and legitimation of their knowledge at the expense of what Foucault calls ‘subjugated knowledge’. This legitimate knowledge in turn strengthens the position of all those who possess and endorse it, and weakens the position of those who do not share it (i.e. those who may possess subjugated knowledge). Thus, to suggest that one’s enjoyment of music is heightened by the ability to recognize and label


Neapolitan sixth chords or by knowing sonata-allegro form is to privilege one form of knowing over another.28 One of Foucault’s insights in this case is that knowledge, which is to say, ‘recognized’ knowledge, appears innocent and objective. It is as if Neapolitan sixth chords really exist and that people who do not know about them are deficient and missing out on the true enjoy-ment of music, rather than recognizing that such chords are a construction of western classical theorists who use such knowledge to privilege one kind of music – and one kind of enjoyment of music – over another. The superiority of western classical music standards of performance and the criteria by which music is deemed to be ‘high quality’ are rarely challenged; the centrality of western classical music to university schools of music is apparently so self-evident that the idea of replacing it with, say, hip hop or country and western music is laughable.

The salience of the point being made here is not just about the legitimacy of one set of musical values over another, but that people should rightly be subjected to it. To suggest that members who choose to continue to play in a band do so because ‘they see the potential of lifelong musical learning’29 is to dismiss alternative values of participation. Rather than celebrate the joys of simply engaging in the activity, be it golf, making a gourmet meal or play-ing in a band, it is presumed that the members must be educated (subjected to knowledge) and that the leaders (who possess knowledge expertise) must educate (subject them to knowledge).30 There is a subtle but important differ-ence between viewing one’s position of musical leadership as facilitating the activities of participants and believing that participants should be subjects of knowledge.31

The online Encyclopedia of Informal Education (infed.org) suggests that life-long learning has become such a large part of the discourse ‘that it would be foolish to ignore it’. To be clear, ignoring the phrase is not what I am advo-cating. Rather, I am hoping that the community music world can take charge of the discourse in ways that better theorize practice. It would obviously be silly to suggest that those involved with community music activities should not help people learn to make music. Although a subtle point, I submit that there is a difference between helping people learn in order to participate and deliberately positioning them as learners as part of an effort to make learning the primary focus of community music activities. Questions of well-being are turned into educational problems (Simons and Masschelein 2008) and ‘ongo-ing self-development is simply presumed to contribute to the common good’ (Popkewitz 2008: 76). As a result, playing with the local community band, singing with the church choir or attending weekly capoeira sessions ceases to be about the celebration of community (see Higgins 2012; Putnam 2000), and becomes instead about individual learning accomplishments. One needs to be clear here about not confusing rhetoric with a specific field of practice. My argument is that the practice of adult education (or adult music-making) and the rhetoric of lifelong learning are not synonymous. Citing Wain (1993), S. B. Merriam and R. G. Brockett suggest that ‘the common identification of lifelong education [and lifelong learning] with adult education’ has had ‘detri-mental consequences… for both’ (1997: 14). In other words, conceptualization matters; turning learning from a means into an end (as a result of the rhetoric) re-codes the meaning of practice (Edwards 2008).


My arguments about the dangers of engaging in lifelong learning rhetoric should not be misconstrued as downplaying the obvious benefits of adults (and older adults) learning music! I believe that the New Horizons ‘move-ment’ in the United States and Canada, for example, is really more in keeping with the spirit and practice of adult education than the neo-liberal ideology behind lifelong learning rhetoric. Moreover, as Merriam et al. point out, in spite of difficulties with the term’s appropriation by groups like the OECD, the concept of lifelong learning does hold the potential to ‘open up our think-ing of learning as broader than what goes on in school’ (2007: 49). Indeed, handled carefully, lifelong learning can be a useful concept – although I would counter that lifelong enjoyment, involvement, participation or engagement are more fruitful terms for adult music activities.

M. Leglar and D. Smith (2010) suggest that closer ties between schools and community might help to emphasize the ‘lifelong pleasure’ that music affords. By using the term ‘lifelong pleasure’ rather than lifelong learning, Leglar and Smith emphasize participation and the relationship we wish to have between learning and life (Strain 1998). Admittedly, lifelong pleasure (enjoyment, etc.) is a hard sell in today’s schools. Other politically palatable phrases, such as R. Murray Schafer’s ‘ongoing musicianship’, may need to be developed. In any case, those involved with community music and those involved in music education would be wise to consider the relationship between the school years and what people do later in life.

