or [variations/permutations of]



Josef Prögler

School of Education, Brooklyn College, CUNY


[To readers: Thanks for giving this work in progress a read. Please excuse the single spacing, but it'd be way too much paper otherwise. This is a really early draft of an invited chapter on “musical intelligence” for a book of critical essays on H. Gardner and MI Theory. It needs to be around 25 pages by the time it gets into print. The present draft already exceeds that, so one goal of this revision is to prune out that which is superfluous, redundant, or only tangentially related to musical intelligence. I'm also pondering whether or not to expand the section on “intelligent musicking,” as implied by the alternate title above, in which case major pruning and uprooting is in order. Bracketed comments are from other readers, or from my own reflections on the work in recent read-throughs. And thanks again.]

[Needs brief introduction to where this paper is headed, and also some general comments on Gardner & MI in context. I also need to weave in arguments from Disciplined Minds (1999) and his ongoing dispute with Hirsch, especially with respect to 1) retrenching the disciplines as key to intelligence, and 2) using Mozart (again) as a case study for a discipline/depth project.]


[Consolidate this section for parsimony and focus]

Joseph Terman's circular definition of intelligence as “what we measure on intelligence tests” has given way to more complex definitions, such as that offered by Howard Gardner (1993b): “intelligence entails the ability to solve problems or fashion products that are of consequence in a particular cultural setting or community.” Problem solving requires goals and plotting routes to achieve them, which can lead to the creation of a “cultural product” (p. 15). While Gardner retains some of the biologism of his forebears, his definition is more open and pluralistic. Yet they share the belief that intelligence is an attribute of the autonomous individual.

More esoteric and perhaps holistic definitions of intelligence have been offered as well, by people like David Bohm, who defines intelligence as “a kind of mental alertness which is in essence a sort of perception” that involves insights and flashes of understanding and which is not the result of training but is instead characterized by “perception through the mind” (Bohm 1998, 55). [And so? Perhaps this is better as an endnote? Or perhaps something more indicative of Bohm's sense of intelligence and creativity as informed by quantum mechanics? Bateson? A few paragraphs down, Bowers gets into some of this]

Gardner (1993a) often relies on the autonomous individual to explain his theories, with little social reality acknowledged beyond “large numbers of individuals,” who may learn by way of the Suzuki method (p. 112), or when he wonders whether “individuals in other cultures” felt as isolated as John Lennon did when no one noticed his early talents (p. 115), or in discussions of music cognition, in which “individuals expect that the verbal material will interfere with the melodic material” (pp. 117-18), or in discussing Stravinsky, in which Gardner (1993c) reduces social, political, and economic context to “groups of individuals,” that “quickly reaches the hundreds.”

As a consequence of his fixation on the individual, Gardner (1993b) advocates “individual-centered schooling” (p. 68). He sees this as an antidote to standards and cultural literacy, which seeks a “uniform view” (p. 69) of one sort or another. Education should insure that individuals are able to maximize all of their potentials, and to achieve this Gardner's individual centered school relies on profiling to assess individual intelligences and tailor instruction accordingly (1993a, p. xv). This is to be accomplished be developing a fairer set of measurements that do not rely on language and logic as their primary criteria. Gardner seems to have realized that intelligence is context specific and that the earlier quest for “raw” intelligence is misguided. He sums it up this way: “At the level of the individual, it is proper to speak about one or more human intelligences, or human intellectual proclivities, that are part of our birthright. These intelligences may be thought of in nuerobiological terms. Human beings are born into cultures that house a large number of domains—disciplines, crafts, and other pursuits in which one can become enculturated and then be assessed in terms of the level of competence one has attained. While domains, of course, involve human beings, they can be thought of in an impersonal way—because the expertise in a domain can in principle be captured in a book, a computer program, or some other kind of artifact” (xvi). His “triangle of creativity” investigates the dialectics within the individual, the domain in which they work, and the field of “knowledgeable experts who evaluate works in the domain” (Gardner 1993c, p. 380). Yet the discussion still hinges on the autonomous individual as the prime locus of intelligence.

Gardner's focus on the autonomous individual as the locus of intelligence distorts and obscures the nested hierarchy that places individuals in a cultural setting, which in turn grows out of an ecosystem. Bowers (1995) develops the implications of this oversight: “[T]he view of intelligence as an attribute of the individual, as well as the educational practices predicated upon it, reinforce the same deep cultural assumptions that lead us to view every technological innovation as the expression of progress, and to mistakenly interpret the visual sensation of the plenitude of shopping malls as validating the ideal of individual freedom rather than as a metaphor of a culture that is destroying the chances of future generations to live in balance with the Earth's ecosystems” (p. 105). Progress as worked out in the Western world is a destructive and self-indulgent myth that has poisoned earthly ecosystems. These latter issues suggest an “ecology of bad ideas,” in the words of Bateson (1972). From this realization, Bowers (1995) continues: “If we nest individuals in the symbolic systems of culture, and cultures in the natural systems that are the source of the many of energy humans rely upon, then we have a very different way of understanding intelligence” (p. 126).

The individual-centered view of intelligence is also at odds with the insights formulated by linguists like Sapir, Whorf, and Vygotsky decades ago, who make a strong case that as people use language to express thoughts, the language they use thinks for them as well, by way of its metaphors and taken-for-granted modes of understanding. Language can also encode a cultural form of intelligence that is “based on ways of understanding cultural environmental relationships that are not sustainable” which may also sustain the ecology of bad ideas (Bowers 1995, p. 115). Once we accept this, then it become possible to see that “the wide range of competing root metaphors that characterize modern culture (masculine vs. feminine, anthropocentric vs. ecological models, mechanistic vs. process, God-centered vs. secular and individually-centered -- to identify just a few) makes it possible, even necessary in some instances, to select which root metaphor and accompanying metaphorical language will be used to think and communicate about relevant aspects of the world” (p. 120). With respect to communication, Bowers continues: “The anthropocentrism in the West, with its emphasis on intelligence as essentially a human attribute, as well as the practice of treating communication as a sender-receiver process of sharing information between individuals, has contributed to a form of conscious awareness that recognizes only a limited range of communication” (Bowers 1995, p. 121). If one considers the ecological view of intelligence put forth by Bohm, Bowers, and Bateson, then it becomes possible to see that everything communicates, and intelligence is everywhere. This has several implications, some of which I will explore below.

