1

Learners or Participants? The Pros and Cons of ‘Lifelong Learning’

Roger Mantie
Boston University

This article appears in published form as:

Mantie, R. (2012). Learners or participants? The pros and cons of ‘Lifelong Learning.’ International
Journal of Community Music, 5(3), 217-235.

Since 2003, the National Association for Music Education’s Adult & Community Music

Education (ACME) SRIG (special research interest group) has sponsored a biennial conference

(www.acmesrig.org). Titles are often taken, especially in academia, as indicative of content or

matters of concern. Thus, the naming of the ACME SRIG’s symposia as ‘music and lifelong

learning’ can be understood as an intentional act of describing the activities and/or purposes of

the group. At first gloss, the connection between adult and community education and lifelong

learning appears well-suited. The mission of the ACME SRIG, as printed on the website is, ‘to

promote research that fosters active involvement in the making, creating, and studying of music

in the diverse and complex communities in which we live and across the life span through the

understanding of the unique learning characteristics of adults’ (www.acmesrig.org). It would

thus seem that lifelong learning is an accurate description of the group’s aims and purposes.

However, as I argue in this article, there are compelling reasons for reconsidering, in spite of its

apparent suitability, the use of the term ‘lifelong learning’—not just for ACME SRIG activities,

but for community music activities in general. To be clear, I am not suggesting that adult music

making activities are unimportant or that learning is not a vital component of adult music

participation. Rather, I am suggesting that the phrase ‘lifelong learning’ is often used without a

full appreciation of the motives behind its historical introduction and promotion.
   2  

As recounted by Olson (2005), those in the American adult education movement have

recognized the importance of music, as it was frequently an important part of Chautauqua

assemblies, workers’ movements, the civil rights and feminist movements, and the Highlander

Folk School (55). Scholarly interest among music educators interested in adult and older adult

music making populations has increased tremendously in recent years, evident in the difference

in quantity of literature presented by Darrough and Boswell (1992) and that of Coffman (2002a).

Contemporary commentators on, and researchers of, adult and community music activities have

considered a variety of problems related to learning and participation. These include: community

music as music education (Augustin 2010; Koopman 2007), music as leisure (Belz 1994; Pike

2001; Pike 2011; Rensink-Hoff 2009; Rybak 1995; Spencer 1996), adult learning and pedagogy

(Boswell 1992; Cope 1999; Darrough 1992; Ernst and Emmons 1992; Myers 1992; Taylor and

Hallam 2011), learning and participation (Arasi 2006; Bell 2008; Belz 1994; Boswell 1992;

Busch 2005; Dabback 2007; Darrough 1990; Kruse 2009; Olson 2005; Powell 2003; Tsugawa

2009; Wilhjelm 1998), lifelong participation and its connection with schooling (Arasi 2006;

Holmquist 1995; Lonnberg 1960; Myers 2008; Nazareth 1998; Thorton 2010; Turton and

Durrant 2002), benefits of adult participation (Arasi 2006; Campbell 2010; Chiodo 1997;

Coffman 2002b; Dabback 2007; Ernst and Emmons 1992; Rohwer 2008; Rohwer and Coffman

2007; Spencer 1996; Taylor and Hallam 2011; Vanderark 1983; Wise et al. 1992), lifespan

commitment (Belz 1994; Chiodo 1997; Coffin 2005; Larson 1983), lifelong learning’s

relationship to the vocations of performers and music teachers (Shuler 2012; Smilde 2008;

Smilde 2010; Smith and Haack 2000), and the largest group of studies, investigations into needs,

interests, and motivations of adult participants and non-participants (Bowen 1995; Coffin 2005;

Coffman 1996; Faivre-Ransom 2001; Griffith 2006; Heintzelman 1988; Larson 1983; Patterson
   3  

1985; Rohwer 2010; Seago 1993; Spell 1989; Tatum 1985; Thaller 1999; Tipps 1992; Waggoner

1972).1 What is interesting to note in this body of literature is the distinction between those who

use the phrase ‘lifelong learning’ and those who use adult education.2

Whereas adult education used to be the preferred concept for those studying adult music

making, there is now an increasing trend toward away from this and towards lifelong learning.

For example, whereas Wilhjelm (1998) studied a community band he initiated that was formally

dedicated to lifelong learning, Patterson (1985) does not mention the term, despite asking

questions of directors and band members that today would almost certainly result in responses

where lifelong learning was mentioned. This led me to further consider the concept’s historical

emergence in the discourse of music education in the United States.3 Although there are

references to ‘lifelong interest’ in music education writings as early as the 1930s, my JSTOR

search revealed that the first appearance of the term ‘lifelong education’ in Music Educators

Journal surprisingly did not occur until 1968 in a minor article entitled, ‘Designing Music

Programs for Junior Colleges’ (Mason 1968). The phrase ‘lifelong learner’ appeared for the first

time two years later (Allen 1970); ‘lifelong participation’ first appeared in 1975 (Campbell

1975). The first major appearance of lifelong education or lifelong learning as an identifiable

                                                                                                               
1
This list provides a sampling, primarily from an American perspective. I have omitted many

studies of a more specialized nature.

2
Many authors use these interchangeably. Many of those in the adult education field, however,

are quick to distinguish the practice of adult education from the rhetoric of lifelong learning.
3
Notably, for example, ‘lifelong learning’ does not appear in the Documentary Report of the

Tanglewood Symposium. Instead, there are calls for closer ties to the Adult Education

Association.
   4  

concept appeared in a December, 1975 article promoting the International Society for Music

Education conference in Montreaux, the theme of which was ‘Music as a Dimension of Lifelong

Education’.4 It would take until a December, 1978 article presciently entitled, ‘A Look to the

Future’ (Mason 2008), however, before the actual phrase ‘lifelong learning’ would grace the

pages of the journal, although it did not become a widely used term in the journal until an

October, 1980 article (Ball et al. 1980) detailing an MENC commission on graduate music

teacher education. A special focus issue on lifelong learning appeared in 1992. The phrase

‘lifelong music learning’ appeared in Journal of Research in Music Education in 1981 (Caimi

1981)—the first reference to the concept of lifelong learning in that journal—although the first

sustained usage as the term is used today did not appear until the following year (Gilbert and

Beal 1982).