My contention is that invoking ‘lifelong learning’ carries higher risks than rewards. It is not that learning is unimportant, of course. We cannot do without learning. However, if we place learning above doing we devalue the joy of participation. This is part of the reason why I believe amateuring (Booth 1999; Regelski 2007) has become devalued in society. If you cannot do to the exacting standards of the professional there is apparently little point in trying. Many amateurs quickly realize they can never hope to ‘learn’ enough to reach a professional level, and because participation for its own sake is insufficient there is little point in partaking in amateur music-making.

Although one might argue that employing lifelong learning rhetoric holds the potential to further the interests of community music by capitalizing on the term’s social capital, we should not delude ourselves. As Tight (1998) makes clear, only learning related to economic activity is really taken seriously. Government and economic interests are never going to view music-making on par with activities that enhance international competitiveness. While there is no doubt merit to be found in the altruistic claims for the benefits of learn-ing throughout the lifespan, I submit that the meaning and values of practice in community music activities far exceed that of learning for learning’s sake. When we favour learning over participation we risk reducing what we do to either a never-ending quest that permanently delays gratification, or, as has been the case with school music, we turn music into a ‘subject’ to be learned where participation is rendered unnecessary once the learning objectives have been attained. The only recourse to keeping people engaged is therefore to insist on the need to learn more and more and more. The task of learning must be conceptualized as unfinished, resulting in the requirement for ‘life-long learning’. While this approach may work for those who love learning for its own sake, they constitute a minority of the population. The rest are left wondering when the fun will start.

When we see others as learners rather than participants we unwittingly reduce agency, both personal and musical, thereby attenuating the potential


power of community music activities. Emphasizing learning shifts the focus of musical practice from a social activity to an individual one. As Olson suggests, music-making is ‘an arena in which individuals and groups are actively engaged in transformation and empathy’ (2005: 63). Or rather, it can be if we resist the deleterious effects of the rhetoric of lifelong learning by focusing on participation rather than learning as our raison d’être.

I have hoped to ‘trouble the waters’ here by drawing attention to some potential dangers of lifelong learning rhetoric in order to avoid unwittingly being drawn into a particular discourse that may not serve the community music world in the ways intended. Uncritically adopting government lifelong learning discourses, M. Olssen (2008: 41) suggests, blurs the line between educational ideals and political ones. Edwards cautions that,

totalizing the diversity of social practices under a single sign of ‘lifelong learning’ does not in and of itself do justice to the variety of meanings translated and ordered in specific contexts […] [L]ifelong learning may need to be decentred in order that we can look again at the meanings it has and the work it does.

(2008: 32)

My hope is that this article has begun the process of decentring lifelong learn-ing so that those in the community music world can theorize practice in ways not dictated by neo-liberal rhetoric or blind adherence to the prevailing winds of discourse.

Achilles, E. (1992), ‘Music making beyond the classroom’, Music Educators Journal, 79:4, pp. 35–37.

Alheit, P. and Dausien, B. (2002), ‘The “double face” of lifelong learning: Two analytical perspectives on a “silent revolution”’, Studies in the Education of Adults, 34: 1, pp. 2–22.

Allen, D. (1970), ‘It’s easier to move a cemetery than to change a school’, Music Educators Journal, 57: 1, pp. 29–32.

Arasi, M. (2006), ‘Adult reflections on a high school choral music program: Perceptions of meaning and lifelong influence’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Atlanta, Georgia: Georgia State University.

Aspin, D. (2000), ‘Lifelong learning: The mission of arts education in the learning community of the 21st century’, Music Education Research, 2: 1, pp. 75–85.

Augustin, C. (2010), ‘A descriptive study to determine the opinions of community band members regarding the effectiveness of Comprehensive Musicianship’, International Journal of Community Music, 3: 2, pp. 175–83.

Ball, C., Ross, J., Mamlin, H. R., Martin, G., Brookhart, D. E. and Cox, B. Y. (1980), ‘Report of the MENC Commission on graduate music teacher education’, Music Educators Journal, 67: 2, pp. 46–53+66-68.

Bell, C. L. (2008), ‘Toward a definition of a community choir’, International Journal of Community Music, 1: 2, pp. 229–41.

