Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In this article, we explore how deafness challenges the hierarchy of senses in music education. As part of a larger three-year research project focusing on memories of Finnish state schools for the d/Deaf, “Voices of a Silent People—Renovated Bodies,” this article concentrates on experiences of music education. The methodological starting point of the research project is sign history, with a focus on d/Deaf people’s signed memories. The interview data for the whole research project (N = 116) were collected by interviewing d/Deaf people in group discussions and individual interviews. There were 61 participants who produced the transcribed interview data related to the third substudy on music education (n = 61). Our critique of the hierarchy of senses in music education is based on Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenological thought and, more specifically, the criticism of the mind–body, self–other, and subject–object dichotomies in the listening process. The results suggest that d/Deaf people can feel sound with their bodies. Sound is experienced holistically through different channels: body, touch, vision, and for some, through hearing or feeling bass frequencies. Sound is not categorized into perceptions of one sense. To conclude, four dimensions that make it possible to formulate more inclusive and multisensory music education are presented.

Keywords

bodily movement gesture hearing marginalized students music education

Introduction

How do you experience sound? Music is not necessarily an auditory experience (Darrow, 2007; Holmes, 2017) because it also has other dimensions. For many, music is a visual, embodied, tactile, and social experience that is experienced through senses other than hearing (Darrow, 2007; Holmes, 2017). From the perspective of deafness, exploring these other dimensions can be fruitful. The deaf awareness movement challenges music educators to examine pedagogical practices that exclude those who cannot hear. Strengthening the rights of the deaf has exposed the dominant cultural narrative of the hearing world, which posits that hearing individuals are separate from and superior to deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals (Reagan, 2020).¹ This has explicitly allowed music education to develop without regard for those students who cannot hear. Because music education curricula should reflect the aims of educational equity and the values of society at large, we need new music education practices that value all the senses when learning and experiencing music.

Deafness can be conceptualized in different ways: as an audiological condition or as a unique cultural, linguistic, and social identity (see, for example, Reagan, 2020). Often, deafness is considered a deficit condition, while hearing is the normative condition. This line of thought is based on a very specific type of ableism and linguicism called audism (see Eckert & Rowley, 2013), which places emphasis on auditory perception in language, communication, and learning. In educational contexts, the default that hearing students are considered the norm does not ensure educational equity, which should be the very basis for all education, including music education. After all, students are unique and have diverse sensory functions. Considering deafness as an impairment not only reinforces notions of able-bodiedness and audism but also an oppression of difference and hearing variety, as there is a spectrum of deafness (Churchill & Hall, 2022; Virdi, 2020). In the present article, the term d/Deaf is used to describe the diversity of deafness. It should be noted that many scholars are moving away from using the term d/Deaf because it has created a dichotomy between the deaf (nonsigning deaf people) and the Deaf (signing deaf people) and has been considered as an oversimplification of a very complex set of language practices and identities (Kusters et al., 2017). For us, the term d/Deaf calls attention to the complexity of these issues.²

The music education of d/Deaf and hard-of-hearing students has been studied in the contexts of instrumental pedagogy (Hash, 2003) and music classrooms (M. Butler, 2004; Chen-Hafteck & Schraer-Joiner, 2011; Darrow, 2007; Grindstaff, 2021; Schraer-Joiner, 2014; Yennari, 2010). Moreover, research has acknowledged d/Deaf musicians as musical performers and active music makers (Churchill, 2015; Churchill & Hall, 2022; Hatch, 2021; Holmes, 2017). In general, the structures and mechanisms of inequality in music education practices and institutions have been increasingly dismantled (Ilmola-Sheppard et al., 2021; Kivijärvi & Rautiainen, 2021; Kivijärvi & Väkevä, 2020; Laes, 2017), and students who had previously been excluded from goal-oriented music education can now participate in music learning in different educational contexts (Juntunen & Kivijärvi, 2019). Hence, d/Deaf and hard-of-hearing students typically study mostly with their hearing peers.

In Finland, the embodiment of the learner is considered in the Finnish basic education curriculum (Finnish National Board of Education [FNBE], 2016). This means that music is made and expressed through the human body; its manifestations vary depending on the characteristics of the body. Scholars have confirmed how an embodied approach to music learning strengthens a more holistic understanding of musical skills, agency, interaction, and overall well-being (Juntunen, 2015; Juntunen & Sutela, 2023; Sutela, 2020). The embodied approach to learning music stresses how body movement in interaction with music and other factors has an effect on music perception (Leman et al., 2018). This means that in the embodied approach, music is experienced, learned, and expressed through movement and the integration of information from different sensory modalities (Juntunen, 2016). The embodied approach emphasizes mind–body unity and the significance of an individual’s body (e.g., its capabilities, skills, emotions, and imagination) in cognitive abilities. The embodied approach has been found to be beneficial for a variety of music learners. Several scholars have recommended using embodied music-based approaches with students with autism spectrum disorder (Srinivasan & Bhat, 2013; Sutela et al., 2020; Tryfon et al., 2017), dyslexia (Bouloukou et al., 2021; Flaugnacco et al., 2015; Habib et al., 2016), and special needs (Sutela et al., 2021).³

Such studies have garnered support from many practitioners who focus on multimodality and multisensory integration in their work. For example, Bang (2009) states that music–movement integration fosters the development of movement and linguistic skills and awareness of body functions in children with hearing loss. Pino et al. (2022) in turn suggest that the usage of body and space integrated with sound enables the participation of students with visual disabilities in music learning.

Even though understanding of human embodiment in music education has increased (Juntunen, 2016; Leman et al., 2018), music education is often still focused on the “mind” and leans mainly on the auditory perception of music. For example, music education often focuses on listening in pedagogical practices (listening to music and fellow learners while singing, playing, and moving to music). Dalcroze-based music education integrates body movement and listening to support ear training, and music is studied through the interactions of sound perception and movement response (Juntunen, 2016; Juntunen & Westerlund, 2011; Sutela et al., 2020). Similarly, in the Kodály method, musical concepts are taught through singing, listening, or movement, and the aim is to develop a sense of tonal capacity and the sense of pitch (Tabuena, 2021). The Orff approach, in turn, stresses the combination of play, movement, and speech, on the understanding that students have inherent inclinations for melody and rhythm, like in language learning (Tabuena, 2021). However, Small’s (1998) concept of musicking, widely quoted in sociological music education research and practice, has been interpreted as being more inclusive, as his “theorizing encompasses a less audiocentric view of music, allowing for vision, touch, and proprioception as sensory modalities for discerning and making sense of musical gesturing” (Churchill & Hall, 2022, p. 76). Still, this less audiocentric view of music has not taken hold in teaching practice.