The Problems of Lifelong Learning

In this section I consider a brief overview of the history of lifelong learning in order to

contextualize the discussion to follow. Specifically, I consider how and why the phrase lifelong

learning has come to dominate policy discourses and the way we currently think about learning

and education. There are many important concepts and issues, both philosophical and pragmatic,

and I cannot possibly cover them all in this space.5 I concentrate here on just two: education as a

                                                                                                               
4
As I discuss later, ISME’s adoption of this theme followed on the heels of UNESCO’s 1972

publication, Learning to Be.

5
This is a brief and admittedly superficial overview. More complete histories are available

elsewhere. I have found two volumes edited by Peter Jarvis quite helpful. See From Adult

Education to the Learning Society: 21 Years From the International Journal of Lifelong
   5  

problem of the individual and education as a problem of government (as strategy and as policy:

welfare and competition).

Depending on how one wishes to define it, adult education has a history dating back

many centuries. In contemporary terms it is discussed dating to the nineteenth century in Europe

and Russia (Zajda 2003). In Anglo-American terms, the 1919 Final Report of the British

Ministry of Reconstruction, Adult Education Committee is often considered a defining moment

in adult education (Merriam et al. 2011). In the United States, the development of adult

education is usually associated with the work of John Dewey and Eduard Lindeman and the adult

education movement of the 1920s and 1930s.6 Theories vary, but for many commentators the rise

of adult education was an outgrowth of concerns over idle time and fears over adults filling this

time with ‘vapid leisure’, rather than more so-called desirable activities. Significantly, the push

for adult education was connected with a belief in realizing human potential and coincided with

the rise, at least in North America, of increased schooling among the population at large.

Education was no longer just for the elite or for the young, it was to be for everyone of all ages.

Notably, however, the phrase or concept of lifelong learning was not invoked. The goal was

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
Education (New York: Routledge, 2006) and The Routledge International Handbook of Lifelong

Learning (New York, Routledge, 2009). The latter volume is especially noteworthy for its

description of lifelong learning in various areas of the world. The perspective I present here is

almost entirely Euro-American; Australian discourses, while not discussed explicitly, largely

follow suit.
6
Examples include: 1926, the American Association for Adult Education; Journal of Adult

Education 1929-; Edward Thorndike's (1928) book, Adult Learning; and Eduard Lindeman's

(1926) The Meaning of Adult Education.

   6  

education in its more liberal or Deweyan sense. That is, learning was connected to a belief that

human growth, understood primarily as intellectual growth, was necessary for happiness, well-

being, and ancient Greek ideals of ‘the good life’.

This concern for the individual eventually took on added dimensions of global human

equality, as expressed by the related but slightly different concept of lifelong learning. UNESCO,

the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, adopted lifelong learning

as a developmental initiative where learning was viewed as a human right. In their 1972

publication, Learning to Be, UNESCO proposed lifelong learning as ‘the master concept for

educational policies in the years to come’ (182, as cited in Peterson 1979: 6). Rather than

promoting adult education, which at the time was considered a privilege of ‘First World’

countries, lifelong learning was a seemingly more egalitarian concept, not necessarily dependent

on planned programs of instruction (although planned instruction was certainly actively

promoted by UNESCO). This hopeful belief in the ideal of lifelong learning continued

throughout the 1970s. A year in advance of the passing of the 1976 U.S. Lifelong Learning Act,

sponsor Walter Mondale wrote, ‘Lifelong learning offers hope to those who are mired in

stagnant or disadvantaged circumstances—the unemployed, the isolated elderly, women,

minorities, youth, workers whose jobs are becoming obsolete. All of them can and should be

brought into the mainstream of American life’ (Hartle and Kutner 1979: 276). In other words, the

benefits of lifelong learning extended from the individual to society.

Although largely driven by an interest in fulfilling human potential and ameliorating class

differences, both intra- and internationally, the expansion of adult education and lifelong learning

through the 1970s, ‘80s, and ‘90s was also a response to the changing nature of work, something

that led to both increased leisure time (and attendant fears over how this time would be spent)
   7  

and concerns about vocational adaptation. As technology continued to alter the landscape of

work it became increasingly apparent that adults would have to learn new skills, not just for self-

preservation, but in order to further the production interests of commerce and industry. Without a

workforce capable of embracing new job requirements, the potential of technological

enhancements would remain unfulfilled. Hence, adult education and lifelong learning were

embraced not only as part of a benevolent concern for individual welfare, but for there potential

to further the interests of employers, thereby reducing education to the expansion of training

opportunities.7

The contemporary rise of globalization has brought with it new concerns. Whereas

government once viewed adult education as part of its paternalistic responsibility for individual

welfare, this concern has shifted towards international competitiveness where global superiority

is thought to hinge, especially in Human Capital Theory, upon the education level of the

population.8 The line between educating the young through schooling and adult education—to

                                                                                                               
7
These are common themes discussed in the literature. In addition to the Jarvis volumes cited

earlier, see Merriam, Caffarella and Baumgartner, Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive

Guide, 3rd ed. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2007) and Merriam, Sharran, and Grace, The

Jossey-Bass Reader on Contemporary Issues in Adult Education (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass, 2011).
8
See Lauder et al. (2012) for an extended discussion of Human Capital Theory and its

connection to educational discourses. Interestingly, even Malcolm Knowles, one of the most

important names in adult education who, from what I have read, did not use the term lifelong

learning, based his ideas of adult learning on the concept of Human Resource Development,

exposing a view of people as resources. See Knowles (1978).

