The Whole Picture

In the reading of Charlene Morton's article, it seemed clearer to me that although we read about five different "cases" of multiculturalism, all must be considered to address the issues of how we label and just how far, or how shallow, we reach into what I am now thinking as "the other side." The other side is being able to completely divorce personal experience from the experiences of others, which is what we are attempting to do through the practices of multiculturalism. We must consider the many different ways of approaching the concepts of hegemony and the majority rule (or what is referred to often as Western thought in this article) and the ways that they affect our teaching and true connection to other peoples' worlds.

From Elliott to Woodford to Kincheloe and Steinberg, we wrestle with the different ways in which we approach change in our ways of thinking of race, creed, socio-political affiliation, etc. These issues must be brought up organically by inquiring minds, however, or the assumptions of what music might "mean" to one person (namely, the teacher) would be passed along to his or her students with every intention of NOT passing along these given labels. What the focus should perhaps be is the study of the big picture of time and place and personal experience. We must still be wary of labeling one example of a means for describing the whole since we come from so many diverse backgrounds that one can hardly begin to break down just what it is that makes up our whole. David Elliott, in his quest of breaking down barries through his takes on pluralist multiculturalism, pushes for us to learn "self-understanding through 'otherstanding.' " It is the notion that we are so diverse and many labeled, that once we begin to kind of shed our protective skin of personal identity, we are able to dig into specific musical cultures that can't be so easily defined by white or black, urban or rural, etc.

Critical Multiculturalism gives us the tools to take all the material that we have been given and to try to construct meaning for ourselves, but the tools that we have been given also limit our understanding of how multi-layered the concepts of identity truly become. We often put ourselves in a box of understanding, with walls we come to know as truths and strongholds. But when, in fact, we realize that the labels that we use to try to unlabel stereotypes, we realize that the box is merely a construction of our mind. Our willingness to explore deeper into what makes us who we are then would become opened, making it incredibly difficult to try to appease all citizens of the human race. What connects us are not the identities of where we have come from-which include the labels that we have no control over- but rather, shared experiences and organic learning help plant new seeds for interpretation that goes beyond barriers without even trying. To try and label it would destroy it. It is only when have been able to step away from a situation that we begin to break it down into little compartments, but in the moment, we are not classifying our thoughts as contingent of what makes us "us," but rather who I am in all my parts. The willingness of the mind to becomes free and ever-changing is a process that takes more unlearning than learning. Each situation is unique and can only be labeled by the experiences of those who we in the moment and had no bias for the free exchange of thoughts.