Belz, M. J. (1994), ‘The German Gesangverein as a model of life-long participa-tion in music’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota.

Berglund, G. (2008), ‘Pathologizing and medicalizing lifelong learning: A deconstruction’, in K. Nicoll and A. Fejes (eds), Foucault and Lifelong


Learning: Governing the Subject, London and New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 138–50.

Biesta, G. (2006), ‘What’s the point of lifelong learning if lifelong learning has no point? On the democratic deficit of policies for lifelong learning’, European Educational Research Journal, 5: 2/3, pp. 169–80.

Booth, W. C. (1999), For the Love of It: Amateuring and its Rivals, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Boswell, J. (1992), ‘Human potential and lifelong learning’, Music Educators Journal, 79: 4, pp. 38–40.

Bowen, C. K. (1995), ‘Adult community bands in the southeastern United States: An investigation of current activity and background profiles of the participants’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University.

Busch, M. (2005), ‘Predictors of lifelong learning in music: A survey of indivi-duals participating in ensembles at community colleges in Illinois’, unpu-blished doctoral dissertation, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Caimi, F. J. (1981), ‘Relationships between motivation variables and selec-ted criterion measures of high school band directing success’, Journal of Research in Music Education, 29: 3, pp. 183–98.

Campbell, A. B. (1975), ‘The year-round school: Implications for the music program’, Music Educators Journal, 62: 2, pp. 54–56.

Campbell, R. (2010), ‘An exploration into how participation in musical activi-ties can improve the health and well-being of older adults’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bath, England: Bath Spa University,

Chiodo, P. (1997), ‘The development of lifelong commitment: A qualitative study of adult instrumental music participation (adult learners)’, unpu-blished doctoral dissertation, Buffalo, New York: State University of New York at Buffalo.

Coffield, F. (1999), ‘Breaking the consensus: Lifelong learning as social control’, British Educational Research Journal, 25: 4, pp. 479–99.

Coffin, J. (2005), ‘Why did we join? Why have we stayed? Membership in a women’s barbershop chorus: A narrative inquiry into leadership, learning, and the development of voice through singing’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island: University of Prince Edward Island.

Coffman, D. (1996), ‘Musical backgrounds and interests of active older adult band members’, Dialogue in Instrumental Music Education, 20: 1, pp. 25–34.

—— (2002a), ‘Adult education’, in R. Colwell and C. Richardson (eds), The New Handbook of Research in Music Teaching and Learning, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 199–209.

—— (2002b), ‘Music and quality of life in older adults’, Psychomusicology – A Journal of Research in Music Cognition, 18: 1/2, pp. 76–88.

Commission of the European Communities (2000), A Memorandum on Lifelong Learning, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

Cope, P. (1999), ‘Community-based traditional fiddling as a basis for increasing participation in instrument playing’, Music Education Research, 1: 1, pp. 61–75.

Dabback, W. (2007), ‘Toward a model of adult music learning as a socially-embedded phenomenon’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rochester, New York: University of Rochester.

Darrough, G. (1990), ‘Older adult participants in selected retirement commu-nity choruses’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State University.


—— (1992), ‘Making choral music with older adults’, Music Educators Journal, 79: 4, pp. 27–29.

Darrough, G. and Boswell, J. (1992), ‘Older adult participation: A review of the related literature’, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, no. 111, pp. 25–34.

Edwards, R. (2006), ‘Beyond the moorland? Contextualising lifelong learning’, Studies in the Education of Adults, 38: 1, pp. 25–36.

—— (2008), ‘Actively seeking subjects?’, in K. Nicoll and A. Fejes (eds), Foucault and Lifelong Learning: Governing the Subject, London and New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 21–33.

Ernst, R. E. and Emmons, S. (1992), ‘New horizons for senior adults’, Music Educators Journal, 79: 4, pp. 30–34.

Faivre-Ransom, J. L. (2001), ‘An investigation of factors that influence adult participation in music ensembles based on various behavioral theories: A case study of the Norfolk Chorale’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Winchester, Virginia: Shenandoah Conservatory.

Fejes, A. (2008), ‘Historicizing the lifelong learner: Governmentality and neoli-beral rule’, in K. Nicoll and A. Fejes (eds), Foucault and Lifelong Learning: Governing the Subject, London and New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 87–100.

Field, J. (2000), Lifelong Learning and the New Educational Order. Stoke on Trent: Trentham.