Embodiment in music education should not only be used to further cognitive growth but to shape understanding of oneself and the world. To be more specific, embodiment should be understood as a way of knowing, (inter)acting, and being in music. When teaching students to listen, music educators may unconsciously pass on the value of cognitive ends and concentrate on hearing in music experience and learning and, thus, reinforce an audiocentric perspective and audism (Silvestri et al., 2018). Naturally, listening supports the hearing learner, but it leaves out those pupils whose perceptions—and, therefore, learning—are based on other senses.

In the present article, we separate the concepts of hearing and listening because the former refers to the ability to perceive sound by detecting vibrations through the ear, and the latter to the ability to pay attention to the details of the sound and interpret it meaningfully (Elkoshi, 2021). Learning and experiencing music are not just about hearing or listening skills. As earlier research has suggested, music learning involves multiple senses, including touch, auditory, visual, and motor modalities (Ceraso, 2014, 2018; Stevens, 2012; Sulaiman et al., 2008). Sulaiman et al. (2008) finds that touch sensation is considered the most important modality when playing musical instruments. Stevens (2012), in turn, discusses the interplay of different modalities in music perception and cognition, including auditory, visual, and motor modalities. According to Ceraso (2014, 2018), sound is not experienced through a single sense like hearing; other parts of the body can also be engaged during a sonic encounter. Overall, these scholars have suggested that music learning involves the integration of multiple senses and cognitive functions, and that multisensory modalities should be taken into account when planning and implementing music education.

Within deaf education, music has in the past been considered as an instrument of speech therapy (Jones, 2015; see also Hidalgo et al., 2017) and an auditory practice that does not apply to d/Deaf students (Darrow, 1993). However, there are scholars who want to change this line of thought. For example, a recent study by Silvestri et al. (2018; see also Silvestri & Hartman, 2022) outlines universal design for learning (UDL) as an example of making music education more accessible and inclusive for d/Deaf learners. They suggest visual and tactile music technology, the study of American Sign Language (ASL) poetry, and music-to-ASL interpreting to engage d/Deaf and hearing learners in music education. At the same time, they criticize sound-centric and hearing-led constructions of music and music education. Similarly, Jones (2015) invites hearing musicians to “hear d/Deafly” (p. 54), with the whole body and all senses, as it is something that all bodies can do.

In this article, we base our critique on the hierarchy of senses in music education on Merleau-Ponty’s (1945/2014) phenomenological thought and, more specifically, the criticism of the mind–body, self–other, and subject–object dichotomies in the listening process (Ceraso, 2018; Connor, 2004; Holmes, 2017; Tarvainen, 2018a, 2018b). We identify four dimensions that make it possible to formulate more inclusive and multisensory music education. Thus, we ask the following question: How does deafness challenge the hierarchy of senses in music education?

Philosophical premise

Embodiment is a central dimension of being, knowing, and learning, through which human beings are oriented and open in their relationship to the world (Merleau-Ponty, 1945/2014). Merleau-Ponty’s (1945/2014) phenomenology of perception has examined the importance of embodiment to an understanding of human experience and action. According to Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy, perception, emotion, and lived experience play a key role in understanding and engaging with the world (Juntunen, 2017; Merleau-Ponty, 1945/2014). Moreover, perception can be understood as a prereflective mode of experience—that is, conscious thought and reflection. Thus, the primacy of perception means that the body is in a permanent condition of experience (Merleau-Ponty, 1945/2014). Knowing cannot be retrieved from lived experiences but, rather, it builds on it (Juntunen, 2017).

For Merleau-Ponty (1945/2014), the body is both a sensing and sensed organism. Perception is achieved with the whole body “all at once” through the visual, aural, and tactile senses, along with qualities of taste and smell. To be specific, the world presents itself in perception. In perception, sensory (not just auditory) stimulation is translated into organized experience based on prior knowledge, expectations, and attention (Merleau-Ponty, 1945/2014). The body is also the locus of kinesthetic and affective sensations and the lens through which individuals plan their actions and make decisions.

Merleau-Ponty’s thinking has been criticized and supported by feminist and disability scholars. J. Butler (2006) and Young (1980) point out the lack of specificity about which kinds of bodies he analyzes. Weiss (2015), in turn, highlights how the abilities of bodies are dynamic phenomena in Merleau-Ponty’s thinking and, thus, these bodily abilities have the potential to change notions of normativity. Weiss (2015) states how neither the body nor the world can be the sole source of experiences, because perceptual experiences arise in and through the interaction between them. Thus, there can be a “misfit” between the body and the environment (Garland-Thomson, 2011). For the d/Deaf, normative expectations in terms of hearing and listening can create a feeling of “misfit” in sound-centric and hearing-led environments. However, ableist discourses and environments can be resisted (see, for example, Loja et al., 2013), and individuals can be aware of their abilities and focus on their strengths (Shakespeare, 2014).

Merleau-Ponty’s thoughts are supported by Connor (2004), who utilizes the concept of intersensoriality, which describes the interconnectedness of senses in complex and multilateral ways. According to Connor (2004), senses are mutually influencing and, thus, shape one’s perceptions of the world. For example, he stresses how tactile sensations can enhance the appreciation of sound, can be physically felt, how they resonate within the environment, and how they are shaped by material objects that produce and transmit them. In doing so, he emphasizes the embodied nature of perception and the multisensory aspects of encounters with sound.

This multisensory experience of sound surpasses the sensory hierarchy. It also surpasses the dichotomy between subject and object as they extend to affective interaction between the listener and others (people, sound, and environment). This holistic and relational view of reality stresses that the meaning (of sound) is not found in subjects or objects but between them (Vadén & Torvinen, 2014). Thus, the experience of sound is no longer limited to what a person can hear; instead, it is a more holistic embodied experience that consists of the intertwining of sound vibrations, emotions, and interaction (Connor, 2004; Holmes, 2017).

