In a recent paper Chris Philpott refers to some of my work to exemplify and critique ideas from Social Realism in the context of music education. Philpott refers to a ‘cognitive turn’ in England, manifested in recent policy through the concept of a knowledge-led or knowledge-engaged curriculum which in turn he links to Michael Young’s concept of ‘powerful knowledge’ (Young & Muller, 2013; 2019) and the work of scholars within the field of Social Realism. I would like to draw attention to what I regard as a misrepresentation of Social Realism and powerful knowledge in Philpott’s paper.
The concept of ‘powerful knowledge’ refers to the generative concepts within a discipline, sub-discipline, or artistic field and not to particular content and or pedagogical approaches. Moreover, Philpott is mistaken when he suggests that the recent English Model Music Curriculum is an example of a social realist curriculum. To clarify, social realist writers do not necessarily support a content-based approach to curriculum, but primarily a conceptual one, where students come to know, understand, and utilise the affordances of the conceptual structures that structure knowledge itself. Content is the specific materialisation of abstract concepts so both are required in any educational approach aimed at deep learning. I agree therefore with Philpott’s concern where lists of content take precedence over broader experiential and epistemic ways of conceptualising and experiencing the curriculum. However, despite Philpott’s extensive critique of the way western classical music has become ideological, hegemonic, and reified in England (it’s certainly not in Aotearoa New Zealand!), I still do not have a clear sense of from what knowledge base he is suggesting a postcolonial curriculum is to be developed and his misunderstanding of Social Realism does not assist in clarifying his arguments.
References
Young, M. & J. Muller. (2013) ‘On the Powers of Powerful Knowledge’. Review of Education, 1 (3): 229–250.
Young, M. & Muller, J.(2019) ‘Knowledge, Power and Powerful Knowledge Revisited’. The Curriculum Journal 30, (2), 196–214
