Competition and The Great Refusal

In this article, Powell taps into philosopher Herbert Marcuse and his critique of competition as an ideological (and at times, invisible) fixture in Western society. Powell links his critique to music education, where we have become obsessed with standardization as a means to compare (and ultimately compete) with one another. Powell references Texas as a leading example of a hyper-competitive culture of music education.

Music educators are consistently on a quest for the perfect performance: performing the best repertoire, achieving the highest rating, being awarded the highest score, etc. And what’s wrong with that? Competition motivates students, and performing with proficiency is evidence that students are achieving technical mastery of their instrument.

To achieve these means, standardization must take place. On some level, these thoughts force us to place quantifiable values on music performance. At a deeper level, this distills music education into a system of numerical valuation which Powell describes as performativity.

The problem is that this is a self-sustaining system with no end. Marcuse argues that in a competitive culture, standards are constantly being raised we try to keep up with one another. As a result, “planned obsolescence ensures that constant demands will always be present” (p. 25). I reflect on the marching band activity 20-30 years ago and how “low budget” everything seemed. I mean, how did we ever get by without dropping $100,000 on props and world-class show design?

Performativity encourages us to judge our program’s worth and value based on a singular moment in time (the performance). When performativity drives the musical decisions in a music program, we are playing the game because “that’s just the way it is.” And in doing so, we are confirming to a standardized, widely accepted view of “what music education is.”

With consideration of SES, the resources necessary just to keep up result in wider inequity. Programs of lower SES are not as likely to be successful (by a set of standardized markers) and are therefore more likely to be considered as failures or “less than, as Other” (p. 30).

Additionally, Powell points out that this competitive culture limits creativity, teacher agency, and culturally responsive options for our unique populations of students.

The standardized view of “what music education is” can be dangerous. Who decides that? Euro-centric traditions? As an ideology, competition and performativity is deeply engrained into music education. It’s hard to imagine a world where it doesn’t exist. It’s even more difficult to act on such fantasies. Enter: The Great Refusal.

Powell describes Marcuse’s concept of The Great Refusal as “the struggle against unnecessary repression” (p. 33). The principles of competition in the arts do not exist in the laws of nature, and therefore CAN be changed.

This piece hits close for me because I have spent the last half of my career trying to reimagine what “success” looks like in a music program. Teaching is messy, the process is messy. But the process is where the artistic growth happens (not necessarily the performance/product). As educators, aren’t we more concerned with growth?