From another point of view, the cult of the autonomous individual creates an ecology of heroism for musicians and artists, sometimes even leading to a form of deification as in the case of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart, which centralizes innovation, progress and change as essential elements of music culture. Viewing musical intelligence as an attribute of the autonomous individual downplays the implications of the nested hierarchy of people, culture, and environment. Though Gardner acknowledges that some cultures are more “traditional,” in which intelligence can be measured by the adherence of an individual to his cultural traditions, this still imposes an individual-centered Western explanation on the varieties of human experience. To find two brief examples, one could look toward Islamic and indigenous peoples. Qur'anic recitation, which Gardner reserves for linguistic intelligence, is a complex sound art with specific organizational features, the pervasiveness of which has informed sacred and secular music practice throughout the Islamic world. The Qur'an in Arabic is revealed from the Divine, the other-than-human world of the unseen, and its recitation reproduces a connection to the Divine. Similarly, for many indigenous peoples, musical practices are informed by the environment in which they live, be it a desert, forest, or river valley. Sovereignty for sound making, whether music, chanting, recitation, or prayer, lies not with the autonomous individual in such cultures; it lies within the relationship between people and these other-than-human realities. To psychologize such relationships into the minds of individuals, or as simple communication among individuals, is to do deep damage to our understanding of non-Western ways of being.

Cultural Politics

[Integrate with next section on white supremacy in music?]

In the recesses of discussions on musical intelligence there lurks a struggle over cultural politics. Whose music gets exemplified, normalized, assessed, and venerated is more and more a political struggle. It is no longer tenable to assume that the Western classics are by definition the epitome of musical accomplishment, for all time and across cultures (a premise that Gardner, oddly, shares with his arch-nemesis E. D. Hirsch). Much of the musical intelligence literature is about implementing the theory, often to justify funding for the arts, which has led to a pairing of the arts with other subjects. In many cases, this has ended up constricting the freedom of art and music teachers by linking up with the standards movement (and its funding). In recent years, with increased funding for the arts, there has been a resurgence of interest in public music programs gutted by budget cuts in the 1980s. But a lot of these discussions are problematic for two reasons: either they link music in a utilitarian relationship with other subjects, as a sort of handmaiden to improve performance or increase interest in the academic subjects (the “Mozart effect”), or they assume music as taking on a sort of civilizing mission by promoting the Western canon, implying that the ultimate purpose of school music programs is to train future musicians and patrons for that tradition. Gardner is in the thick of cultural and political struggles over the meaning and purpose of art and music. Some of this is in his work explicitly (e.g. 1999), while other aspects of the struggle are implied by his choice of exemplars.

Gardner's attempts to muster cross-cultural validity for his theories often fall short, and instead reveal his Eurocentrism (despite his frequent protestations of this epithet). Musical intelligence apparently has several components, which get intertwined with normalizing definitions of music: “there is relatively little dispute about the principal constituent elements of music” (Gardner 1993a, p. 104). These are pitch and rhythm, with timbre “next in importance.” But this is a Eurocentric ranking. For example, to many indigenous peoples, timbre is often the key feature. Pitch, Gardner claims, is more central in “Oriental” societies, who favor “tiny” quarter tone intervals. But in Islamic culture, for instance, it is the subtle rhythmic variations that make the music interesting, not the quarter tones, which in any case are taken for granted even though they may sound odd and exotic to Europeans whose hearing is limited to twelve tones. Similarly, Gardner's Eurocentric understanding of world musics is also evident in his citing “dizzying” African rhythmic complexity, again centralizing the Western feeling toward those musics as the normative definition.

While Gardner (1993a) admits that his discussion is “partial to Western civilization in the period following the Renaissance” (to be more accurate, he'd need to add elite patriarchal civilization with its epitome in the 18th to 19th orchestral form), he occasionally casts a cursory “glance around the globe” to search for verification of his theory. Just as in the colonial mode of thought, white rule dictates that the natives are useful in as much as their cultures verify Western norms; deviations from those norms are ignored, adjusted, or destroyed, as needed. Gardner is not immune from this colonial imperative. For instance, he uses a paragraph on African musics to introduce a discussion on the applicability of Piagetian theory to musical development, followed by (Western) debates on figural versus formal aspects of music (1993a, p. 110). He selectively evokes the rest of the world (e.g., p. 115), exclaiming the “stunning range of attitudes toward the creation of music” (stunning to who?), and again cursorily noting some cross cultural examples that provide a faint illusion of objectivity and as a front for what remains a distinctly elite, Eurocentric discourse.

When Gardner notes that Mozart produced “permanent works in a genre” (1997, 60), he doesn't acknowledge the social sifting processes that created genres and permanency (i.e., how did we end up with only a couple of hundred symphonies, when there were over 20,000 composed?). One would need to ask, how did these works become permanent? What happened to other works? Who decides? Though he feels parts of his Eurocentrism, he does not engage the reader in any meaningful discussions to counter it.

Discussions of musical intelligence, which for Gardner seem intertwined with discussions of talent and the great masters of the Western tradition, are complicated by debates currently raging in musicology and related fields. Two traditional camps, intra-musical and extra-musical, have been vying for authority in the field. To this mix, one might add the recent infusion of cultural studies and feminist theory, not only in the extra-musical camp, where they would appear to be at home, but to the intra-musical camp (e.g., McClary 1991). Here, the music is seen to contain embodied social realities and relationships, cultural assumptions, and gendered or colonial biases. If, as Gardner (1993a) suggests, “Music can serve as a way of capturing feelings, knowledge about feelings, or knowledge about the forms of feeling, communicating them from the performer or the creator to the attentive listener” (p. 124), then we need to look at the full range of those feelings. For example, in McClary's (1991) reading, “the point of recapitulation in the first movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony unleashes one of the most horrifyingly violent episodes in the history of music” (p. 28), an episode which Adrienne Rich (1973) saw much earlier, as articulated in her poem “The Ninth Symphony of Beethoven Understood at Last as a Sexual Message” (p. 205-6). McClary's work is at the forefront of a new musicology that applies the usual tools of formal analysis to the canon, but which is not limited to the staid tradition of unquestioning veneration.

Musicologists have also begun to look closely at the social context of the Great Masters. Some of these studies focus on patronage and class. So, for example, while "Mozart may have begun to orient himself to a consciously articulated notion of masterpieces at a time when the prevailing winds of musical fashion were still directed away from . . . the 'unmeaning art and contrivance' of J. S. Bach," Beethoven's music “was recognized from the beginning as `higher' and more `learned' - as `connoisseur's' music.” (Bowen 1998, p. 15, citing DeNora 1995). Viennese aristocrats used Beethoven and emerging notions of serious music to maintain social distance from the middle class during a time of economic change. “Much of the groundwork for this shift occurred in the private world of aristocratic salons, particularly as activity in these salons centered on Beethoven, who was uniquely celebrated for the expressiveness and complexity of his compositions” (DeNora 1995, pp. 18-19).