   8  

which in the 1980s was added the term ‘continuing’—has been obscured, replaced by a generic

concept of learning, specifically lifelong learning.9 Social policies once aimed at welfare have

been co-opted by government and economic interests; productivity, not humanistic notions like

self-actualization, is the goal. Although the phrase lifelong learning likely arose as a natural

outgrowth of adult education, and the field of practice known as adult education continues

strongly, one need only look at the publication dates of books using the words ‘adult education’

and ‘lifelong learning’ in the title to see evidence of how lifelong learning began to supplant

adult education as the dominant concept, at least in terms of policy and rhetoric, through the

1970s and 1980s.10

As many authors (Fejes 2008; Lambeir 2005; Olssen 2008; Warren and Webb 2007)

make clear, much of the contemporary discussion of lifelong learning—especially in, but not

restricted to, European countries—is driven by an economic imperative, one in turn propelled by

a struggle for international economic dominance. Politicians and government policy documents

repeatedly reinforce the idea that education is central to individual, national, and international

‘success’ (see Gorard et al. 2002). One of the five recommendations in the 1997 report of the

U.S. Commission for a Nation of Lifelong Learners, for example, explicitly mentions the link

between lifelong learning and global economic success (Merriam et al. 2007: 48). And as U.S.

president Barrack Obama warned, ‘The nation that out-educates us today is going to out-compete

us tomorrow’ (Lauder et al. 2012: 2). Similarly, Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner (2007)

                                                                                                               
9
See Merriam and Brockett (1997) for a discussion of the evolution of the terms adult education

and lifelong learning.

10
In addition to the previously cited volumes, see (Hake 1999) for a history of lifelong learning

from 1990 onwards.

   9  

point out that European countries have been actively promoting lifelong learning for decades.

The Commission of the European Communities writes about how in the new ‘knowledge-based

society and economy’ learning is advanced as the ‘key to strengthening Europe’s

competitiveness and improving the employability and adaptability of the workforce’

(Commission of the European Communities 2000: 5).

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a group

representing the interests of mostly affluent countries, has been especially strong in advancing

the rhetoric of lifelong learning. Although the OECD followed on the heals of the 1972

UNESCO publication Learning to Be with their own effort in 1973, Recurrent Education: A

Strategy of Lifelong Learning: A Clarifying Report, it would take until the 1990s for the OECD

to effectively establish a dominant political-economic ideology with their 1996 publication,

Lifelong Learning for All (Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner 2007: 47).11 A more recent

OECD document entitled, Motivating Students for Lifelong Learning, for example, emphasizes

the ‘costs of failing to become educated, and staying educated’ (OECD 2000: 18). This particular

document speaks of how ‘educational failure and inflexibility’ punishes both the individual and

society ‘in terms of reduced economic competitiveness and social cohesion’ (OECD 2000: 18).

Similarly, a 2003 report from the World Bank, an organization committed to international trade

                                                                                                               
11
Lifelong Learning for All is a revealing document. Replete with graphs, charts, and statistics

on almost every page, one is left with the impression that the only reason for learning is job

training. The final chapter, entitled ‘How to Pay for Lifelong Learning for All’ includes sections

called ‘Evaluating Rates of Return to Lifelong Learning’ and ‘Adopting a Proactive Approach to

Controlling Costs of Lifelong Learning’, leaving little doubt about the values of the OECD and

their interest in lifelong learning.

   10  

and investment, states that the aim of lifelong learning is the creation of a workforce ‘able to

compete in the global economy (as cited in Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner 2007, 48).

The Rhetoric of Lifelong Learning

The ubiquity of the phrase lifelong learning is almost numbing; so pervasive is the appeal

of lifelong learning that a quick internet search reveals a practically endless list of ‘academies’,

‘centers’, and ‘institutes’ of lifelong learning all over the world. There seems to be an irresistible

cache in the phrase that is at once appealing and legitimizing. Who can argue against the

necessity for adaptation in a changing world and the ‘promise of betterment for all’ (Fejes 2008:

87)? Lifelong learning has become what Coffield (1999) has called a ‘wonder drug’ that

possesses what Lambeir (2005) refers to as ‘the magic spell’ in the rhetoric of educational and

economic policymakers’ (350). And yet, as Warren and Webb (2007: 7) point out, ‘In a very real

sense, lifelong learning is ‘talked’ into reality, discourse defining what is necessary/unnecessary,

sensible/nonsense, meaningful/meaningless’. This is to say that lifelong learning must be

understood as the product of language rather than an actual field of practice analogous to that of

adult education.

My argument here, and throughout this article, rests on currents of thinking that fall under

the ‘ism’ banner of poststructuralism, particularly thought associated with the work of Michel

Foucault (e.g., Foucault 1972; Foucault et al. 1980). Poststructuralism is a broad umbrella term;

salient here is the general idea that language helps to construct what we consider to be ‘the real

world’. Hence, when Warren and Webb suggest above that lifelong learning is talked into reality,

what they mean is that when particular ideas are repeated often enough, especially by those

individuals, agencies, or institutions recognized as knowledgeable or authoritative, these ideas

   11  

become part of the ‘discourse’, or the consciousness of what people consider to be common

sense. The logic of this is relatively easy to see. As evident in my review of how adult education

became lifelong learning and my textual analysis of Music Educators Journal and Journal of

Research in Music Education, lifelong learning is clearly a historical construction that has come

into being through discourse. Prior to the early 1980s, for example, no one in music education—

or at least no one in American music education—used the term to describe practice. Today,

however, it has become so interwoven into the fabric of educational common sense that it is

considered heresy to speak against its ‘magic spell’.

