Abstract
Swanwick (1996) failed to provide a credible challenge to Walker's (1996) suggested ‘New praxis freed from Colonialism’ and instead offered yet more cultural colonialism with his concept of music as ‘discourse’. This term has a long and deep western lineage and therefore is inadequate as a descriptive modus operandi for music education in all cultures. Its efficacy relies on unsupported assumptions about a universality in human mind processes irrespective of culture. While waving the musical flag of cultural pluralism, Swanwick simultaneously suggests a universal cognitive functioning for all humans. He cannot have it both ways: pluralism and universalism are incommensurate. Unless Swanwick abandons his commitment to universal cognitive functioning he has little to say to the world's music educators outside the western traditions. Pluralism means cognitive differences, which in turn suggest many different and diverse ways of expression in what the West calls music than the term ‘discourse’ can possibly accommodate.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.