Mozart, too, was in thick of cultural politics of his day. “Mozart's music was dragooned into cultural service `as the Kingpin of Salzburg's nationalist cosmopolitanism: the sharing of German culture with the outside world.' Therefore, his unredeemed hero, Don Giovanni, was recruited by the Salzburg festival impresarios to play alongside Hofmannsthal's Jedermann (his adaptation of Everyman), and The Magic Flute became `a natural common denominator for Salzburg's Mozart and baroque cults and Third Reich volkisch ideology.' Far from being the free-floating universal genius he has become since Amadeus, Mozart was right in the thick of cultural politics, as in fact his music has always been” (Said 1991, pp. 57-8, citing Steinberg 1990). This line of research suggests that the artists we venerate today, whose work we see as timeless and universal, were intertwined with identity formation which favored different classes of people—and their music—over others. It is not too far a leap to see that they serve a similar function today, with the arguments now centralizing on their moral worth and uplifting qualities. But, as Small (1980), asks, “If Beethoven could have been used as a propaganda device by the winning side, if Wagner could have been perverted to support the megalomaniac obscenity of Nazism, if concentration camp doctors could have spent their days performing unspeakable experiments on human beings and pass their evenings peacefully playing Mozart and Haydn quartets, where, then, was the moral authority claimed for the tradition?” (p. 119). Indeed.

What is now called “classical music” emerged from the vernacular traditions of different regions in Europe. The classics fed the vernacular as they were fed by it. Even the great masters, like Mozart, were improvisers. And it is ironic indeed that the best of today's performers in this tradition have never composed a piece of their own. Instead, preservation has taken precedence over process (Small 1987), culture has crystallized into civilization (Keil, p. 228, in Keil & Feld 1994). What has happened, in other words, is that later generations have canonized these cultural vernaculars into “the classics” of “Western Civilization,” which was made possible by the composers themselves who set down their songs in scores, but which is in the end perpetuated by vested interests in preserving the elite culture of centuries gone by. The cultural politics that created the genres and styles that we venerate today are still at work, and once people realize this, then the classics will “either remain, or they will not, according to the extent to which they are found relevant to the lives of those who hear their music” (Small 1980, p. 219). [This seems like a good place to cite the ICTM article which analyzes the demise of the Oakland symphony in light of cultural engagement, in which voting citizens and taxpayers preferred football over Mozart]

Even within the West, the civilized classics are a small part of the sum total of musical possibilities and experiences. And besides, at the close of the twentieth century, if there ever was a “universal” music style worldwide, it'd certainly have to be those musics derived from the African Diaspora. So, too, would one need to take into consideration the mediating effects of mass culture and the still lively musical vernacular traditions around the planet. Absent any mention of these factors, one would have to assume that they are either unworthy of consideration, or that the Western classics are somehow intertwined with inviolable cultural themes of the West.

Worshipping at the Alter of OWM

In an open letter to a university music department, Keil (1991) defined the parameters of a musical challenge into the next century: “How about setting a policy that all hiring over the next decade or two will be in the interests of broadening offerings in African-American, Afro-Latin, and World Music, until the rest of the world is at least on an equal footing with the Old White Male (OWM) west?” While History and English Departments began dismantling their “OWM shrines” to broaden their perspectives earlier in the century, music departments have remained among the most conservative curators of the OWM tradition. And Keil is not alone in suggesting that there is a quasi-religious dimension to what he calls “OWM worship” (cf. Kingsbury 1991), and that universities are curating the products of a world largely without women (McClary 1991). For any discussion of music, performance, talent, and intelligence to be meaningful, it is “vital to acknowledge the backwardness of musicology with regard to cultural and feminist theory, especially in comparison to literary, film, and performance studies” (Schwartz 1995). Music at the Alter of OWM also remains bound up with notions of the Absolute. Its staunchest proponents insist on the paradoxical position that the music is experienced both individually and as a universal. In other words, OWM worship encompasses everything except social and cultural and realities. This is not to say that musicology is without its internal debates on these questions. Quite the contrary, as noted above, although one would not know it reading Gardner and his proponents. Interdisciplinary approaches to musicology in the 1980s and 1990s have shifted from analysis of structural patterns to methods that take into consideration the social and political context of compositions (Agawu 1997).

Part of the problem here comes back to my earlier point of situating music and intelligence in the mind of an individual. For Gardner, formally recognized individuals seem to matter most. When discussing music, he limits himself to exceptional individuals, those famous composers of the OWM canon. As the musically intelligent are identified, it is their disciplined acclimation to the norms of OWM worship that will one day mark them as musically competent. This acclimation involves identifying the forms and meters and other conventions of the OWM corpus. Gardner is uneasy with the implicit race, gender, and class dynamics inherent in venerating the OWM corpus. Although he seems to believe that “music occupies a relatively low niche in our culture” he neglects the enormous popularity of pop, rock, rap and other musics in the West, each with its own musical language and accepted competencies, yet not worthy of mention in the OWM orthodoxy. He is perhaps here just a victim of the discourse he cites, in this case mainstream musicology. But, in a sense, this is the key to his whole enterprise. Whose discourse will rule? While the intention is noble, to dismantle and problematize the legacy of inequity in biases towards language and math, Gardner does not allow himself to move too far beyond the other norms of Western elite values. [To be fair here, I could cite Joe Kincheloe's (1999) observation that Gardner is struggling to find a place “between paradigms”]

Gardner (1993a) accords a great deal of weight to composing in his quest for the parameters of musical intelligence. Composer Roger Sessions spoke of having “tones in his head,” which is another defining feature of musical intelligence. However, Gardner notes that much of this head music is “worth little musically,” suggesting that some music is of value and others not. The question becomes, who decides? Copland, Wagner, Saint-Saens, Schoenberg, and Harold Shapero all seem to agree that there is a certain “naturalness of the act of composition.” This leads Gardner into the debate of the role of language in music, in which Sessions and Stravinsky are archetypes of the assertion that “language plays no role in the act of composition.” But language here seems to mean spoken language, in the realm of linguistic intelligence, which does not rule out the essentialist position that music is a sort of ineffable language, with the composer being its translator, and that it is a medium of communication, usually specific emotions, but which does point to problems with the limitations of disciplined discourse. How music communicates, or what is its message is more a murky question, which ethnomusicologists have reflected upon. In many cases, listeners utilize a series of “interpretive moves” to bring alive a piece anew each time they listen to it (Feld 1984). Gardner's (1993a) unawareness of this discussion within musicology and its kindred disciplines is suggested in his relying instead on Copland, who insisted that listeners be educated (indoctrinated?) into the skills needed to appreciate the finer points of Western art music, skills which Gardner likens to those of composing (p. 102). And when Schoenberg says there is nothing in the music except the constant shaping of the original musical idea, Gardner still wants to understand this mysterious innate “musical lexicon,” so he turns to another composer, Shapero, who suggests that “the musical mind is concerned predominantly with the mechanisms of tonal memory,” which implies melody and harmony over rhythm and texture. This further reveals the Eurocentric foundations of Gardner's understanding of music, creativity, and intelligence.