A subtler part of the argument here is the distinction between viewing the push for

lifelong learning as a rational response to society’s natural evolution and viewing the invocation

of ‘lifelong learning’ as a power mechanism (Lambeir 2005):

[T]he call to become lifelong learners gets louder and more intense every day.

For how can we be citizens of a rapidly changing world, if we are not capable of

changing along with it? Do we not need to update our knowledge and skills again

and again in order to keep up with the pace of the ongoing transformations?

Should we not explore, develop and exploit our (hidden) talents to apply for or

keep our standing in respectable places in our social environment? (Lambeir

2005: 350)

For Lambeir and others (see, for e.g., Nicoll and Fejes and associates 2008), the insistence of

necessity for lifelong learning functions as part of a neoliberal discourse involving globalization,

international competitiveness, and perceived threats to the nation state—aspects Warren and

Webb (2007) suggest are related to Human Capital Theory, which considers populations as
   12  

resources to be managed and developed.12 By emphasizing the changing nature of work,

government rhetoric is able to rationalize such things as ‘the learning society’, ‘the responsible

learner’, a ‘learning culture’, and a ‘learning career’. In short, lifelong learning becomes

accepted not as a historically-grounded outgrowth of global capitalism, but simply as ‘the

Human Condition’ (Lambeir 2005).13

My overarching concern is that too many people, especially those working in community

music fields, invoke the phrase ‘lifelong learning’ without a full appreciation of its historical and

rhetorical aspects. Too often the phrase is employed without a critical examination of the

question, ‘What do we mean by lifelong learning and knowledge?’ (Gustavsson 2002). Through

careless or mindless engagement with the phrase we risk falling prey to the ways in which its use

helps to construct one kind of society rather than another. For example, as many commentators

have observed, the rhetoric of lifelong learning is so strong that learning has shifted from a

choice to an obligation. The line between opportunity and compulsion thus becomes blurred

(Tight 1998), and the failure to learn is considered a problem (Quinn et al. 2006), both in

material and moral terms. Not learning is not an option. As Hake (1999) points out, ‘Societies,

organizations and individuals have to learn in order to survive in the lifelong learning society’

(79). One sees evidence of this in policy documents. The Commission of the European

Communities writes, ‘Lifelong learning is no longer just one aspect of education and training; it

must become the guiding principle for provision and participation across the full continuum of

                                                                                                               
12
See also: Lauder et al. (2012).
13
One need only look at book titles to see evidence of such things as The Knowledge Society,

The Learning Society, Lifelong Learning and the New Educational Order, Lifelong Learners: A

New Clientele for Higher Education, The Learning Society, etc.

   13  

learning contexts’ (2000: 3; emphasis in original).14 The necessity of lifelong learning is so

strong that it is regarded not just as a matter of survival, it is ‘positioned as a moral obligation’;

people believe they must recognize their obligations ‘by accepting their responsibility as

individuals’ (Edwards 2008: 31; emphasis in original).

What’s so Bad About Learning?

It is difficult to argue against learning. And if learning is good, then lifelong learning

must be even better. If there is one thing that people of almost any political persuasion can agree

upon it is the value of learning. And yet, claims about learning and lifelong learning are rarely

interrogated. Is all learning inherently good, or is some learning to be preferred over another?

More importantly, what distinguishes learning from learning something? Are not some things

simply a part of living a life—and if so, are there criteria for distinguishing a doing activity from

a learning activity? Why, for example, should one assume that involvement in recreational music

making is driven by a desire for lifelong musical learning rather than other motivations, and why

is learning implied as being a (or the) preferred motivation? I personally enjoy doing many

things (spending time with my children, for example) that are not motivated by ‘lifelong

learning’. In this section I consider four possible problems related to the insistence of lifelong

learning as a guiding principle.

Learning as a Means, Learning as an End

                                                                                                               
14
There are similar U.S. and Australian examples. See, for example, Lifelong Learning NCES

Task Force: Final Report, Volumes I & II (US Department of Education National Center for

Educational Statistics, 2000) and L. Watson, Lifelong Learning in Australia (Australian

Government: Department of Education, 2003).

   14  

Houle’s (1961) typology of three kinds of adult learners (motivated by goal, activity, and

love of learning) continues to inform adult education practices. Key to unraveling the problems

of lifelong learning rhetoric is to differentiate between learning as a means and learning as an

end. So much of lifelong learning rhetoric rarely acknowledges that while the intrinsic love of

learning is certainly to be admired and applies to a minority segment of the population, most

people do not engage in learning for the sake of learning alone. One’s purpose for learning is

most often to do something: golf, play tennis, swim, build a shed, navigate, sew, find out about,

bake, fix the bicycle, paint, shop, and yes, make music. Every activity arguably involves some

form of learning as a prerequisite; it may or may not involve explicit teaching or instruction.

That is, we do not do things in order to learn, we learn in order to do things. When learning takes

precedence over doing this distorts the nature of the activity. I play squash each week for the

enjoyment and health benefits it affords, not for any collateral learning that might occur along

the way. I do this with music also, and suspect that many others do as well.

In many ways the means/ends aspect of learning can be traced to the very concept of

education and the institution of schooling. I suggest that there is a subtle paradox embedded

within our understanding of education, perhaps best illustrated through the French concept of

‘éducation permanante’, which stresses the continuity between the education of young people

and the education of adults. Historically, conventional philosophy of education has stressed the

necessity of schooling to bring about personal autonomy, a state of arrival that implies a

‘finishing’ or completion.15 In the contemporary rhetoric of human development and progress,

                                                                                                               
15
Autonomy is a major theme in the philosophy of education, if not Western philosophy from

the Enlightenment onwards. Space does not allow me to sufficiently unpack here. For an
   15  

however, there is no idealized or identifiable end point. Fejes (2008) notes that whereas earlier

adult education discourses may have been constructed upon the premise that the ‘uncultivated

subject’ had a ‘dull/vapid leisure time’, it was at least thought possible to foster this immature

subject to maturity (94). Under lifelong learning rhetoric, however, people are condemned to a

never-ending life of learning.16 This leads Lambeir (2005) to wonder if there is not something

frightening about the notion of ‘permanent education’ where society is viewed as a school

without the promise of graduation.