The multisensory experience of sound resonates with the idea of listening with the whole body (Holmes, 2017; Tarvainen, 2018a), where the focus is on the listener’s body’s proprioception—that is, one’s inner-body perceptions produced by the proprioceptive senses—and on body awareness, where one becomes aware of them (Merleau-Ponty, 1945/2014; Tarvainen, 2018a). Similarly, listening with the whole body is close to practices known as multimodal listening (Ceraso, 2018) and deep listening (Oliveros, 2005), which mean attending to the ecological relationships among sounds, bodies, materials, and environments. These kinds of listening practices move away from ear-centric approaches to a more holistic and immersive sonic experience, where the interaction of sound and body is not based on hearing abilities but, rather, is based on an awareness of one’s own inner-body perceptions in interaction with the environment.

Methodological choices

This research is part of a larger three-year research project titled “Voices of a silent people—renovated bodies” (Hiljaisen kansan äänet, n.d.). The research project consists of four substudies, the first of which focuses on memories of state schools for the d/Deaf and childhood as a d/Deaf person. In the second substudy, the history of medical and therapeutic research and intervention for the d/Deaf are examined. The third substudy concentrates on the history of music education in schools, and the fourth substudy examines a trioethnography between one d/Deaf and two hearing researchers. The current article is part of the third substudy and was motivated during data analysis by some participants’ descriptions of embodied experiences of sound.

We define our research as sign history,⁴ which can be compared with the oral history research trend that uses oral reminiscence as its material. The aim is to democratize the production of historical information and to bring different perspectives and pasts to the research field (Sommer & Quinlan, 2018). d/Deaf people should be able to tell their own history in their own language. This not only respects the linguistic rights of the narrators but also ensures the authenticity of what is told about recent history. Our aim has been to ensure that literacy does not exclude anyone from telling the history of the d/Deaf.

The interview data for the whole research project was collected by interviewing d/Deaf people (N = 116) in group discussions and individual interviews. The interview data for our research project are unique in its scope. Following the University of Oulu’s ethics procedures, once participants were adequately informed about the research, they were asked to give their consent to participate and for their answers to be used as part of research publications.

The individual interviews were conducted in deaf associations around Finland in Finnish and Finnish–Swedish sign language. The interview themes followed those of the substudies. The interviewees shared their experiences of residential school, ear surgery, and music education. The section on music education included the question about the interviewees’ experiences with sound and/or music. Most of the interviews were conducted by the d/Deaf researcher and second author of the present article, Outi. The interviews were videotaped and then transcribed into Finnish. There were 61 participants (of the 116 participants in the whole project) whose transcribed interview data related to the third substudy of music education (n = 61). This was because many of the interviewees who had attended school in the 1950s to 1990s said that music education had been completely absent or had played a role in supporting speech and hearing training. Many participants also had a negative attitude toward music, and their responses were very short.

In the current article, the focus is on one question in the interviews: How do you experience sound? All interviewees described the parts of the body where the sound vibration is felt. Of those interviewed, fourteen (n = 14) described their experience of sound in more depth. However, all descriptions (n = 61), even short ones, were included in the analysis. The answers to this question were analyzed using thematic analysis (Attride-Stirling, 2001) to identify key themes. The following four themes were identified: (1) bass frequencies allow the body to experience the vibration of sound; (2) touch supports sound and voice perception; (3) materiality as a sound amplifier; and (4) vision, lyrics, and imagination compensate for the auditory experience. These themes are intertwined in many ways with each other and further discussed in the next section.

Results

Bass frequencies allow the body to feel the vibration of sound

Sound is not only perceptible to the ear but also vibrates as it travels through space (Ceraso, 2018). One interviewee, Eino, described how the sound “goes up the body” and “can also be felt in the hands.” Olivia, in turn, said she could “feel the music in her toes.” Mikael described the sound going “straight to the body, depending on what kind of sound it is.” These descriptions depict well how the essence of sound itself is already multisensory because it includes the audible, palpable, and visible dimensions of sound. Sound’s ability to touch bodies is linked to frequency levels (Ceraso, 2018), which can change the feel of the sound (Palmer & Ojala, 2022). One interviewee, Jarno, described this as follows: “You can feel the thump of the bass. The loud sound of the bass can still be felt in the body.”

According to Jarno, the experience of the sound “stays” in the body, indicating the overall effect of the sound on the entire body. This is also likely to happen to a hearing person, but attachment to the auditory experience can obscure information about the sound from the other senses (Jones, 2015). The key question here is not whether one of the senses is more fundamental to the other but rather how individual awareness is focused on different types of listening (Tarvainen, 2018a). Cultural conventions also influence the learning to perceive and recognize sound, mainly through hearing (Jones, 2015). However, the bass frequency of the sound was emphasized in the experience of the interviewees because it was felt and experienced in the whole body:

You can feel more in your ears, even though I can’t hear the lyrics. The bass-like sound is felt and heard. Violins and high-pitched sounds of such instruments, I do not hear. [Sofia]

When it comes to lower bass frequencies, there is a close similarity between auditory and tactual sensations (Mühlhans, 2017). This means that sound perception is achieved with the whole body “all at once” (Merleau-Ponty, 1945/2014). Bass frequencies can support the experience of sound for the d/Deaf or provide information about the very existence of sound and, for example, the tempo or rhythm of music. High-pitched sounds, in turn, can be beyond the auditory perception of the d/Deaf body and should be supported using, for example, the senses of sight or touch. Suvi depicted the feeling of the rhythm:

I enjoy what I feel. For example, if my husband is listening to something on the radio in the car, I feel the rhythm and it feels nice in some way. [Suvi]

Suvi’s description does not isolate any particular sense but depicts the holistic nature of the embodied experience, as it includes both affective and kinesthetic sensations of the sound (Merleau-Ponty, 1945/2014). Experiences of feeling the bass or rhythm in different body parts challenge normalizing listening paradigms that are based on the primacy of aurality in music: the acoustical properties, especially bass frequencies, can be listened to through the whole body, not just the ear (Holmes, 2017).