To this core set of attributes, Gardner (1993a) adds “audition,” with the reminder that some composers have produced works that can be appreciated entirely visually. But this colludes with the inherent visual bias in Western art music, which relies on a written score for realization and articulation. Still other of Gardner's OWM brigade cite affect and pleasure as defining factors of musical intelligence (p. 105). Here he sees that, “in its most sophisticated terms, the claim that, if music does not in itself convey emotions or affects, it captures the forms of these feelings” (p. 106, emphasis in original). Even if one takes this assertion at face value, then it means music may embody all sorts of feelings (to which I will turn shortly). This leads Gardner to a discussion of music and emotions, in which he cites Sessions on music capturing the “form” of fear and despair, and Stravinsky's polemical, but later recanted, remark that “music is powerless to express anything.”

Subsequent to Frames of Mind and Multiple Intelligences, Gardner's work began to look in more detail at individuals that exemplify his theories of intelligence. In Creating Minds (1993), he profiles seven individuals who exemplify each of his seven intelligences. He chose Stravinski as the musical mind, but cautions that what makes each of the creators great is their particular blend of intelligences. While Stravinski (along with Gandhi) did not do well in school, Gardner (1993c, p. 363) emphasizes that this was not due to “any fundamental intellectual flaw” (biological, presumably) but simply because of lack of interest (meaning cultural?). And, “Stravinski was interested in the world of children, but certainly did not dote on his own childhood and took no special pleasure in appearing to act like a child. He probably was most reminiscent of a child in his extraordinary litigious nature—his desire to pick, and then to win, every fight and, if possible, humiliate `the enemy' in the process. Like other modern artists, he anchored his work in the most basic elements of the medium—primitive rhythms and harmonies of the sort that had so impressed him when he was a young child” (Gardner 1993c, p. 366).

Gardner (1993c) cites Stravinsky's famous assertion that music does not express anything by noting that the composer intended it as a rebuttal to those who would marshal music to non-musical ends. Stravinski wanted to replace “emotional self-expression with strictly musical statements” (p. 220), apparently contra Wagner and the Romanticists. Although Gardner (1993c) would not see it as such, Stravinsky seems to have had real flare for disputation—his “litigious personality,” as Gardner puts it—which suggest that he might have had a proclivity toward “contra-personal intelligence.” One could make a case for this across cultures, too, as in Talmudic and Qur'anic commentary, or Marxist dialectics. That Stravinsky fashioned himself in opposition to others is evident in his music, which constantly challenged the norms of 19th century Romanticism. The Rite of Spring was Stravinski's most challenging work (p. 200), and in it he marshaled forces to “shock, provoke, and challenge.” Indeed it did, but though Stravinski was initially panned for his wayward ways, over the years he, too, became part of the OWM canon. This process is lost on Gardner, who seems to read present realities into the past. And the language used to discuss his work is conventional, as in when Gardner (1993c) uses perfectly conventional OWM language to describe Stravinsky's use of chromaticism for supernatural effects, diatonics for humanness, and “Oriental” strains for the Russia of yore (p. 196).

[need a few comments on Stravinski's control fetish gutting jazz idioms in his Ebony Concerto, performed by Woody Herman and Co.]

Gardner reserves his true adulation for Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. In Extraordinary Minds (1997), he develops Mozart as an exemplar of mastery in a particular domain, one among a few “seminal artists.” According to Gardner, Mozart as Master had as his goal the complete mastery of the formal musical conventions of his day. Gardner (1997) boldly proclaims that Mozart's accomplishments in music “may have eclipsed those of any other human being in the realm of the arts” (p. 55). Yet the Master miraculously operated as a disembodied mind, “almost as if, independent of the events in his personal life and in the wider society, Mozart's brain had been set to produce a certain number of melodies and compositions per unit of time,” attributes which characterize his high quality productivity (p. 66). Yet Gardner gives short shrift to a key aspect of Mozart's approach to composition, his reliance on improvisation. In fact, “Mozart seems to have regarded composition as the provision of something to play” (Small 1987, p. 51), suggesting his playfulness with the music. Gardner seems to recognize the latter aspects, noting that “Mozart's music retains a simplicity and elegance that we associate with the innocence of childhood” (Gardner 1997, p. 67), but he fails to see beyond the blinders of OWM worship to discuss Mozart the improviser as well as the composer. And, true to OWM worship, improvisation does not even make the list of attributes for considering musical intelligence. Mozart himself would probably be aghast at how his playful art has been crystallized. Almost myth-like, the image of Mozart in Extraordinary Minds seems somehow closer to the wishful Hollywood image than to any reality of past.

In fact, Gardner ascribes anachronistic agency to the long dead Master, in saying that “Mozart has created our sense of the prodigy” (Gardner 1997, p. 67). No he didn't; we did, that is, Hollywood, musicologists and other scholars involved in OWM worship created Mozart the exemplar prodigy. This irony of cultural colonization eludes Gardner, who preaches the enduring popularity of Mozart's compositions “in every society to which they have been introduced” (p. 67), thus dutifully propagating the Gospel of OWM to the less fortunate minions.

[Perhaps this is the best place for mention of Mozart in Disciplined Minds. Or should that be woven through generally?]

Talent and Assessment

[Another function of testing is to give objectivity to failure and stupidity, letting people recognize their own inferiority.]

In his introduction to the concept of musical intelligence, Gardner (1993a) makes references to “talent,” which is “endowed” and a “gift,” the “nature” of which is uncertain. But by invoking Bach and Mozart in this context, he is introducing readers directly into the world of Western musical monoculture, and by implication setting its standards of taste and talent above others. After a few cursory cross cultural references, Gardner suggests that, while “musical achievement is not strictly a reflection of inborn ability but is susceptible to cultural stimulation and training,” it also “pays to have adequate or lavish genetic background” (p. 112). To bolster this, he cites musical families from the Old White Male music tradition. Although he seems to sit on the fence between the nature/nurture debate, Gardner leans toward a “genetic proclivity” and “considerable genetic potential” as a necessary factor to “reach the heights of musical achievement,” but which is liable to be unrealized or immature depending on upbringing and social conditions (p. 113), the nature of which are vague.