Foucault, M. (1972), The Archaeology of Knowledge, London: Tavistock Publications.

—— (1995), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York: Vintage Books.

Foucault, M., Frye, N. and Gordon, C. (1980), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977, New York: Pantheon Books.

Gilbert, J. P. and Beal, M. R. (1982), ‘Preferences of elderly individuals for selec-ted music education experiences’, Journal of Research in Music Education, 30: 4, pp. 247–53.

Gorard, S., Rees, G. and Selwyn, N. (2002), ‘The “conveyor belt effect”: A re-assessment of the impact of national targets for lifelong learning’, Oxford Review of Education, 28: 1, pp. 75–89.

Griffith, M. J. (2006), ‘Personality traits and musical interests of adult learners in an instrumental music program’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Norman, Oklahoma: The University of Oklahoma.

Gustavsson, B. (2002), ‘What do we mean by lifelong learning and knowledge?’, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21: 1, pp. 13–23.

Hake, B. J. (1999), ‘Lifelong learning in late modernity: The challenges to society, organizations, and individuals’, Adult Education Quarterly, 49: 2, pp. 79–90.

Hartle, T. and Kutner, M. (1979), ‘Federal policies: Programs, legislation, and prospects’, in R. Peterson (ed.), Lifelong Learning in America, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 276–342.

Heintzelman, T. D. (1988), ‘Adult concert band participation in the United States’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University.

Hemingway, J. (1991), ‘Leisure and democracy: Incompatible ideals?’, in G. Fain (ed.), Leisure and Ethics: Reflections on the Philosophy of Leisure, Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, pp. 59–81.

Higgins, L. (2012), Community Music: In Theory and in Practice, New York: Oxford University Press.


Holmquist, S. (1995), ‘A study of community choir members’ school expe-riences’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon.

Houle, C. O. (1961), The Inquiring Mind, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Jarvis, Peter (2006), From Adult Education to the Learning Society: 21 Years From the International Journal of Lifelong Education, New York: Routledge

—— (2009), The Routledge International Handbook of Lifelong Learning, New York: Routledge.

Jones, Patrick (2009), ‘Lifewide as well as lifelong: Broadening primary and secondary school music education’s service to students’ musical needs’, International Journal of Community Music, 2: 2/3, pp. 201–14.

Koopman, C. (2007), ‘Community music as music education: On the educatio-nal potential of community music’, International Journal of Music Education, 25: 2, pp. 151–63.

Kruse, N. B. (2009), ‘An elusive bird: Perceptions of music learning among Canadian and American adults’, International Journal of Community Music, 2: 2/3, pp. 215–25.

Lambeir, B. (2005), ‘Education as liberation: The politics and techniques of lifelong learning’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37: 3, pp. 349–55.

Larson, P. S. (1983), ‘An exploratory study of lifelong musical interest and activity: Case studies of twelve retired adults’, unpublished doctoral disser-tation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University.

Lauder, H., Young, M., Daniels, H., Balarin, M. and Lowe, J. (eds) (2012), Educating for the Knowledge Economy?: Critical Perspectives, New York: Routledge.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Leglar, M. and Smith, D. (2010), ‘Community music in the United States: An overview of origins and evolution’, International Journal of Community Music, 3: 3, pp. 343–53.

Lonnberg, E. D. (1960), ‘The influence of secondary music education on adult musical participation’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University.

Mason, J. (1978), ‘A look to the future’, Music Educators Journal, 65: 4, p. 56.Mason, R. J. (1968), ‘Designing music programs for junior college’, Music

Educators Journal, 54: 8, pp. 89–94.Merriam, S. B. and Brockett, R. G. (1997), The Profession and Practice of Adult

Education: An Introduction, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S. and Baumgartner, L. (2007), Learning in

Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Merriam, S. B., Grace, A. P. and Jossey-Bass Inc (2011), The Jossey-Bass Reader

on Contemporary Issues in Adult Education, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Myers, D. (1992), ‘Teaching learners of all ages’, Music Educators Journal, 79: 4,

pp. 23–26.—— (2008), ‘Lifespan engagement and the question of relevance: Challenges

for music education research in the twenty-first century’, Music Education Research, 10: 1, pp. 1–14.

Nazareth, T. C. (1998), ‘Achieving lifelong music education: Cooperation, coordination, and coherence’, General Music Today, 11: 2, pp. 21–23.