Touch supports sound and voice perception

Touch helps people to perceive the world from an early age. For many d/Deaf people, hearing is touching (Holmes, 2017). Holmes (2017) refers to Evelyn Glennie’s model of touch, which also consists of vision, movement, imagination, and, for some, even hearing (p. 188). The d/Deaf people interviewed for this study described mostly how the sense of touch provides information about how instruments feel or what they are made of and how one’s body vibrates when singing, shouting, or speaking. Being an active discovery sense, touch also provides information about sound and music:

I didn’t hear the sounds, but I felt them if they were in contact with me. My father and his relatives practiced musical instruments, and I could touch them to feel the vibrations. When my father played the piano, I touched it and felt the vibrations of the sound. [Mikael]

Similarly, Olavi talked about his experiences in music class, how the teacher had guided him to try and touch what different instruments felt like and, thus, understand what kind of sound they made. Sari also described how “I got to touch different instruments when the teacher played them and then try them myself.” Their experiences can be understood as a vibrosensory approach to music (Palmer & Ojala, 2022). In the vibrosensory approach, touch works as a connection between the instrument playing and one’s own body, transferring the vibration of the sound from the instrument to individual processing. Touch is a channel through which affective and kinesthetic sensations of music and sound are perceived; through touch, the body is both a sensing and sensed organism (Merleau-Ponty, 1945/2014). However, sensitivity to sensations may vary according to individual body and vibrational awareness (Palmer et al., 2017).

One interviewee, Aleksi, described that “I do enjoy the music, when I can follow along . . . so I put my hand to my throat and say mmm . . .” Because he could not hear his own voice while expressing it, the touch made him aware of the very existence of his voice while feeling the music. Through touch, he was able to become aware of his inner-body sensation of forming a sound and the bodily aspects of his own voice (Tarvainen, 2018a). Aleksi’s experience is a good example of double sensation, the body’s kinesthetic sense of its own action (Merleau-Ponty, 1945/2014). This kinesthetic awareness can also be called the “body schema,” which describes the body’s ability to understand the surrounding world and adjust one’s (inter)actions accordingly (p. 100). Aleksi’s experience concretizes the intertwining of his voice with the vibration of the sound that surrounds him.

Materiality as a sound amplifier

Some of the interviewees explained how they could perceive bass frequencies, for example, by sitting on an amplifier or holding their foot against a vibrating surface. They described how they understood the existence and essence of sound by holding their hand on the side of the piano. For example, Nora described how “many students sat against the piano wall and, thus, felt the music.” Katariina had similar experiences: “The teacher played the piano and the students held their hands on the side of it; a rippling sensation came from it.”

Each material has a resonant frequency that depends on its density (Ceraso, 2018). The human body, in turn, produces its own vibration and simultaneously resonates with vibrations of different materials (Ceraso, 2018; Connor, 2004). The whole body therefore acts as a kind of sound chamber as it receives information about the vibration of sound through a surface. Some interviewees mentioned loud music:

You feel it through the vibration of the floor in the body. The radio might be loud in the car. I put my foot against the door. [Selma]

We felt sounds through vibration. The teaching assistant put the knobs southeast so we could feel the loud vibrations from the amplifier. [. . .] We also had a vibrating bench so that we could feel music through our bodies. [Aleksi]

In these examples, the vibration of the music was experienced through the materials of the objects, amplification technology, and environments to which they were connected. It can be interpreted that the sound is connected to and intertwined with listeners’ senses, space, and objects (Ceraso, 2018). Thus, interviewees’ bodily experiences in these contexts (in a car, on a wooden floor, or a vibrating bench) shaped and were shaped by existing sound. One interviewee, Marjatta, described how the space and the distance between the sound and the listener affected the experience:

If you are too far away, you can’t feel it [the music], but if you are close, you can feel it through the surface [. . .] but it depends on a lot of things, like the space, where music is played. [Marjatta]

The presence of a human being in the vicinity of the material affects the vibration of the sound and vice versa (Connor, 2004). Hence, the dichotomy between the subject and object of the sound is blurred because they affect each other’s existence and action (see also Vadén & Torvinen, 2014). This can be understood as the co-existence of the body with the world, where the perceiving body and the perceived thing are equally receptive and active (Merleau-Ponty, 1945/2014). This means that separations between subject and object or ideality and materiality are not permanent at the level of fundamental ontology. Thus, it can be interpreted that the materiality of the instruments or amplifiers is part of the same perceptual world and, thereby, brings forth the multisensory experience of the sound.

Vision, lyrics, and imagination compensate for the auditory image

However, experiencing sound is not limited to vibration, touch, or materiality. Visual cues often help d/Deaf individuals deepen their experience of sound or even see sound. Indeed, the separation of the realms of sight and sound should not be strict, as musical experience can also move between aural and visual realms through the visualized and imagined sound (Merleau-Ponty, 1945/2014; see also Ihde, 2007). The question is how to bring forth the visible qualities of sound. In music education, practices of signed songs, score reading, color notation, or reading lyrics can deepen the experience of sound, as the following excerpt from the interview data shows:

I also enjoy just reading the lyrics, the songs [. . .] It’s also nice to see if somebody sings with a clear lip. For example, I watch when Juha Tapio [a Finnish artist] sings. Always, though, why does the camera always have to move away [from the face]? It would be nice to be able to watch the lyrics and your own expressions when playing, the lips, the emotion. [Suvi]

For Suvi, music is a visual experience, where facial expressions and, hence, emotions, play a key role. Visual cues of the artist give her information about the core of musical expression. Focusing on visual cues in music can be understood as a listening strategy, which is manifested in reading the score, lyrics, or notated symbols or seeing signed lyrics and facial expressions. As Suvi says about interpreted songs: “if all the pieces fit together, the rhythm and referenced interpretation fit together [. . .] They are enjoyable to watch.” Peppi saw the visuality of music as even more important than other sensory experiences:

There are two different aspects to music: body sensations and also the interpretation of songs in sign language. Now, as an adult, I love songs translated into sign language. I feel that through music you can express your own identity, but as far as feeling music (physically) is concerned, it is not so important as an adult. [Peppi]

It can be interpreted that visuality helps d/Deaf listeners see the music. By looking at a performer expressing the music with their body, such as moving rhythmically and making facial expressions, a d/Deaf person can capture the essence of the music with sight. Merleau-Ponty (1945/2014) describes this synergy of senses as follows: “When I say I see the sound, I mean that I echo the vibration of the sound with my entire sensory being” (p. 243). Similarly, Mikael depicted, “For me, watching music gives me bodily sensations and pleasure.” Mikael’s quote suggests that visual perception is deeply attached to other sensations and that “the senses communicate in perception just as the two eyes collaborate in vision” (Merleau-Ponty, 1945/2014, p. 243).