[This continues unabated right into one of his most recent works, in which he posits Mozart as the exemplar of beauty.]

Despite his protestations to the contrary, Gardner offers no reasoned response to criticisms that his discussion of musical intelligence is elitist. He is using the norms of Old White Male music culture as a baseline from which a few individuals can attain the highest degree of achievement as specialists according to its dictates. As Gardner (1993a) the cultural spokesman declares, “Ultimately, any individual in our culture who would wish to gain musical competence should master formal musical analysis and representation,” albeit “at a cost” (p. 111), reinforcing one of the key tenets of OWM worship. Although he senses that something is amiss here, in that the development of the formal mode will occur at the expense of the figurative, he is unable to conceptualize the two outside of a duality, pitting differences against one another in competition. So, to Gardner, musical intelligence is an “ability” that can be identified in various quantities: “Leonard Bernstein had lots of it; Mozart, presumably, had even more” (Gardner 1993b, p. 15). And, in an individual-centered regime of assessment, “Tests of musical intelligence would examine the individual's ability to analyze a work of music or to create one” (p. 39). But genuine musicality involves “knowing how to perform a piece of music to bring out its deeper structures or its contrasting moods” (Gardner 1993b, p. 42), further reinforcing the Gospel of OWM.

Gardner (1993b) suggests that it is not necessary for all members of a group to master individual intelligences, because, “so long as the individuals `at promise' in particular domains are located efficiently, the overall knowledge of the group will be advanced in all domains” (p. 29). Besides reinforcing the necessity of keeping the intelligences separate so that educators can locate and measure people for efficiency, the dilemma is to identify as many “at risk” individuals in order to bring them closer to an “at promise” level. But one wonders, in light of all the discussion on the attributes of a musically intelligent, or an “at promise,” individual, what would an “at risk,” or musically stupid, individual be like? One key seems involve identifying early affective reactions to various domains, at which time more formal introduction into the intelligence can take place (p. 29). This, presumably, must involve testing, and a careful regime of testing will better serve pre-existing cultural proclivities to assign people to what they do best. As Gardner (1993b) puts it, “We are able to `staff' our numerous roles and niches more effectively because people exhibit different profiles of intelligence' (p. 71). [Careful here; double check his context for this statement.]

Descriptions of assessment abound in Gardner's work, as in, for example, his admonition that “one is assessing a complex compound of initial proclivities and societal opportunities” (Gardner 1993b, p. 222). While Gardner realizes that intelligence cannot be measured in the abstract, that there cannot be separate tests for each intelligence, and that forms of performance based assessment “would be ascertaining the nature and extent of previous experiences in the realm of music” (p. 222), he still insists on assessment. A more subtle assessment regime is needed, according to Gardner, that evolves over time with the individual being observed by teachers and others who can examine “their profile of intelligences at work and play” (p. 222). He suggests the utility of his theory by noting that, “individuals charged with assessing promise in the musical domain will be able to draw on findings from this eclectic approach to musical competence” (1993a, p. 108).

As the above examples suggest, in reading Gardner's work one is struck by his numerous references to locating, measuring, categorizing, and assessing intelligence. Though he distances himself from his psychometric colleagues, he seems to share their proclivity towards measurement and assessment. While the measurements of the early psychometricians are now seen for what they were, as racist and repressive mechanisms of social control and self-validation for white supremacy (Gould 1981; Kevles 1985; Kincheloe, Steinberg, & Gresson 1996), the will to know via measurement remains. In Gardner's case, the rhetoric of social efficiency has been replaced with, and at times merges with, that of the human potential movement. Both seem to value tests and measurements, although the latter with a much more benign intention (overtly?). But tests and measurements are still intertwined with the old inequities and injustices, particularly with respect to music and the concept of “talent” as understood in Western music conservatory culture.

[This might be a good place to mention, by extrapolating from Small (1980), that Gardner is committed to the two major norms of modernity, rationalist science and classicist music.]

All of the human factors that bring the notes of a musical score to life are impossible to evaluate objectively. Nevertheless, music conservatories have developed what might be called a feel or intuition to decide who has talent, as opposed to mere skill, and who has the right touch and emotional disposition to render the works of the Great Masters. What may appear to be an arbitrary process to outsiders is subject to the norms and allegiances of those within the conservatory cultural system, which in the end determines who will go on to become concert soloists and who will become accompanists (Kingsbury 1988). Students entering into this cultural system assign meaning to this social construction of talent “to help them in developing strategies to negotiate their way in the community” (Roberts 1990). Paradoxically, as Kingsbury (1984) notes, “an appraisal of talent is an ex post facto judgement” that is assessed based on performance, and that therefore in the conservatory cultural system, talent “is a symbol of inequality of potential.” This paradox “occasionally leads students into the dilemma where knowledge about a supposed or assumed talent is incongruent with observed knowledge about a performance” (Roberts 1990).

Assessments of talent also rely on “speech about music” (Feld 1984), with the norms of interpretation embodied in the language the experts use to talk about music, talent, and performance. Yet the mystical world of assessing talent demands linguistic vigilance from students entering into the system. Kingsbury (1991) found that, “although `music' is quite literally a sacred notion within the conservatory, each class is organized in terms of a specific (hence secularized, mundane, practical) topical problem” (p. 203). He concludes that one of the key lessons that conservatory students learn is a “sociocultural skill in the use of verbal imagery” and “how to use and invoke the notion of music” and other socially defined concepts like talent, expression and feeling (p. 203). At the same time, “the myriad senses of the word `music' should be understood as at once the social grammar and the social poetic of a rather closely associated community, and that the various uses of the word are in fact learned in the context of interaction in and among such a community” (p. 203). While students subject to such a regime of assessment learn to work the system, what suggests is that notions of talent are socially constructed and maintained in a complex ecology of meaning and power. To the extent that influential scholars like Gardner normalize conservatory culture, its assumptions will continue to colonize everyday experience, with implications for education in general.