Nicoll, K. and Fejes, A. (eds) (2008), Foucault and Lifelong Learning: Governing the Subject, London and New York, NY: Routledge.


Knowles, M. (1978), The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species, 2nd ed. Houston: Gulf Pub. Co., Book Division.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2000), Motivating Students For Lifelong Learning, OECD.

Olson, K. (2005), ‘Music for community education and emancipatory learning’, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, no. 107, pp. 55–64.

Olssen, M. (2008), ‘Understanding the mechanisms of neoliberal control: Lifelong learning, flexibility and knowledge capitalism’, in K. Nicoll and A. Fejes (eds), Foucault and Lifelong Learning: Governing the Subject, London and New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 34–47.

Patterson, F. C. (1985), ‘Motivational factors contributing to participa-tion in community bands of the Montachusett region of North Central Massachusetts’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Storrs, Connecticut: University of Connecticut.

Peterson, R. (ed.) (1979), Lifelong Learning in America, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pike, P. D. (2001), ‘Leisure piano lessons: A case study of lifelong learning’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Norman, Oklahoma: The University of Oklahoma.

—— (2011), ‘Using technology to engage third-age (retired) leisure learners: A case study of a third-age MIDI piano ensemble’, International Journal of Music Education, 29: 2, pp. 116–23.

Popkewitz, T. (2008), ‘The reason of reason: Cosmopolitanism, social exclu-sion and lifelong learning’, in K. Nicoll and A. Fejes (eds), Foucault and Lifelong Learning: Governing the Subject, London and New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 74–86.

Popkewitz, T. and Lindblad, S. (2004), ‘Historicizing the future: Educational reform, systems of reason, and the making of children who are the future citizens’, Journal of Educational Change, 5: 3, pp. 229–47.

Popkewitz, T., Olsson, U. and Petersson, K. (2006), ‘The learning society, the unfinished cosmopolitan, and governing education, public health and crime prevention at the beginning of the twenty-first century’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38: 4, pp. 431–48.

Powell, K. (2003), ‘Learning together: Practice, pleasure and identity in a Taiko drumming world’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford, California: Stanford University.

Putnam, R. D. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York: Simon & Schuster.

Quinn, J., Thomas, L., Slack, K., Casey, L., Thexton, W. and Noble, J. (2006), ‘Lifting the hood: Lifelong learning and young, white, provincial working-class masculinities’, British Educational Research Journal, 32: 5, pp. 735–50.

Regelski, T. (2007), ‘Amateuring in music and its rivals’, Action, Criticism & Theory for Music Education, 6: 3, pp. 22–50.

Rensink-Hoff, R. (2009), ‘Adult community choirs: Toward a balance between leisure participation and musical achievement’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, London, Ontario: University of Western Ontario.

Rohwer, D. (2008), ‘Health and wellness issues for adult band musicians’, Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 23: 2, pp. 54–59.

—— (2010), ‘Understanding adult interests and needs: The pitfalls in wanting to know’, International Journal of Community Music, 3: 2, pp. 203–12.


Rohwer, D. and Coffman, D. (2007), ‘Relationships between wind band membership, activity level, spirituality and quality of life in older adults’, Research Perspectives in Music Education, 10, pp. 21–27.

Rybak, C. (1995), ‘Older adults and “flow”: Investigating optimal experience in selected music leisure activities’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State University.

Seago, T. (1993), ‘Motivational factors influencing participation in selec-ted southern Baptist church choirs’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Houston, Texas: University of Houston.

Shuler, S. C. (2012), ‘Music education for life: Music assessment, part 2 – instructional improvement and teacher evaluation’, Music Educators Journal, 98: 3, pp. 7–10.

Simons, M. and Masschelein, J. (2008), ‘Our “will to learn” and the assem-blage of a learning apparatus’, in K. Nicoll and A. Fejes (eds), Foucault and Lifelong Learning: Governing the Subject, New York: Routledge, pp. 48–60.

Smilde, R. (2008), ‘Lifelong learners in music; research into musicians’ biogra-phical learning’, International Journal of Community Music, 1: 2, pp. 243–52.

—— (2010), ‘Lifelong and lifewide learning from a biographical perspective: Transformation and transition when coping with performance anxiety’, International Journal of Community Music, 3: 2, pp. 185–201.