Mikael also described how he still can remember the memory of sound:

I have sound memory from when I was hearing. When I became d/Deaf, the memory of sound stayed with me. People have a memory for sound; for example, if water falls on the ground, you can see when it hits the ground, you can hear the sound inside, the memory of what the sound was. [Mikael]

Sound memories are deeply connected to places and affective states (Harris, 2015). Individuals and communities carry rich multisensory and emotional knowledge in their lived sonic experiences. Thus, reconnecting with sound memories can bring back feelings and even other sensory (such as smell, taste, or touch) cues that have been experienced (Harris, 2015). This excerpt shows how connecting with sound memories can be recalled by attuning to the sounds and not being able to hear them. Imagination and sound memories can help the late-deafened to better engage with their former auditory perceptions and, in that way, awaken their embodied memories of sound, too. With the help of visual cues, touch, and vibration, imagination can help the d/Deaf listener to know what certain sounds or music sound like.

Discussion

Reflecting on how deafness challenges the hierarchy of senses in music education, we have considered the role of senses other than hearing in sound perception. The experiences of the d/Deaf emphasize the importance of a multisensory and holistic approach toward sound. Sound—and, thus, music—can be experienced in multiple ways, through diverse bodies, and without valuing one sense over another. After all, humans have a “ready-made system of inter-sensory transposition” and our “senses understand each other without the need for an interpreter” (Merleau-Ponty, 1945/2014, p. 244). Not using this powerful ready-made tool in music learning and teaching is not just exclusionary but is unsustainable for music education when pursuing educational equity (Kivijärvi & Rautiainen, 2021).

Through this study, we suggest that music educators pay attention to tactile, visual, and kinesthetic ways of teaching music. This verifies earlier research done in the field (Bang, 2009; Darrow, 1993, 2003; McCord & Fitzgerald, 2006; Silvestri et al., 2018; Silvestri & Hartman, 2022) and aligns with an embodied approach to music education, which stresses integration of information from different sensory modalities (Juntunen, 2016). Through this study, we want to contribute to the discussion on the development of multisensory music education practices and theory. We also want to address concerns that an unembodied approach to music may preclude some music learners from the actual learning experience by robbing them of the richness of cross-perceptual knowing, acting, and being in the world. Seeing the body and all its senses as the “general instrument of understanding” (Merleau-Ponty, 1945/2014, p. 244), we want to encourage music educators to see the possibilities of the multisensory approach to music learning. At its best, it can create a space for discussing whose experiences and ways of knowing are recognized and acknowledged in music.

d/Deaf learners challenge the hierarchy of senses and, thus, the role of hearing abilities in experiencing music. In doing so, they not only enrich our understanding of music’s ontological contours but also help music educators transform prevailing notions of musical capability, expertise, and inclusive music education. Inspired by Garland-Thomson (2012), Maler (2015) suggests that deafness “is not a deficit for musical experience; rather, it is a source of musical ability” (p. 73). As perceptual experiences arise in and through interaction between one’s body (and its abilities) and the world (Weiss, 2015), it is important for music educators to change the “pedagogical world” around students: how their perceptions and abilities are activated, responded, developed, and further encouraged in the classroom. By reaching beyond sound-centric and hearing-led conventions in music education, music educators could prevent a feeling of “misfit” (Garland-Thomson, 2011) for d/Deaf learners and, furthermore, give space for all senses in experiencing sound and learning music. Based on the results of this study and previous research, we therefore provide some practical suggestions for music teachers to make their teaching more inclusive, not only for students with diverse hearing abilities but for all.

Emphasis on visual ways of teaching music

d/Deaf learners often rely on visual cues to experience and perceive music (Hatch, 2021; Jones, 2015; McCord & Fitzgerald, 2006; Schraer-Joiner, 2014). Descriptive signs (if the teacher does not know sign language), body movements, gestures, facial expressions, and visual representations of music are of the utmost importance in engaging d/Deaf learners in music classrooms (Bang, 2009; M. Butler, 2004; Jones, 2015; Yennari, 2010). Adding more gestures and movements to one’s teaching can help represent musical elements and concepts (Juntunen, 2016). Encouraging students to use their bodies to express different elements of music provides a more holistic experience of the music (Juntunen, 2015, 2016).

Music educators can use a variety of images and visual music technology to illustrate musical concepts and notation, thus making abstract elements of music more concrete (Silvestri et al., 2018; Silvestri & Hartman, 2022). Music videos or other multimedia resources can provide visual references, for example, for different music genres or historical contexts. Similarly, the use of spectrograms or sound wave visualizations can help students to understand the relationships between the pitch, duration, and intensity of the sound (see Mills, 2010; Song et al., 2023). In addition, interactive tools, software, and apps can provide visual representations of musical elements, such as virtual keyboards or music notation programs (Rogers et al., 2014).

Visual ways of teaching can also be questioned. For example, in Western music education, standard staff notation is a normative that may pose obstacles to music learning, especially among those who have difficulties in musical perception when working with written graphic symbolic representations (Kivijärvi & Väkevä, 2020). It is worth investigating whether there are pedagogical situations in which no symbol systems are needed at all. This means that music educators should be encouraged to develop the knowledge and skills to organize context-specific music education for their individual students—that is, when to apply visual, aural, tactile, or kinesthetic methods in teaching–learning situations.