While he respects and writes about the theory of multiple intelligences with some enthusiasm, Keil (1998) also warns that “there are alienation effects, misplaced concreteness, misleading objectifications in this literature that, no matter how welcome the news is about the importance of musicking and dancing to full human growth and development, must finally be put aside in favor of a model that stresses one tightly integrated if multifaceted intelligence and one brain inside a whole human being” (p. 40). Keil also suggests that debates around multiple vs. unitary intelligences are intertwined with broader debates about class vs. classless society, and, following Marx, believes the key to good living and good education is for each person to embody the full range of potentials. So, while the theory of multiple intelligences helps to clarify that there is more to being human than mastering math and language skills, it could also “point toward a world in which the educator's job is to find and bring out the single intelligence that a child is best at, so that society finds niches for and integrates lopsided individuals into an efficient division of labor in which everyone is supposedly happiest doing mostly what they do best” (p. 43). Keil recognizes, with others, that testing and assessment justify and explain social hierarchies (cf. Lewontin 1991; Hubbard & Wald 1999). No matter how benevolent or broad-minded it might be, any regime of testing and assessment, especially one which relies on unexamined constructs of talent and competition, with pretensions of universal biologism, and which does not directly address legacies of inequity, will result in success for a few, failure for many, and unjust hierarchy for all.

Musical Stupidity

[Remember that 19th and early 20th century thinkers feared devolution if races mixed. So what if talent is genetic?]

American academics have a hard time talking about stupidity with any degree of sensitivity or complexity. With a few exceptions, the discourse is either crass and racist, blaming the victims of unjust social systems, or else it is fraught with well-meaning denial and apology. This is due in part to the horrid legacy of the American treatment of stupidity. Once Darwin and Galton made the connection between intelligence, heredity, and evolution, and coupled with the rediscovery of genetics at the turn of the century, a wide ranging movement to measure and classify intelligence ensued. At first, researchers busied themselves by assigning IQ's to eachother and to Old White Men of the past, but eventually the new science of intelligence was put to work for public policy. Immigration laws barred “idiots, lunatics, and epileptics,” and others deemed “feebleminded,” while academics called for castration and sterilization to prevent the continuation of hereditary stupidity. The eugenics movement gained momentum in the early part of the 20th century, but when the Nazis put the theories to practice in large scale, eugenics was tarnished as a valid science. Though some still cling to its basic tenets, the adherence to eugenicist thought and action remains a barometer for detecting racism and other forms of bias (Kincheloe, Steinberg, and Gresson 1996). This is partly the legacy that Gardner seeks to discredit, too, with his vigilant focus on the psychometrians and the cultural literacy movement. But discrediting a particular virulent form of scientific racism should not be equated with the belief that stupidity does not exist, despite polite academic aversions.

Education scholars and activists committed to social justice have developed ways of talking about stupidity without resorting to the barbarisms of the psychometricians, and without linking intelligence to dominant Western cultural values. Macedo (1994) uses the term “stupidification” to describe “linguistic games that disfigure reality” (p. 6), which are embedded in educational practices that focus on the formal, procedural and behavioral matters at the expense of larger economic, cultural, and socio-political factors that perpetuate race, class, and gender bias. Gatto's (1992) “seven-lesson schoolteacher,” who teaches a hidden curriculum of confusion, class position, indifference, emotional dependency, intellectual dependency, provisional self-esteem, and surveillance, has contributed to “dumbing down” children. Shujaa (1994), building on the classic work of Carter Woodson (1933), considers the paradox of “too much schooling, too little education” for Black Americans. From Bowers' (1995) ecological perspective, “[u]nintelligent behavior would be seen as any behavior, way of thinking, and moral judgement that degrades the environment” (p. p. 132). These and other works raise questions about theories that talk of intelligence which do not address various forms of stupidity.

Fixating on musical intelligence, coupled with venerating Old White Male musics, obscures or avoids the more politically and socially significant questions of why many people cannot participate in musicking. For education based on multiple intelligence to be meaningful and just, it would need to take into account what might be called “multiple stupidities.”

Based on more than twenty years of teaching Afro-Latin musical praxis to college students, Keil (1990, 1998) has tentatively identified what he calls seven “incapacities, blocks or obstacles” to participating in music cultures and full musical expression. For many people “uncoordination” is a major obstacle to good musicking. A surprising number of young adults, who may be avid listeners of music, are unable to maintain even a rudimentary steady beat with their hands and feet, much less able to tap and clap the multiple rhythms necessary for Afro-Latin musics. Keil suggests that this may be because no one ever asked students to keep steady time, that it didn't dawn on teachers to ask them. This reflects the OWM bias of music education, teaching students to listen and analyze.

Keil found that students who have trouble with drumming are “unentrained,” that is, they are unable to synchronize their movements with others. Following the insights of quantum mechanics and cybernetics, as developed in the work of anthropologist Edward T. Hall (1983), entrainment in music means “getting into the groove.” Keil noticed that some students can groove alone, but not in groups, while others can groove in groups but not alone. In any case, sustained entrainment seems necessary for good musicking. Being “self-conscious” overlaps with coordination and entrainment, which points to teaching methods and classroom ecologies as somewhat controllable variables. Keil noticed that some students got worse when he offered help, while others got worse when he praised them. Since this is a function of classroom ecology, he suggests keeping the focus on the group, and working with individuals outside the group setting. Like the other stupidities, being self-conscious is a learned behavior, ingrained by early adulthood, and resulting from insufficient socialization.

“Visual Dependency” appears to be a key obstacle to good drumming, especially in students who have learned music notation and feel insecure learning without a notated score. The visual focus on the score as “the music” has incapacitated people who, in another context, may be competent and even brilliant musicians. Keil (1998) suggests that “in a society where `seeing is believing' in print or on television, there may be a shadow of unreliability to contend with whenever people are interacting with sound and action toward a goal of cohesion” (p. 40). The fifth obstacle to good musicking is “over-specialization.” This is especially apparent when people who may have achieved a degree of competence on one instrument try to learn another instrument, or in attempting to learn across styles and in different cultural contexts. As Keil puts it, “things already learned are in the way of new learning.”

“Gender-distortion” is a thread running through the first five incapacities, with men and women reacting differently as they encounter and try to deal with the other obstacles to good drumming. As McClusky (1990) suggests, the “politics of vision” may alienate, and not only promote, learning in a group setting, especially in the context of the male gaze objectifying women, and notes that teachers can pay attention to the differences and similarities between looking and listening. Keil's seventh incapacity stems from students being “hyper-cultured,” referring to the years spent listening to commodified and mediated musics that may have developed an aesthetic, “a definition of good music, that may not let them grasp the subtleties of timing when it comes to drumming with others” (1998, p. 40).

Though he urges more research into these areas, that we need a book like “Why Janie Can't Groove,” I think Keil's incapacities suggest a framework for talking about what I would call “musical stupidity.” However, I agree with Keil that these are “analytically abstractable aspects,” that they are not inborn or somehow coded in our being, but that they are intertwined with alienation from our bodies and eachother, from musicking and schooling, and that, in the end, the “seven stupidities” are socially constructed and therefore socially solvable. Shorn of the proclivity to rank people in unjust social hierarchies, stupidity is actually generative of meaningful questions and serves as a useful heuristic for understanding and action.