Smith, M. V. and Haack, P. (2000), ‘The long view of lifelong learning’, Music Educators Journal, 87: 3, pp. 28–33.

Spell, G. (1989), ‘Motivational factors and selected socio-demographic charac-teristics of Georgia community chorus participants as measured by the education participation scale, the community chorus participation scale, and the personal inventory form’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Atlanta, Georgia: University of Georgia.

Spencer, W. (1996), ‘An attitude assessment of amateur musicians in commu-nity bands’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Denton, Texas: University of North Texas.

Strain, M. (1998), ‘Towards an economy of lifelong learning: Reconceptualising relations between learning and life’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 46: 3, pp. 264–77.

Tatum, M. E. (1985), ‘A descriptive analysis of the status of music programs in selected retirement residences and senior citizens’ centers in the southeastern United States (lifelong learning, satisfaction, elderly, leisure, old age)’, unpu-blished doctoral dissertation, Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University.

Taylor, A. and Hallam, S. (2011), ‘From leisure to work: Amateur musi-cians taking up instrumental or vocal teaching as a second career’, Music Education Research, 13: 3, pp. 307–25.

Thaller, G. P. (1999), ‘The community contributions, recruitment, and reten-tion practices of select adult community bands in eastern Massachusetts’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cincinnati, Ohio: University of Cincinnati.

Thorton, D. (2010), ‘Adult music engagement: Perspectives from three musi-cally engaged cases’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, State College, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University.

Tight, M. (1998), ‘Lifelong learning: Opportunity or compulsion?’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 46: 3, pp. 251–63.

Tipps, J. (1992), ‘Profile characteristics and musical backgrounds of community chorus participants in the southeast United States’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tallahassee, Florida: The Florida State University.


Tsugawa, S. (2009), ‘Senior adult music learning, motivation, and meaning construction in two New Horizons Ensembles’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State University.

Turton, A. and Durrant, C. (2002), ‘A study of adults’ attitudes, perceptions and reflections on their singing experience in secondary school: Some implications for music education’, British Journal of Music Education, 19: 1, pp. 31–48.

US Department of Education National Center for Educational Statistics (2000), Lifelong Learning NCES Task Force: Final Report, Volumes I & II, Working Paper No. 2000-16b, by the NCES Lifelong Learning Task Force. Washington, DC.

Vanderark, S., Newman, K. and Bell, S. (1983), ‘The effects of music participation on quality of life of the elderly’, Music Therapy Perspectives, 3: 1, pp. 71–81.

Waggoner, R. (1972), ‘Factors relating to participation and non-participation in community performance groups at the level in Atlanta, Georgia’, unpublis-hed doctoral dissertation, Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University.

Warren, S. and Webb, S. (2007), ‘Challenging lifelong learning policy discourse. Where is structure in agency in narrative-based research?’, Studies in the Education of Adults, 39: 1, pp. 5–21.

Watson, L. (2003), Lifelong Learning in Australia, Canberra, Australia: Australian Government, Department of Education.

Wilhjelm, C. C. (1998), ‘A case study of the Ridgewood Concert Band, a New Jersey community band dedicated to lifelong learning’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York, New York: Columbia University Teachers College.

Wise, G., Hartmann, D. and Bradley, J. F. (1992), ‘Exploration of the relation-ship between choral singing and successful aging’, Psychological Reports, 70: 3, pp. 1175–83.

Zajda, J. (2003), ‘Lifelong learning and adult education: Russia meets the west’, International Review of Education, 49: 1/2, pp. 111–32.

Blake, N. (ed.) (2003), Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Mantie, R. (2012), ‘Learners or participants? The pros and cons of ‘lifelong learning’’, International Journal of Community Music 5: 3, pp. 217–235, doi: 10.1386/ijcm.5.3.217_1

Roger Mantie is an assistant professor at Boston University, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in instrumental methods, jazz, research, and the history and philosophy of music education. His research interests lie in the areas of leisure and recreation and their intersections with music and music education.

Contact: College of Fine Arts, Boston University, 855 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, MA 02215, USA.E-mail: [email protected]

Roger Mantie has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work in the format that was submitted to Intellect Ltd.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/ijcm.5.3.217_1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/ijcm.5.3.217_1


http://www.symposium-community-music-2013.musikpaedagogik.uni-muenchen.de

Documents

Learners or participants? The pros and cons of ‘Lifelong Learning.’