Images of Sisyphus are brought to mind here, but so too are the ideas of the ancient

Greeks, Dewey, and the progressive educationalists. Learning as a means is often debased as

training and skill (techne in Greek, for example). Learning as ‘education’, on the other hand, is

usually exalted as a noble purpose of human existence.17 And yet, one wonders where living

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
excellent introduction see Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education (Malden, MA :

Blackwell Publishing, 2003).

16
Popkewitz, Olsson and Petersson (2006) refer to as the ‘unfinished cosmopolitan’. See T.

Popkewitz, U. Olsson and K. Petersson (2006), 'The Learning Society, the Unfinished

Cosmopolitan, and Governing Education, Public Health and Crime Prevention at the Beginning

of the Twenty-First Century', Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38, pp. 431-448.
17
The concepts of school and scholar are related to the Greek licere (license), from which we

derive the concept of leisure. Drawing on Aristotle, this is often taken as meaning contemplation

is the highest end of human existence, but see J. Hemingway (1991), ‘Leisure and Democracy:

Incompatible Ideals?’ in G. Fain (ed) Leisure and Ethics: Reflections on the Philosophy of

Leisure, (pp. 59-81) (Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation

and Dance), who provides a challenge to conventional readings.

   16  

factors into the imperative of permanent education. While perpetual learning seems laudable, this

seems to diminish the value, let alone the possibility, of doing.18 In reflecting on his experiences

as a child initially excited about attending school, Tight (1998) recalls asking his parents after

several weeks of ‘learning’ when the fun would start (251).19 The paradox embedded in society’s

conception of education, then, is that rather than treating schooling as a site for the celebration of

iterable activities (e.g., music making)—something20 that would play up, rather than down,

learning as a means—it has conceptualized schooling on the basis of the mastery and

achievement of subject matter, i.e., learning as an end.21 As a result, ‘lifelong learning’ is needed

to combat a schooling/education system that (a) deprecates activity as inadequate or insufficient,

                                                                                                               
18
Deweyan scholars will no doubt object that this overlooks the pragmatists’ consideration of

habits. My argument, however, is about the effects of discourse not the merits of Dewey’s

philosophical ideas.
19
When passing by endless rows of practice cubicles at university schools of music I often

wonder if the people inside are enjoying what they are doing or whether they feel obligated to

perpetually practice for the deferred promise of fun to come.

20
Derrida’s conception of iterability offers much potential for my argument, but it is not my

intent to focus on Derrida. Rather, my point emphasizes simply the repeatability of action. While

it could be argued that lifelong learning stresses the repeatability of learning, I maintain that

learning itself serves little purpose other than to facilitate doing.

21
Specifically, learning as having measurable ends. In a very similar vein, Lauder er al. (2012),

drawing on Broadfoot and Pollard (2006), suggest that when students see education as about

meeting test targets, ‘then once test targets have been achieved, the job, so to speak, has been

done’ (Lauder et al. 2012, 15).

   17  

and (b) has no choice but to package learning as an end, something that renders iterability of

activity unnecessary.22 In order for lifelong learning rhetoric to succeed, people must be made to

feel incomplete, thus requiring perpetual ‘education’ post-schooling. The goal of this learning,

however, is never stated, leading to the inevitable question: ‘What’s the point of lifelong learning

if lifelong learning has no point?’ (Biesta 2006).

Learning Everywhere!

Another effect of lifelong learning rhetoric is that by painting everything in life as

learning, or at least the potential for learning, it throws into question what the word ‘learning’

really means. With the addition of the term lifewide to the lexicon,23 the emphasis on learning

would seem to infiltrate every aspect of our daily lives. As advanced by politico-educational

rhetoric, learning is an imperative that is to imbue everything one does from the moment one

wakes until one falls asleep, and all aspects should ideally be coordinated. Commenting on a

report by the Commission of the European Communities that suggests, ‘The ‘lifewide’

                                                                                                               
22
One sees evidence of this in the never-ending examples of adults with instruments in closets

and attics from their times in school bands and orchestras (at least in Canada and the United

States). When music is taught as a ‘subject’ rather than an activity it promotes the idea that

learning, not doing, is the raison d’etre. One need not continue playing once the task of learning

has been completed.

23
In additional to Smilde, previously cited, Patrick Jones has endeavoured to bring the global

discourse of lifewide education into the lifelong music making conversation. See, for example,

his ‘Lifewide as Well as Lifelong: Broadening Primary and Secondary School Music

Education’s Service to Students’ Musical Needs’, International Journal of Community Music 2:

2/3 (2009).
   18  

dimension brings the complementarity of formal, non-formal and informal learning into sharper

focus’ (2000: 9), Alheit and Dausien (2002) argue that learning should not only be

‘systematically extended to cover the entire life span’, but should also include all aspects of a

person’s life in a purposeful way: ‘learning environments should be engendered in which the

various types of learning complement each other organically’ (4).

