C ONCLUSIONS : A BALANCE BETWEEN RIGHTS AND FREEDOM

The balance between positive freedom (equality of opportunities) and negative freedom (music education taking into account individual needs) has been discussed in this part of the study.³⁰⁵ The philosophical nature of these questions indicates that there is no one right answer. Therefore, the aim is to clarify the problems from the different perspectives and the solutions found in various countries.

The unique role of music in human life and the concept of equal opportunities for all children are questions that need further research. Moreover, the aim of music education, especially instrumental tuition outside general education, is closely connected to its justifi cation. In practice, questions related to justifi cation are often connected to public fi nancial support.

The next part of this study takes a closer look at the justifi cation and aims of music education, and at different kinds of regulatory instruments. The perspective is theoretical, with examples taken from the Finnish music-school system. At this point, the aim of music education is expressed in the following way: “music education should contribute to the humanity of all children so that its impact is sustained throughout their lives.”³⁰⁶ Negative freedom refers to the claim that music education should meet individual needs, while positive freedom refers to the needs of all children.

303 Helasvuo 1983; Kuusisaari 1998; 2002; see Section 9.7.

304 Fletcher 1987, p. 141; Witchell 2001, p. 197.

305 Positive freedom is “freedom to” (e.g., equal opportunities in the form of social security and education), whereas negative freedom is “freedom from” (such as freedom from state intervention) (Berlin 1969, pp. 122-123).

306 Witchell 2001, p. 204; see also Dewey 1916; Kemp 1996.

PART TWO

REGULATION AS AN INSTRUMENT

Outline

In the fi eld of education (including music education), a market-based system is often regarded as an alternative to government control and legal regulation.

Therefore, this part fi rst explores the views of different philosophers such as Aristotle, John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin regarding the role of government.

Should the state be completely neutral regarding the content of the good life or the content and aims in education, as Dworkin states? Is the duty of the state to create conditions and circumstances for the good life, equal opportunities for education, arts education and even voluntary music education for children and adolescents? The justifi cation for music education is examined in conjuction with the aforementioned questions.

Aristotelian thoughts on the role of the state (polis) are examined in Section 6.2;

in short, the good life of citizens was regarded as the principal aim of the state.

On the other hand, the title of Section 6.3 refers to liberal conceptions stressing the rights of each individual to decide what is “good” as well as the right to live according to values of his or her own. It is in this context that the so-called welfare liberalism put forward by Rawls is explored. State intervention is justifi ed in Nordic welfare societies, when equal opportunities (such as rights to education and culture) are secured for all.

Both subjective and private features related to music, as well as its importance for society as a whole, are explored in Section 6.5. State fi nancial support for music education is justifi ed by arguing that music is part of the good life (which is regarded as an aim of music education), and that the role of the state is to secure conditions and circumstances for the good life. On the other hand, music is both a private and a public matter, and a special regulation model is needed for musical activities and music education.

In the fi eld of music education, the regulation model could be based on Aristotelian conceptions of freedom, which have been stated to resemble the idea of positive freedom introduced later by Isaiah Berlin. Both negative freedom (referring to the neutrality of the state and the responsibility of every citizen for his or her good life) and positive freedom (the duty of the state to create conditions for the good life in all respects) are connected to democracy by Aristotle. As a result, a fl exible regulation model that secures state fi nancial support for music education, but at the same time leaves space for autonomy of activities, is supported in this work. In other words, (and with apologies to Shakespeare): To regulate or not to regulate: that is the question.

The instrumental character of the law is also explored. The main question in

Chapter 7 concerns how to regulate. Firstly, the concept of “regulation” is explored. It has been defi ned as state intervention (directed, for instance, at the free market), and as an instrument (a means) used by the state to attain certain goals. The fi rst section of the chapter also explores the nature of regulation governing education. Secondly, the typology created by Hydén³⁰⁷ is presented and then applied to the development of the Finnish music-school network:

1. Firstly, a self-regulating system is explored, in terms of which the activities of the fi rst Finnish music schools are described. These schools exercised the right to decision making themselves, yet they were in economic diffi culties without state support.

2. Regulation and legislation are used in the system of intervention, as a means of realising public interest. Yet, we may ask whether music and other arts are public goods. In other words, is the state obliged to create conditions for artistic activities in the same sense as it may aim to secure pure air for its citizens? This gives the context in which music schools in the 1960s are explored. The fi rst Finnish “Music School Act” that secured law-based state support for certain music schools was introduced in the late 1960s.

3. The third system put forward by Hydén is called the planning system, according to which extra-curricular music education for children and adolescents is regarded as a welfare service.

Finally, the applicability of the aforementioned typology to the contemporary Finnish music-school system is considered in the light of the present situation of Finnish music schools. As a conclusion, problematic as well as positive features of different systems are analysed. A system based on open discourse between equal persons, presented by Habermas, is also explored, but it is also stated that this kind of discourse may be utopian in practice. A fl exible system that secures both the right to music education and leaves space for autonomy and freedom is thus supported.

Different kinds of means of regulation are explored in Chapter 8. Framework legislation, fl exible legal norms, refl exive law and soft law are considered from the perspective of music education. Recommendations in declarations and conventions (often created within the framework of the United Nations), as well as ethical sets of rules, are included in the soft-law type of regulation. Soft law was originally mainly used in international law. However, national soft-law regulation is also to be found in (a) plans and directions, (b) goal agreements and results contracts (for instance, between educational institutions and the Ministry of Education), (c) ethical sets of norms of occupational groups, (d) refl exive soft-law material (for instance, in consumer protection), and (e) principles and rules of civic organisations. Soft law also has an infl uence in the fi eld of music education. International treaties such as

307 Hydén 1984.

the ISME Convention, directions and repertoire requirements of national associations (SML) and goal agreements could be regarded as examples of soft-law regulation.

Law as an instrument in creating conditions for equal opportunities is emphasised in this study. The tensions between the rights of individuals and the common good, as well as between positive and negative freedom, are examined. As a conclusion, the legal principle of the best interests of the child is considered from the perspective of music education.

Chapter six

The role of the state in music education – philosophical perspectives

6.1 THEBOUNDARIESANDLIMITSOFLEGALREGULATIONS...118 6.2 THESTATEANDTHEGOODLIFE...120 6.3 THESTATEANDTHEGOODOFPEOPLE: FROMTHEUNIVERSALGOODTO

NEUTRALITY...124 6.3.1 Practices and the good life...124 6.3.2 Liberal views: neutrality and the good life ...127 6.4 THEMARKETORTHESTATE? RIGHTSANDFREEDOMINMUSICEDUCATION... 132 6.4.1 Music education as a public and a private good ...132 6.4.2 The content of “the good” and aims in education ...134 6.4.3 Rights and freedom in education: principles of equality,

personal autonomy, and liberty ...136 6.5 JUSTIFYINGMUSICEDUCATION: SOCIALANDINDIVIDUALASPECTS...139

Chapter 6 The role of the state in music education –