Concentrating on tactile and kinesthetic experiences

d/Deaf individuals can also experience music through tactile and kinesthetic modalities (Palmer et al., 2017; Palmer & Ojala, 2022). They may feel vibrations, rhythms, or physical sensations associated with musical instruments or performances (Darrow, 1993, 2007). Music teachers can provide opportunities for students to physically explore and play various instruments, thus developing students’ sense of connection with instruments (McCord & Fitzgerald, 2006; Sulaiman et al., 2008). Students can also create their own musical instruments or craft-related props (textured or tactile surfaces, scarves, or ribbons), allowing them to experience the tactile aspects of manipulating instruments. This, in turn, can foster their understanding of how sound is produced.

Body percussion and rhythmic activities, or other activities that integrate music and movement, can help students feel rhythms in their bodies and explore different rhythmic patterns through their own body movement (Bang, 2009; Juntunen, 2016). Similarly, dance can help students express the dynamics, mood, or phrasing of music though creative movements and, hence, engage them kinesthetically with the music learning process (Benari, 2014). Music teachers can encourage students to express narrative or emotions through gestures and movement with different sounds or music (Jones, 2015).

Concentrating on tactile and kinesthetic experiences in music education requires music educators’ sensitivity to the needs and expressions of diverse learners (Sutela et al., 2021). Pedagogical situations where movements, gestures, touch, and eye contact are primary modes of communication can be challenging for both educators and students. Hence, it is important to give space and time for students’ creative and independent exploration. Similarly, the development of music educators’ own bodily awareness through various somatic practices takes time. At its best, concentrating on tactile and kinesthetic experiences in pedagogical interaction can support an understanding of the other as it unites educators and students at a nonverbal level, where language is not needed (Sutela et al., 2021).

Valuing cultural and personal experiences

Deafness challenges the notion that music is primarily experienced through auditory perception (Benari, 2014; Maler, 2015). d/Deaf individuals bring their unique personal and cultural experiences to music education, emphasizing the importance of diverse perspectives and musical backgrounds (Maler, 2015). Deaf history is full of struggles against the control and dominance of the hearing world. As a minority group, initially defined by a predominantly medical perspective, the shared experiences of a common history have created a strong sense of d/Deaf identity (Maler, 2015). This identity is often expressed by d/Deaf musicians, who have made music that is culturally Deaf (through the use of sign language and lyrics that describe their experiences as Deaf people).

Music teachers can encourage d/Deaf students to share their musical interests, experiences, and cultural traditions, and thus make visible d/Deaf (music) culture for those who are not familiar with it. In doing so, d/Deaf students can not only discuss music on their own terms but also help hearing students to understand d/Deaf listening and performing in musical contexts. Meaningful genres and styles can be explored together and discussed. Music teachers can provide opportunities for students to express their preferences or contribute to the selection of music repertoire. This not only empowers students to take ownership of their musical experience but also fosters a sense of curiosity, respect, and pride in diverse cultural identities.

Footnotes

Author contribution(s)

Katja Sutela: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Methodology; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & editing.

Outi Ahonen: Data curation; Methodology.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author(s) received financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article from the Kone Foundation.

ORCID iD

Katja Sutela

Notes

Author biographies

Katja Sutela is university lecturer and postdoctoral researcher in music education at the University of Oulu, Finland. She has taught music to children with special needs for ten years in a special education school. She is currently engaged in a research project focusing on music education for d/Deaf students and her research interests include inclusive music education and theories of embodiment.

Outi Ahonen is lecturer in Finnish sign language at the HUMAK University of Applied Sciences, Finland.

References

Attride-Stirling

(2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410100100307

Bang

(2009). A world of sound and music: Music therapy for deaf, hearing impaired and multi-handicapped children and adolescents. Approaches, 1, 93–103.

Benari

(2014). Inner rhythm: Dance training for the deaf. Routledge.

Bouloukou

Marin-Diaz

Jimenez-Fanjul

(2021). Effects of an interventional music program on learning skills of primary-school students with dyslexia. International Journal of Education and Practice, 9, 456–467. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2021.93.456-467

Butler

(2006). Sexual difference as a question of ethics: Alterities of the flesh in Irigaray and Merleau-Ponty. In Olkowski

Weiss

(Eds.), Feminist interpretations of Maurice Merleau-Ponty (pp. 107–125). Pennsylvania State University Press.

Butler

(2004). How students with hearing impairments can learn and flourish in your music classroom. Teaching Music, 12(1), 30.

Ceraso

(2014). (Re)educating the senses: Multimodal listening, bodily learning, and the composition of sonic experiences. College English, 77(2), 102–123. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24238169

Ceraso

(2018). Sounding composition: Multimodal pedagogies for embodied listening. University of Pittsburgh Press.

Chen-Hafteck

Schraer-Joiner

(2011). The engagement in musical activities of young children with varied hearing abilities. Music Education Research, 13(1), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2011.553279

10.

Churchill

W. N.

(2015). Deaf and hard-of-hearing musicians: Crafting a narrative strategy. Research Studies in Music Education, 37(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X15589777

11.

Churchill

W. N.

Hall

(2022). Toward “little victories” in music education. In Frierson-Campbell

Hall

Powell

S. R.

Rosabal-Coto

(Eds.), Sociological thinking in music education (pp. X–XX). Oxford University Press.

12.

Connor

(2004). Edison’s teeth: Touching hearing. In Erlmann

(Ed.), Hearing cultures: Essays on sound, listening and modernity (pp. 153–172). Berg Publishers.

13.

Darrow

A.-A.

(1993). The role of music in deaf culture: Implications for music educators. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41(2), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345402

14.

Darrow

A.-A.

(2003). Dealing with diversity: The inclusion of students with disabilities in music. Research Studies in Music Education, 21(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X030210010401

15.

Darrow

A.-A.

(2007). Teaching students with hearing losses. General Music Today, 20(2), 27–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/10483713070200020107

16.

Eckert

Rowley

(2013). Audism: A theory and practice of audiocentric privilege. Humanity and Society, 37(2), 101–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160597613481731

17.

Elkoshi

(2021). Train noise as music: An exploration of audio-graphic interpretations elicited by music students and non-musicians. Music Education Research, 23(4), 527–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2021.1954896

18.

Elliott

(2005). Praxial music education: Reflections and dialogues. Oxford University Press.

19.