The omnipresence of learning, however, raises questions about the meaning and value of

context.24 Indeed, educational discourses from at least the time of Dewey onwards emphasize the

problem of context and transfer where learning in school is scrutinized according to its impact on

life outside of school. Learning, in other words, should no longer be confined to formal settings;

the informal and formal need to be integrated and synthesized. One finds examples of this in

recent music education discourses aimed at reducing the so-called ‘gap’ between formal and

informal music and music learning practices. And while the idea of school learning having a

more direct bearing on outside-of-school life has a certain intuitive appeal to it, especially if one

conceptualizes schooling as preparation for life, the idea of learning as permeating all aspects of

life has a potentially detrimental effect on the value of learning. Learning becomes a redundant

concept if it is omnipresent and assumed to occur at all times and places. Such an all-

encompassing conception of learning displaces the specificity of what is being learned, eroding

the notion of learning as contextually bound. As Edwards (2006) points out, discourses of

                                                                                                               
24
Consider, for example, David Aspin’s (2000) keynote address, ‘Lifelong Learning: The

Mission of Arts Education in the Learning Community of the 21st Century’ published in Music

Education Research 2:1, 75-85. While perhaps laudable to promote ‘the arts’ as a model for

learning (and lifelong learning), the common tactic of lumping various activities (e.g., drama,

dance, visual arts, music) under one umbrella erodes the specificity of what is learned.
   19  

lifelong learning ‘trouble the notion of context as container precisely because it becomes

possible for all situations and domains, indeed all social practices, to be learning contexts’ (29).

Eliminating context as a defining feature of learning also contradicts educational discourses that

posit knowledge and learning as ‘situated’ (Lave and Wenger 1991). Ironically, perhaps, treating

learning as omnipresent would seem to render moot the very problem of transfer and the need to

coordinate and complement lifelong and lifewide learning. When learning is no longer confined

to specific spheres with clearly defined uses and purposes, learning and life are considered to be

inextricably linked, leading Field (2000: vii) to write of the ‘university of life’ and Lambeir

(2005) to question ‘whether almost everything we undertake, experience, or encounter during our

lifetime, needs to be labeled as learning in accordance with the contemporary hype, or whether

some of these things just have to do with living a life’ (351).

The Slippery Slope

Lifelong learning rhetoric is not just problematic because it blurs the means/end

distinction, but because it turns people from doers into learners. When the ‘social order…is

positioned as a learning order’, it recontextualizes our motivations for, and understanding of,

practice (Edwards 2008: 28). The retiree who starts to play the clarinet in the New Horizons

band25 because this is thought to maintain neural activity or because she or he feels an obligation

to keep learning throughout the latter stages of life is engaging for a very different reason than

the person who participates because she or he loves playing (or would like to play) in wind bands

and wants to keep doing so regardless of whether any learning might take place. The person who

                                                                                                               
25
New Horizons is an American-based movement dedicated to the creation of large ensembles

(band, orchestra, chorus) aimed at providing music learning and playing opportunities for older

adults. See www.newhorizonsmusic.org.

   20  

signs up for a Ghanaian drumming class because she or he has always enjoyed the communal

experience of drumming is doing so for very different reasons than one who believes that

partaking of such classes represents a form of self-improvement. It is not just the matter of

motivation that is important, however, but how such motivations contribute to a changed sense of

self in the world. Being a learner is favoured over being a participant. As a result, focusing on

learning changes practice from a social activity to an individual one.

Buying into lifelong learning rhetoric also causes us to reconceptualize the people around

us. Rather than thinking of people as clarinetists or pianists or musicians, or, simply as people

who do things (pick an activity), we begin to think of everyone first and foremost as learners.

This is not just a matter of terminology; thinking of people in specific ways and attributing

particular motivations to them influences our actions. Consider the following: how does thinking

of New Horizons members as lifelong learners position them as one kind of musical being rather

than another, and, more importantly, how does this influence the actions of those who are tasked

with leading such ensembles?

It is a slippery slope when our instructional activities as music leaders are oriented

towards ‘teaching people’ rather than facilitating their desire to make music—what R. Murray

Schafer refers to as ‘ongoing musicianship’ (Achilles 1992). Appropriating instructional

practices from schools, such as ‘Comprehensive Musicianship’,26 helps to turn a participatory

relationship into a pedagogical one, where those who show up to sing or play become objects of

                                                                                                               
26
Comprehensive Musicianship is an American pedagogical approach that attempts to

incorporate ‘all aspects’ of music (e.g., form, theory, history) into instruction. It was a historical

response in the 1960s to criticism that school music programs in the United States were overly

focused on performance rather than the so-called educative aspects of music instruction.
   21  

concern based on the premise that the ‘student’ is deficient and in need of edification.27 In other

words, rather than simply helping people to make music together, community music leaders must

educate them. Put another way, how might recreational music makers and community music

leaders conceptualize themselves, their practices, and the people around them differently when

they think of what they do in terms of community service, personal well-being, or enjoyment

rather than as a lifelong learning activity?

The ‘Subject’ of Knowledge

Lifelong learning rhetoric does not just turn people from doers to learners; in the process

it also turns them into subjects of knowledge. That is, when social practices are recontextualized

as learning practices as suggested by lifelong learning rhetoric it creates a situation where

engagement begins with an a priori belief that the musical leaders are experts that have specific

knowledge that those around them are in need of. When people are made to feel that they are

missing out on musical enjoyment if they fail to understand music’s ‘intricacies’ (Augustin

2010) this sets up power differentials between those who know (us) and those who do not

(them)—differentials that Popkewitz and Lindblad (2004) suggests lead inevitably to salvation

narratives. On the one side are the experts (the teachers/leaders) who know the truth about music

and do the saving. On the other are those who do not know the truth (the students/participants:

the subjects of knowledge) and are in need of saving. Berglund (2008) metaphorically describes

this relationship in tripartite terms: doctors (in this case high status professionals such as

                                                                                                               
27
R. Murray Schafer suggests that adults should sing or play whatever they want to. The role of

the adult music leader is to help them to do that (e.g., learn to use their voices more effectively)

(Achilles 1992).
   22  

professors) who generate knowledge, nurses (the teachers/leaders) who administer knowledge,

and patients (the students/participants) who are thought to benefit from the knowledge.

