Within the relational approach, learning is seen as meaning-making and education is seen as communication that makes the process of meaning-making possible. In his examination of the nature of an educational relationship between teacher and student and the location of education, Biesta (2004) proposes “that education is located not in the activities of the teacher, nor in the activities of the learner, but in the interaction between the two itself. Education, in other words, takes place in the gap between the teacher and the learner” (pp. 12-13). This gap in-between enables communication – and through that, education. In Article II, I have discussed the ‘in-between’ place in the context of intercultural interaction and
communication. I suggest that the space where the interviewed Orthodox Jewish music teacher educator works can be interpreted as a Third Space (Bhabha, 1994), a space where “we may elude the politics of polarity and emerge as the others of our selves” (p. 56). This space, or gap to use Biesta’s term, has educational potential, although entering into this in-between space in an educational setting makes the meaning-making process ambivalent and uncontrollable. Nevertheless, this space is a necessary condition for communication (p. 20). When thinking about the Third Space from the point of view of intercultural education and communication, it offers an opportunity to move away from and look beyond the predetermined cultural markers of individuals, and instead allows whoever is entering that space to speak, to reveal who they are as individuals and not as members of a certain cultural group. In other words, the space allows for the possibility of expressing agency (p. 22). This agency is enunciative by nature. What follows from the approach to communication that Bhabha suggests is that one can only represent this gap or Third Space in and through communication itself. According to Biesta:
The unrepresentability of what makes education possible rather highlights the performative nature of the process of education, that is, the fact that education exists only in and through the communicative interaction between the teacher and the learner. It highlights, in other words, the enunciative nature of all education. (Biesta, 2004, p. 21)
Biesta’s contemplation on the nature of educational relationship brings forward the relationality of that relationship since, following his view, education can only happen ‘in relation’.
In Article II, I discussed the emergence of a shared space for the teacher and the students in which they can negotiate their identities and understandings together. Although, as I have understood it, in Bhabha’s conceptualization of Third Space, the space is neither positive nor negative in nature, it just is – in its ambiguity there exists the possibility of change, of agency. If that space can only be created in and through communication, then, I argue, this communication and interaction – relationality between people who exist in that space – is positive in that it enables rather than precludes, it includes rather than excludes. In that sense, it can be argued, this relational space where education is bound to happen is also inter-cultural, as there is a possibility of stripping away all the previous definitions of the people involved and creating them anew. Indeed, as Bhabha
(1994) points out, “it is the ‘inter’ – the cutting edge of translation and negotiation, the inbetween space – that carries the burden of the meaning of culture”, and the theoretical recognition of this in-between place, the Third Space, “may open the way to conceptualizing an international culture, based not on the exoticism of multiculturalism or the diversity of culture, but on the inscription and articulation of culture’s hybridity” (p. 56, italics in original). Thus, in following Bhabha’s line of thought, the concept of intercultural in itself includes a promise of an emerging space of new understandings and a hybridity of cultures. Indeed, as I propose in Article II, in the context of intercultural music teaching and learning, the process of cultural hybridity that “gives rise to something different, something new and unrecognizable, a new area of negotiation of meaning and representation”
(Rutherford, 1990, p. 211) can begin in this shared place through music making that fosters a connection between individuals. This shared creative and reflective process may initiate culturally sensitive, ethically oriented learning that recognizes cultural differences as the fuel of creativity. I also suggest that in this space the critical co-construction of new understandings of oneself, others, and the world can begin.
How then are the notions of safe space, Third Space, and stepping out of comfort zones related to each other in intercultural contexts? As the findings in Articles I and IV indicate, the music teacher educators called for shared spaces where issues of cultural diversity in music teaching could be discussed together among peers – and with music teacher students – and where taking risks could be practiced in a safe environment. Based on the findings of her study on intercultural teachers’
decision-making and experiences, MacPherson describes these ‘safe’ spaces as places where, through discussion, different perspectives on cultural diversity could be negotiated, and where making cultural mistakes would be allowed and learned from (p. 279). However, these spaces may not be easy to inhabit, since the discussions and negotiations regarding topics such as racism and inequality can be emotionally demanding. In my view, the connection between these proposed shared, safe spaces and Third Space can be recognized in the orientation towards an open and unconditioned space where creative interaction can happen between the persons involved. In these spaces, the autonomy of students and an openness to embracing diversity are equally supported, and risk-taking and safety can co-exist. In Article IV, we refer to this contradicting space as an ‘epistemological pandemonium’, the condition in which music teacher educators are required to learn to live. Stepping out of one’s comfort zone is central in the developmental
process of becoming interculturally competent, and the notion relates to the idea of a space, both mental and physical, out from which the teacher can step in her attempt to reach out to students, as a way of building relations and trust between them in a culturally complex situation. Stepping out of one’s comfort zone implies a more personal space where the teacher’s inner dialogue takes place. I also see a connection between the negotiation that takes place in the personal space or zone and Deardorff’s ‘internal outcome of informed frame of reference shift’ (2006), where, through a process of internal dialogue and negotiation, the perspective of the teacher shifts, resulting in a change in behaviour or actions more aligned with what is interculturally appropriate in that situation. What I recognize as the common feature of all these proposed spaces is that functioning in them requires vulnerability and courage, the fuelling ingredients of transformation and change.
The reference shift also entails a shift from self-reflection to reflexivity, which happens “when informed and intentional internal dialogue leads to changes in educational practices, expectations, and beliefs” (Feucht, Lunn Brownlee & Scraw, 2017, p. 234). As proposed in Article III, providing music teacher educators and teacher students with opportunities to engage in self-reflection regarding issues of cultural diversity within music teacher education programmes may potentially lead to the emergence of reflexivity as part of their professional development.
6.3. Creating knowledge communities within intercultural music