Finnish National Board of Education. (2016). National core curriculum for basic education 2014. Publications 5.

20.

Flaugnacco

Lopez

Terribili

Montico

Zoia

Schön

(2015). Music training increases phonological awareness and reading skills in developmental dyslexia: A randomized control trial. PLOS ONE, 10, Article e0138715. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.Pone.0138715

21.

Garland-Thomson

(2011). Misfits: A feminist materialist disability concept. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 26(3), 591–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01206.x

22.

Garland-Thomson

(2012). The case for conserving disability. Bioethical Inquiry, 9, 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-012-9380-0

23.

Grindstaff

(2021). Music from the dark and silence: Incorporating deaf, hard of hearing, and visually impaired students into the music education classroom [Honors thesis]. Eastern Kentucky University. https://encompass.eku.edu/honors_theses/765/

24.

Habib

Lardy

Desiles

Commeiras

Chobert

Besson

(2016). Music and dyslexia: A new musical training method to improve reading and related disorders. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 26. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00026

25.

Harris

(2015). Eliciting sound memories. The Public Historian, 37(4), 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1525/tph.2015.37.4.14

26.

Hash

(2003). Teaching instrumental music to deaf and hard of hearing students. Research & Issues in Music Education, 1(1), Article 5. https://ir.stthomas.edu/rime/vol1/iss1/5

27.

Hatch

(2021). Performing without sound: Using sign language to teach expressive qualities of music. Journal of General Music Education, 35(1), 64–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/10483713211034436

28.

Hidalgo

Falk

Schön

(2017). Speak on time! Effects of a musical rhythmic training on children with hearing loss. Hearing Research, 351, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2017.05.006

29.

Hiljaisen kansan äänet. (n.d.) https://www.hiljaisenkansan.com/

30.

Holmes

J. A.

(2017). Expert listening beyond the limits of hearing: Music and deafness. Journal of the American Musicological Society, 70(1), 171–220. https://doi.org/10.1525/jams.2017.70.1.171

31.

Ihde

(2007). Listening and voice: Phenomenologies of sound (2nd ed.). State University of New York Press.

32.

Ilmola-Sheppard

Rautiainen

Westerlund

Lehikoinen

Karttunen

Juntunen

M.-L.

Anttila

(2021). ArtsEqual: Tasa-arvo taiteen ja taidekasvatuksen palveluiden suuntana [ArtsEqual: Equality as a guiding principle for arts and arts education services]. Taideyliopisto. https://taju.uniarts.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/7424/Arts_equal_tasa-arvo_2021.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

33.

Jones

J. B.

(2015). Imagined hearing: Music-making in deaf culture. In Howe

Jensen-Moulton

Lerner

Straus

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music and disability studies (pp. 54–72). Oxford University Press.

34.

Juntunen

M.-L.

(2004). Embodiment in Dalcroze eurhythmics [Phd thesis]. Universitatis Ouluensis.

35.

Juntunen

M.-L.

(2015). Pedagoginen kokeilu integroida Ipadin käyttö, luova tuottaminen ja keholliset työtavat peruskoulun seitsemännen luokan musiikinopetuksessa: Tapaustutkimus toimijuuden näkökulmasta [Pedagogical experiment on the use of iPads with creative production and bodily approaches in 7th grade music instruction: A case study from the perspective of agency]. Finnish Journal of Music Education, 18(1), 56–76.

36.

Juntunen

M.-L.

(2016). The Dalcroze approach: Experiencing and knowing music through the embodied exploration. In Abril

C. R.

Gault

(Eds.), Approaches to teaching general music: Methods, issues, and viewpoints (pp. 141–167). Oxford University Press.

37.

Juntunen

M.-L.

(2017). Embodiment in music teaching and learning. Finnish Journal of Music Education, 20(1), 117–126.

38.

Juntunen

M.-L.

Kivijärvi

(2019). Opetuksen saavutettavuuden lisääminen taiteen perusopetusta antavissa oppilaitoksissa [Increasing the accessibility of education in basic arts education institutions]. Finnish Journal of Music Education, 22(1–2), 70–87.

39.

Juntunen

M.-L.

Sutela

(2023). The effectiveness of music–movement integration for vulnerable groups: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1127654. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1127654

40.

Juntunen

M.-L

Westerlund

(2011). The legacy of music education methods in teacher education: The metanarrative of Dalcroze eurhythmics as a case. Research Studies in Music Education, 33(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X11404653

41.

Kivijärvi

Rautiainen

(2021). Contesting music education policies through the concept of reasonable accommodation: Teacher autonomy and equity enactment in Finnish music education. Research Studies in Music Education, 43(2), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X20924142

42.

Kivijärvi

Väkevä

(2020). Considering equity in applying Western standard music notation from a social justice standpoint: Against the notation argument. Action, Criticism & Theory for Music Education, 19(1), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.22176/act19.1.153

43.

Kusters

De Meulder

O’Brien

(Eds.). (2017). Innovations in deaf studies. The role of deaf scholars. Oxford University Press.

44.

Laes

(2017). The (im)possibility of inclusion: Reimagining the potentials of democratic inclusion in and through activist music education [Dissertation]. Sibelius Academy.

45.

Leman

Maes

P. J.

Nijs

van Dyck

(2018). What is embodied music cognition? In Bader

(Ed.), Springer handbook of systematic musicology (pp. 747–760). Springer.

46.

Loja

Costa

M. E.

Hughes

Menezes

(2013). Disability, embodiment and ableism: Stories of resistance. Disability & Society, 28(2), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.705057

47.

Maler

(2015). Musical expression among deaf and hearing song signers. In Howe

Jensen-Moulton

Lerner

Straus

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music and disability Studies (pp. 73–91). Oxford University Press.

48.

McCord

Fitzgerald

(2006). Children with disabilities playing musical instruments. Music Educators Journal, 92(4), 46–52.

49.

Merleau-Ponty

(2014). Phenomenology of perception ( Landes

D. A.

, Trans.). Routledge. (Original work published 1945)

50.

Mills

(2010). Deaf jam: From inscription to reproduction to information. Social Text, 28(1), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1215/01642472-2009-059

51.