To understand the idea of the ‘subject of knowledge’ better, consider the work of French

philosopher, Michel Foucault (1995; 1980). The knowers in the scenario described above are

legitimated by a process Foucault describes where a reciprocal relationship of power and

knowledge (which Foucault writes as ‘power/knowledge’) ensures that those in positions of

authority (e.g., those in academia with the ability to credential and set curricula) strengthen their

position through the creation and legitimation of their knowledge at the expense of what

Foucault calls ‘subjugated knowledge’. This legitimate knowledge in turn strengthens the

position of all those who possess and endorse it, and weakens the position of those who do not

share it (i.e., those who may possess subjugated knowledge). Thus, to suggest that one’s

enjoyment of music is heightened by the ability to recognize and label Neapolitan sixth chords or

by knowing sonata-allegro form is to privilege one form of knowing over another.28 One of

Foucault’s insights in this case is that knowledge, which is to say, ‘recognized’ knowledge,

appears innocent and objective. It is as if Neapolitan sixth chords really exist and that people

who do not know about them are deficient and missing out on the true enjoyment of music,

rather than recognizing that such chords are a construction of western classical theorists who use

such knowledge to privilege one kind of music—and one kind of enjoyment of music—over

another. The superiority of western classical music standards of performance and the criteria by

which music is deemed to be ‘high quality’ are rarely challenged; the centrality of western

                                                                                                               
28
These are examples of what might be taught by those adopting a Comprehensive Musicianship

approach.
   23  

classical music to university schools of music is apparently so self-evident that the idea of

replacing it with, say, hip hop or country and western music is laughable.

The salience of the point being made here is not just about the legitimacy of one set of

musical values over another, but that people should rightly be subjected to it. To suggest that

members who chose to continue to play in a band do so because ‘they see the potential of

lifelong musical learning’29 is to dismiss alternative values of participation. Rather than celebrate

the joys of simply engaging in the activity, be it golf, making a gourmet meal, or playing in a

band, it is presumed that the members must be educated (subjected to knowledge) and that the

leaders (who possess knowledge expertise) must educate (subject them to knowledge).30 There

is a subtle but important difference between viewing one’s position of musical leadership as

facilitating the activities of participants and believing that participants should be subjects of

knowledge.31

                                                                                                               
29
This quote is from (Augustin, 2010), but so pervasive has the idea become in the community

music world that almost any example would do. Wiljhelm (1998), for example, created a

community band specifically dedicated to lifelong learning!

30
Agustin writes, ‘A common goal for every music ensemble director should be one of educating

the musicians regardless of age, ability or experience. This may not only sustain music in our

community but also encourage lifelong musical learning’ (2010, 182). Augustin is hardly alone,

however; Compare Koopman (2007).

31
See Higgins (2012). See especially chapter 9 for an excellent discussion of possible

differences between leading as facilitation and leading as teaching/conducting/directing.

‘Educating’ people implies pre-determined rather than open-ended outcomes.

   24  

Conclusion

The online Encyclopedia of Informal Education (infed.org) suggests that lifelong

learning has become such a large part of the discourse ‘that it would be foolish to ignore it’. To

be clear, ignoring the phrase is not what I am advocating. Rather, I am hoping that the

community music world can take charge of the discourse in ways that better theorize practice. It

would obviously be silly to suggest that those involved with community music activities should

not help people learn to make music. Although a subtle point, I submit that there is a difference

between helping people learn in order to participate and deliberately positioning them as learners

as part of an effort to make learning the primary focus of community music activities. Questions

of well-being are turned into educational problems (Simons and Masschelein 2008) and ‘ongoing

self-development is simply presumed to contribute to the common good’ (Popkewitz 2008: 76).

As a result, playing with the local community band, singing with the church choir, or attending

weekly capoeira sessions ceases to be about the celebration of community (see Higgins 2012;

Putnam 2000), and becomes instead about individual learning accomplishments. One needs to be

clear here about not confusing rhetoric with a specific field of practice. My argument is that the

practice of adult education (or adult music making) and the rhetoric of lifelong learning are not

synonymous. Citing Wain (1993), Merriam and Brockett (1997) suggest that ‘the common

identification of lifelong education [and lifelong learning] with adult education’ has had

‘detrimental consequences…for both’ (14). In other words, conceptualization matters; turning

learning from a means into an end (as a result of the rhetoric) re-codes the meaning of practice

(Edwards, 2008).

My arguments about the dangers of engaging in lifelong learning rhetoric should not be

misconstrued as downplaying the obvious benefits of adults (and older adults) learning music! I
   25  

believe that the New Horizons ‘movement’ in the United States and Canada, for example, is

really more in keeping with the spirit and practice of adult education than the neoliberal ideology

behind lifelong learning rhetoric. Moreover, as Merriam, Caffarella and Baumgartner (2007)

point out, in spite of difficulties with the term’s appropriation by groups like the OECD, the

concept of lifelong learning does hold the potential to ‘open up our thinking of learning as

broader as what goes on in school’ (49). Indeed, handled carefully, lifelong learning can be a

useful concept—although I would counter than lifelong enjoyment, involvement, participation,

or engagement are more fruitful terms for adult music activities.

Leglar and Smith (2010) suggest that closer ties between schools and community might

help to emphasize the ‘lifelong pleasure’ that music affords. By using the term ‘lifelong

pleasure’ rather than lifelong learning, Leglar and Smith emphasize participation and the

relationship we wish to have between learning and life (Strain 1998). Admittedly, lifelong

pleasure (enjoyment, etc.) is a hard sell in today’s schools. Other politically palatable phrases,

such as R. Murray Schafer’s ‘ongoing musicianship’ may need to be found. In any case, those

involved with community music and those involved in music education would be wise to

consider the relationship between the school years and what people do later in life.