[This is a good place to mention Farmelo's research on the discourses that lead to musical and non-musical behavior.]

I would also add an eighth stupidity, which arises in cross cultural situations. One could find this at work in intracultural situations in the west. When Mozart memorized Allegri's Miserere, he basically “removed” the piece from its sanctuary in a sacred chapel, which Gardner (1997) hails as a legendary feat, but which could also be seen as an act of “stupidity,” given the reverence accorded to the work by its protectors (p. 55). But this is more apparent in cross-cultural situations. Anthropologists and ethnomusicologists often proceed from their own cultural stupidity to gain cross-cultural insights that are respectful of indigenous knowledge. While doing research with Yemeni musicians, Schuyler (1990) tried to perform a classical Turkish instrumental piece, which turned out to be a stupid thing to do in an Islamic culture that valued vocal music over instrumental music, but which led to insights into indigenous performance practice. When Feld (1982) was busying himself with categorizing birds in the Bosavi rainforest, trying to get a handle on indigenous taxonomies, his Kaluli interlocutor reminded him that “to you they are birds, to me they are voices in the forest” (p. 45), which led Feld to the realization of indigenous natural history as part of a cultural system that integrated birds, weeping, and song into forms of expression. As these examples suggest, a lot of research across cultures is about identifying and remediating our own stupidities. The colonial imperative ignores this, and instead presses other cultures into service to verify or extend Western understandings of how the world works.

Chris Small (1980, p. 36) has tackled an aspect of this issue, which is relevant to our discussion. In an attempt broaden horizons to accepting and exploring musicking outside the West, Small recommends rejecting a number of cultural assumptions. I think it fair to term these “stupidities,” given the heuristic I am trying to develop here, since without rejecting or rethinking these assumptions (incidentally, there are seven of them), we risk the danger of reproducing Western norms as universals. Here they are: 1) music as a self contained art, to be contemplated for its own sake; 2) musical compositions as abstract entities, which can be communicated from performer to audience; 3) harmony and counterpoint are the supreme expressions of human musicking; 4) pitch as more important than timbre and texture as structural elements; 5) normalization of an impoverished sense of rhythm; 6) music is linear and teleological; 7) reliance on formalized structure to maintain a sense of time and space. Normalizing these Western cultural peculiarities excludes “deviations,” which in this case is most other musicking on the planet. To build a theory of musical intelligence that does not take into critical consideration one's own cultural norms (and deviations) borders on white supremacy and cultural imperialism. It is also patently unfair to foist such a narrow and exclusive view of music on students in the name of education and individually centered schooling given a culturally plural and diverse society. Normalizing the Western narrow notion of music is also connected to various performance pathologies, which brings us to the next set of “musical stupidities” (of which there are also seven).

While the enumeration and description of musical stupidities might increase, they open a useful heuristic toward uncovering the flipside of musical intelligence, that allows us to talk about the powers and processes that get intertwined with learning good musicking, either as a performer or as an observer. The concept of musical stupidity can serve the useful function of complicating and complimenting musical intelligence.

In Hall's (1983) work on "out of awareness culture," he identifies three levels of culture, one of which he terms "primary culture." In primary culture, norms are known and obeyed by all, but are not stated and occur "out of awareness." His research on out-of-awareness culture includes detailed study of films depicting human interaction, and one theory Hall supports is that meaningful out-of-awareness human interaction is made up of micro-timed phenomena, visible only when the films are slowed down. Hall is convinced that these primary level ways of interacting can be completely different from culture to culture. He calls this out-of-awareness micro-timed human interaction "entrainment." Viewing his work in terms of positive implications, Hall sees a certain urgency in engaging primary level culture, suggesting that if human beings don't spend more time figuring out how entrainment works (and doesn't work), then there is going to be a lot more intolerance and destruction in the world. If Keil is right about his students being unentrained, and that some form of entrainment is necessary for good musicking, then Hall's work might be suggesting that a lack of entrainment in musicking is indicative of larger cultural problems that extend beyond musicking. This suggests that one way to become entrained, to “get into the groove,” whether with Yemenis, or birds, or eachother is to promote ways of musicking that are not dependent many of the elite Western culture-bound proclivities that Gardner favors in his rather ungroovy notion of musical intelligence.

Toward Intelligent Musicking

It is beyond the scope of this chapter to give a detailed prescription for intelligent musicking, not to mention the hubris involved in even pondering such an endeavor. But there are several points provide food for reflection, toward imagining more intelligent relationship with music and musicking. For this I'd like to broaden the scope, and look at some general tendencies toward post-modern processes that may shine like on potential paradigms shifts, before venturing a few tentative extrapolations toward more intelligent musicking.

If Small (1980, 1987, 1998) is correct that Western notions of music are intertwined with, and in some cases contingent upon, a notions of the humanity in its relationship to nature, that Western musicking (the high art tradition in particular, the one venerated and normalized by Gardner) bolsters a form of supremacy over nature that curates a destructive and non-sustainable sensibility, then we ought to consider some broader reflections on how to adjust our thinking and cultural practices to those that are more sustainable. Bowers (1995) handles this nicely, following from the observations of biologists Maturana and Varela (1972), who themselves put Bateson (1972) into practice. Bowers discusses seven steps toward an ecological view of intelligence, which might also be termed “seven intelligences” for sustainable living. In such a scheme, all living sustainable systems exhibit the following characteristics: 1) living systems exist in ambience, as a series of interdependent niches; 2) living systems are characterized by an exergonic metabolism, in that they produce work and/or energy, rather than deplete it; 3) living systems are units of interactions, which maintain identity through those interactions; 4) living systems are self-referring in their production and maintenance of their interactions; 5) living systems interact with systems specified by their organization; 6) living systems have niches that are classified by interactions into which others can enter; 7) living systems consist of units of interaction that are can participate in relationships with other, more encompassing sets of interactions. Without taking them too literally, hold onto these general distinctions of living (sustainable) systems for a moment, while I add insights from another domain.

In architecture, there is a growing realization that modernist dwellings are pathological and destructive in their relationship to the environment. Developing forms of what might be called “sustainable architecture” has led to an interesting rethinking of the norms of Western architectural practice. Architecture is useful here, too, since it is a practical art that involves doing as much as thinking about. In his advice to post-modern architects, Willis (1999, pp. 201-36) develops seven strategies toward “making architecture” in the next century, which I think can also be understood as practical steps toward “sustainable architecturing.” They are as follows: 1) seeking collaboration and conviviality, seeking to introduce a measure of sociability into building; 2) respecting practitioners and the “troping of limitations”; 3) developing unconventional practices, such as volunteering services; 4) accepting the “imaginatively flawed” and the “provocatively incomplete”; 5) doing it yourself, preferably with friends; 6) engaging in theoretical projects that are freeing from constraints; 7) challenging the instrumentality of graphic representations.