Mühlhans

J. H.

(2017). Low frequency and infrasound: A critical review of the myths, misbeliefs and their relevance to music perception research. Musicae Scientiae, 21(3), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864917690931

52.

Oliveros

(2005). Deep listening: A composer’s sound practice. iUniverse.

53.

Palmer

R. C.

Ojala

(2022). Vibrational music therapy with D/deaf clients. Voices: A World Forum for Music Therapy, 22(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.15845/voices.v22i3.3388

54.

Palmer

R. C.

Skille

Lahtinen

Ojala

(2017). Feeling vibrations from a hearing and dual-sensory impaired perspective. Music and Medicine, 9(3), 178–183. https://doi.org/10.47513/mmd.v9i3.538

55.

Pino

Rodríguez-Rossell

Vallverdú

L. V.

(2022). “How can I include them?”: Teaching pupils with visual impairment in the inclusive music classroom. Didacticae: Revista de Investigación en Didácticas Específicas, 12, 124–137. https://doi.org/10.1344/did.2022.12.124-137

56.

Reagan

(2020). Social justice, audism, and the d/Deaf: Rethinking linguistic and cultural differences. In Papa

(Ed.), Handbook on promoting social justice in education (pp. 1479–1510). Springer.

57.

Rogers

Röhlig

Weing

Gugenheimer

Könings

Klepsch

Schaub

Rukzio

Weber

(2014). Piano: Faster piano learning with interactive projection. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (pp. 149–158). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2669485.2669514

58.

Schraer-Joiner

(2014). Music for children with hearing loss: A resource for parents and teachers. Oxford University Press.

59.

Shakespeare

(2014). Nasty, brutish, and short? On the predicament of disability and embodiment. In Bickenbach

J. E.

Felder

Schmitz

(Eds.), Disability and the good human life (pp. 93–112). Cambridge University Press.

60.

Silvestri

J. A.

Ehrenberg

Dick

Shim

(2018). Universal design for music: Exploring the intersection of deaf education and music education. http://journalofasl.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2018/06/udl.pdf

61.

Silvestri

J. A.

Hartman

M. C.

(2022). Inclusion and deaf and hard of hearing students: Finding asylum in the LRE. Education Sciences, 12(11), 773. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12110773

62.

Small

(1998). Musicking: The meanings of performing and listening. Wesleyan University Press.

63.

Sommer

B. W.

Quinlan

M. K.

(2018). The oral history manual. Rowman & Littlefield.

64.

Song

Zhang

Peng

Mohaghegh

Wandt

Rhodin

(2023). AudioViewer: Learning to visualize sounds. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (pp. 2206–2216). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2012.13341

65.

Srinivasan

S. M.

Bhat

A. N.

(2013). A review of “music and movement” therapies for children with autism: Embodied interventions for multisystem development. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 7(22), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2013.00022

66.

Stevens

C. J.

(2012). Music perception and cognition: A review of recent cross-cultural research. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 653–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01215.x

67.

Sulaiman

Ahmad

W. W.

Rambli

D. A.

Hasbullah

Goh

K. N.

(2008). Multi-sensory modalities for music learning. 2008 International Symposium on Information Technology, 2, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01215.x

68.

Sutela

(2020). Exploring the possibilities of Dalcroze-based music education to foster the agency of students with special needs: A practitioner inquiry in a special school [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Oulu.

69.

Sutela

Juntunen

M.-L.

Ojala

(2020). Applying music-and-movement to promote agency development in music education: A case study in a special school. British Journal of Music Education, 37, 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051719000184

70.

Sutela

Kivijärvi

Anttila

(2021). Moving encounters: Embodied pedagogical interaction in music and dance educators’ expanding professionalism. In Westerlund

Gaunt

(Eds.), Expanding professionalism in music and higher music education (pp. 89–101). Routledge.

71.

Sutela

Ojala

Kielinen

(2021). Developing agency through music and movement. Research Studies in Music Education, 43, 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X20934084

72.

Tabuena

A. C.

(2021). Carabo-Cone, Dalcroze, Kodály, and Orff Schulwerk methods: An explanatory synthesis of teaching strategies in music education. International Journal of Asian Education, 2(1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.46966/ijae.v2i1.88

73.

Tarvainen

(2018a). Democratizing singing: Somaesthetic reflections on vocality, deaf voices, and listening. https://pragmatismtoday.com/summer2018/Pragmatism_Today_Volume9_Issue1_Summer2018.pdf#page=91

74.

Tarvainen

(2018b). Singing, listening, proprioceiving: Some reflections on vocal somaesthetics. In Shusterman

(Ed.), Aesthetic experience and somaesthetics (pp. 120–142). Brill.

75.

Tryfon

Foster

N. E.

Ouimet

Doyle-Thomas

Anagnostou

Sharda

Hyde

K. L.

(2017). Auditory-motor rhythm synchronization in children with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 35, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2016.12.004

76.

Vadén

Torvinen

(2014). Musical meaning in between. Ineffability, atmosphere and asubjectivity in musical experience. Journal of Aesthetics and Phenomenology, 1(2), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.2752/205393214X14083775795032

77.

Virdi

(2020). Hearing happiness: Deafness cures in history. University of Chicago Press.

78.

Weiss

(2015). The normal, the natural, and the normative: A Merleau-Pontian legacy to feminist theory, critical race theory, and disability studies. Continental Philosophy Review, 48(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-014-9316-y

79.

Yennari

(2010). Beginnings of song in young deaf children using cochlear implants: The song they move, the song they feel, the song they share. Music Education Research, 12(3), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2010.505643

80.

Young

I. M.

(1980). Throwing like a girl: A phenomenology of feminine body comportment, motility and spatiality. Human Studies, 3(2), 137–156.

“I can feel the rhythm,and it is somehow nice”: Deafness challenging the hierarchy of senses in music education

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Philosophical premise

Methodological choices

Results

Bass frequencies allow the body to feel the vibration of sound

Touch supports sound and voice perception

Materiality as a sound amplifier

Vision, lyrics, and imagination compensate for the auditory image

Discussion

Emphasis on visual ways of teaching music

Concentrating on tactile and kinesthetic experiences

Valuing cultural and personal experiences

Footnotes

Author contribution(s)

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

Author biographies

References