Biology, Culture, and Music Therapy

In " The Dance of Wellbeing" the first article in this issue Colwyn Trevarthen and Stephen N. Malloch aims at "Defining the Musical Therapeutic Effect." Trevarthen has published extensively on neuropsychology. brain development and communication in infancy, and his texts are frequently quoted among European music therapists. In the article he and Malloch have written for this journal, theories of mother-infant interaction and of communicative musicality are seen in relationship to music therapy and offered as a foundation for a theory of music therapy. They suggest that the practice of music therapy while professional and based upon theoretical knowledge and musical skills is also based on an innate "intuitive musicality". This may explain why so often there is an intuitive appreciation lay and professional of how music therapy improves the emotional and cognitive well-being of clients. Trevarthen and Malloch propose that this intuitive appreciation can be enriched by accurate information on the dimensions of musicality in emotional expression and communication, and that research on the acoustic features of vocal interactions with infants has brought out fundamental features. They therefore advocate comparable analysis of clinical practice to clarify how motives and feelings are engaged and transformed through treatment. Bjørn Grinde in his article in this issue offers an evolutionary perspective on the biological basis for musical appreciation. Bjorn Merkerin one of the two comments on this article characterizes Grinde's proposal as the "language auxiliary" theory of the origins of music. In Merker's words Grinde suggests that music originated as a "teaching device" for language, "by providing the motivational (hedonic) underpinnings for a propensity to focus on and interpret complex sounds, a propensity needed for the primary function of language acquisition". While Merker warmly welcomes Grinde's contribution, he also questions several of Grinde's suggestions, as does Erik Christensen, who has written the other comment to this article. The topic will be under continuing debate on our web Forum. I take these differences, and the fact that an article on the biology of music was submitted to this journal, as a sign of a new inter-disciplinary trend. There is a renewed interest for what evolutionary perspectives can offer to the understanding of applied disciplines within health and education. The interest is starting to include music and music therapy, although this is still in an early stage of development. Another sign of this inter-disciplinary trend is the recent book The Origins of Music edited by a musicologist and two neuroscientists (Nils Wallin, Bjorn Merker & Steven Brown). This book is possibly of great importance for our field, and will be thoroughly reviewed in the next issue of our journal. Seemingly in contrast to these discussions on music biology and the origins of music, this issue also presents an essay review by Even Ruud of two books published as companions that discuss music therapy as practices situated in historical and cultural contexts. Ruud sees these texts in relation to his own writings in a cultural relativist perspective, and finds the constructivist attitude in the books that Peregrine Horden and Penelope Gouk have edited, worthy of further investigation in the discipline of music therapy. Ruud therefore writes: "I would prefer more music therapy writings to be stated in this manner, rather than fuzzy talk about bringing the 'inborn, natural, real or whatever emotions and musicality' to the surface through common music making." A biologist asking "how music works" and a cultural relativist asking "how people use music" may not at first seem to participate in the same discussion. In the long run though it is hard to neglect the fact that humans exist as organisms, individuals, and social beings. The question then is; how if at all are we able to integrate biological, psychological, social, and cultural perspectives? This question is in fact part of a discussion called "Developing Minds" going on in our web Forum at the moment. Do we need to choose between biology and culture as alternative influences, or should we treat them as inseparable aspects of a system within which individuals develop? The search for possible answers to this question and their relevance for clinical practice, theory, and research should be of high interest for music therapists. I suggest a good starting point is to question the "naturalness" of the division of labor that is established between academic disciplines such as biology, psychology, sociology, and anthropology. As the anthropologist Clifford Geertz proposed already in the 1960ies, the assumption that man is a hierarchical stratified animal with biological structures and processes as the foundation and motley forms of culture as the icing may be counterproductive in our search for knowledge. Geertz advocated that without culture man is not a naked reasoner but a mind-less monster. The development of the human mind is impossible without culture. We are reminded about Colwyn Trevarthen's statement in an interview in this journal three years ago: ".. a human being is cultural by nature, born cultural". Humans are born with an innate motivation for sharing and communication, which is why Trevarthen has taken such interest in music and in how the rhythms and emotions of children's play and imagination support cultural learning. Which is a reason for music therapists to not only take interest in mother-infant interaction, but in cultural learning in general.