[That's all he wrote folks, for now, but I hope you can see where this is going. I want to conclude with some conceptual issues about music performance, talent, intelligence, stemming from the framework in the previous two paragraphs, peppered with some examples of practices toward more intelligent musicking. Farmelo's suggestions might be useful here, for example. I guess what I really want to say here is that Gardner overlooks two key issues, 1) musicking as a negotiated process (vernacular, oral, and other points made by Chris Small, and 2) the impact of commodification and mediation on musicking (and other points made by Charlie Keil), and that any steps toward intelligent musicking will need to address these oversights.]

References Cited

[Needs double check and edit for inclusion and omission]

Agawu, K. (1997). “Analyzing Music Under the New Musicological Regime.” The Journal of Musicology, 15(3):297-308.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine Books.

Bohm, D. (1998). On Creativity. New York: Routledge.

Bowen, J. A. (1998). Review of Tia DeNora, Beethoven and the Construction of Genius: Musical Politics in Vienna, 1792-1803. 19th Century Music, 22(1):91-100.

Bowers, C. A. (1995). Educating for an Ecologically Sustainable Culture: Rethinking Moral Education, Creativity, Intelligence, and Other Modern Orthodoxies. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Cannella, G. (1999). “Postformal Thought as Critique, Reconceptualization, and Possibility for Teacher Education Reform.” In J. L. Kincheloe, S. R. Steinberg, & L. E. Villaverdi (Eds.), Rethinking Intelligence: Confronting Psychological Assumptions about Teaching and Learning. New York: Routledge.

Collins, J. (1990). “African Music in the Space Age: The Agbadza Drums.” The M.U.S.E. Letter, 1: 57-68).

Crumb, R. (1987). “Diatribe on Modern Music.” Echology, 1:38-42.

DeNora, T. (1995). Beethoven and the Construction of Genius: Musical Politics in Vienna, 1792-1803. Berkeley: University of California Press.

During, J. (1982). “Revelation and Spiritual Audition in Islam.” World of Music, 24(3):68-84.

Feld, S. (1982). Sound and Sentiment: Birds, Weeping, Poetics, and Song in Kaluli Expression. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Feld, S. (1984). “Communication, Music, and Speech about Music.” Yearbook for Traditional Music, 16:1-18.

Gardner, H. (1993a). Frames of Mind. The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1993b). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1993c). Creating Minds. An Anatomy of Creativity Seen Through the Lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1997). Extraordinary Minds: Portraits of Exceptional Individuals and an Examination of Our Extraordinariness. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1999). The Disciplined Mind: What All Students Should Understand. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Gatto, J. T. (1992). Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.

Gould, S. J. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

Gouldner, A. (1979). The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of a New Class. New York: Seabury Press.

Hall, E. T. (1983). The Dance of Life: The Other Dimension of Time. New York: Anchor Books.

Hubbard, R. & Wald, E. (1999). Exploding the Gene Myth. Boston: Beacon Press.

Keil, C. (1990). “Blocks to Good Drumming.” The M.U.S.E. Letter, 1:21-6.

Keil, C. (1991). “An Open Letter to the Music Department.” Generation (12 November):6.

Keil, C. (1998, spring). “Incorporating the Muses.” Radical Teacher, 52:37-43.

Keil, C. & Feld, S. (1994). Music Grooves: Essays and Dialogues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kevles, D. J. (1985). In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics & the Uses of Human Heredity. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Kincheloe, J. L. (1999). “The Foundations of Democratic Educational Psychology.” In J. L. Kincheloe, S. R. Steinberg, & L. E. Villaverda (Eds.), Rethinking Intelligence: Confronting Psychological Assumptions about Teaching and Learning. New York: Routledge.

Kincheloe, J. L., Steinberg, S. R., & Gresson, A. D. (1996). Measured Lies: The Bell Curve Examined. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Kingsbury, H. (1984). "Music as a Cultural System: Structure and Process in an American Conservatory." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.

Kingsbury, H. (1988). Music, Talent, and Performance: A Conservatory Cultural System. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.

Kingsbury, H. (1991) “Sociological Factors in Musicological Poetics.” Ethnomusicology, 35(2):195-219.

Lewontin, R. C. (1991). Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA. New York: Harper Collins.

Macedo, D. (1994). Literacies of Power: What Americans Are Not Allowed to Know. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

McCLary, S. (1991). Feminine Endings: Music, Gender, and Sexuality. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

McClendon, C., & Weaver, J. A. (1999). “Informally Speaking: A Continuing Dialogue on Postformal Thought.” In J. L. Kincheloe, S. R. Steinberg, & L. E. Villaverda (Eds.), Rethinking Intelligence: Confronting Psychological Assumptions about Teaching and Learning. New York: Routledge.

McClusky, L. (1990). “Looking and Learning to Drum: The Paradox of Vision in Learning Participation.” The M.U.S.E. Letter, 1:27-44.

Potter, R. (1997). “Musical Intelligence: The Final Frontier?” National Forum: Phi Kappa Phi Journal, 77(3):7.

Rich, A. (1973). Diving into the Wreck. New York: W. W. Norton.

Roberts, B. A. (1990). “Social Construction of Talent by Canadian University Music Education Majors.” Canadian Journal of Research in Music Education, 32(2).

Roseman, M. (1991). Healing Sounds from the Malaysian Rainforest: Temiar Music and Medicine. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Said, E. W. (1991). Musical Elaborations. New York: Columbia University Press.

Schuyler, P. D. (1990). “Hearts and Minds: Three Attitudes toward Performance Practice and Music Theory in the Yemen Arab Republic.” Ethnomusicology, 34(1):1-18.

Schwartz, J. (1995). “Feminism and Musicology: The Reception of Susan McClary's Feminine Endings.” [ (downloaded 7/5/99)]

Shepard, P. (1982). Nature and Madness. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Shuja, M. J. (Ed.) (1994). Too Much Schooling, Too Little Education: A Paradox of Black Life in White Societies. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.

Small, C. (1980). Music, Society, Education. London: Calder.

Steinberg, M. P. (1990). The Meaning of the Salzburg Festival. Austria as Theatre and Ideology, 1890-1938. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Willis, E. (1999). The Emerald City and Other Essays on the Architectural Imagination. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Woodson, C. G. (1933). The Mis-Education of the Negro. Washington, DC: Associated Publishers.