My contention is that invoking ‘lifelong learning’ carries higher risks than rewards. It is

not that learning is unimportant, of course. We cannot do without learning. However, if we place

learning above doing we devalue the joy of participation. This is part of the reason why I believe

amateuring (Booth 1999; Regelski 2007) has become devalued in society. If you cannot do to the

exacting standards of the professional there is apparently little point in trying. Many amateurs

quickly realize they can never hope to ‘learn’ enough to reach a professional level and because
   26  

participation for its own sake is insufficient there is little point in partaking in amateur music

making.

Although one might argue that employing lifelong learning rhetoric holds the potential to

further the interests of community music by capitalizing on the term’s social capital, we should

not delude ourselves. As Tight (1998) makes clear, only learning related to economic activity is

really taken seriously. Government and economic interests are never going to view music

making on par with activities that enhance international competitiveness. While there is no doubt

merit to be found in the altruistic claims for the benefits of learning throughout the lifespan, I

submit that the meaning and values of practice in community music activities far exceed that of

learning for learning’s sake. When we favour learning over participation we risk reducing what

we do to either a never-ending quest that permanently delays gratification, or, as has been the

case with school music, we turn music into a ‘subject’ to be learned where participation is

rendered unnecessary once the learning objectives have been attained. The only recourse to

keeping people engaged is therefore to insist on the need to learn more and more and more. The

task of learning must be conceptualized as unfinished, resulting in the requirement for ‘lifelong

learning’. While this approach may work for those who love learning for its own sake, they

constitute a minority of the population. The rest are left wondering when the fun will start.

When we see others as learners rather than participants we unwittingly reduce agency,

both personal and musical, thereby attenuating the potential power of community music

activities. Emphasizing learning shifts the focus of musical practice from a social activity to an

individual one. As Olson suggests, music making is ‘an arena in which individuals and groups

are actively engaged in transformation and empathy’ (63). Or rather, it can be if we resist the
   27  

deleterious effects of the rhetoric of lifelong learning by focusing on participation rather than

learning as our raison d’etre.

I have hoped to ‘trouble the waters’ here by drawing attention to some potential dangers

of lifelong learning rhetoric in order to avoid unwittingly being drawn into a particular discourse

that may not serve the community music world in the ways intended. Uncritically adopting

government lifelong learning discourses, Olssen (2008: 41) suggests, blurs the line between

educational ideals and political ones. Edwards (2008) cautions that ‘totalizing the diversity of

social practices under a single sign of ‘lifelong learning’ does not in and of itself do justice to the

variety of meanings translated and ordered in specific contexts…[L]ifelong learning may need to

be decentred in order that we can look again at the meanings it has and the work it does’ (32).

My hope is that this article has begun the process of decentering lifelong learning so that those in

the community music world can theorize practice in ways not dictated by neoliberal rhetoric or

blind adherence to the prevailing winds of discourse.

Works Cited List

Achilles, E. (1992), ‘Music making beyond the classroom’, Music Educators Journal, 79, pp. 35-

37.

Alhieit, P. and Dausien, B. (2002), ‘The “doubleface” of lifelong learning: Two analytical

perspectives on a “silent revolution”’, Studies in the Education of Adults 34, pp. 2-22.

Allen, D. (1970), ‘Its easier to move a cemetery than to change a school’, Music Educators

Journal, 57, pp. 29-32.

   28  

Arasi, M. (2006), ‘Adult reflections on a high school choral music program: Perceptions of

meaning and lifelong influence’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State

University.

Augustin, C. (2010), ‘A descriptive study to determine the opinions of community band

members regarding the effectiveness of comprehensive musicianship’, International

Journal of Community Music, 3, pp. 175-183.

Ball, C., Ross, J., Mamlin, H. R., Martin, G., Brookhart, D. E. and Cox, B. Y. (1980), ‘Report of

the MENC Commission on graduate music teacher education.’, Music Educators

Journal.

Bell, C. L. (2008), ‘Toward a definition of a community choir’, International Journal of

Community Music, 1, pp. 229-241.

Belz, M. J. (1994), ‘The German Gesangverein as a model of life-long participation in music’,

unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.

Berglund, G. (2008), ‘Pathologizing and medicalizing lifelong learning: A deconstruction’, in K.

Nicoll and A. Fejes (eds), Foucault and Lifelong Learning: Governing the Subject (pp.

138-150), London New York, NY: Routledge.

Biesta, G. (2006), ‘What’s the point of lifelong learning if lifelong learning has no point? On the

democratic deficit of policies for lifelong learning’, European Educational Research

Journal, 5, pp. 169-180.

Booth, W. C. (1999), For the Love of It: Amateuring and its Rivals, Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Boswell, J. (1992), ‘Human potential and lifelong learning’, Music Educators Journal, 79, pp.

38-40.
   29  

Bowen, C. K. (1995), ‘Adult community bands in the Southeastern United States: An

investigation of current activity and background profiles of the participants’, unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Florida State University.

Busch, M. (2005), ‘Predictors of lifelong learning in music: A survey of individuals participating

in ensembles at community colleges in Illinois’, unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Caimi, F. J. (1981), ‘Relationships between motivation variables and selected criterion measures

of high school band directing success’, Journal of Research in Music Education, 29, pp.

183-198.

Campbell, A. B. (1975), ‘The year-round school: Implications for the music program’, Music

Educators Journal, 62, pp. 54-56.

Campbell, R. (2010), ‘An exploration into how participation in musical activities can improve

the health and well-being of older adults’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bath Spa

University.

Chiodo, P. (1997), ‘The development of lifelong commitment: A qualitative study of adult

instrumental music participation (adult learners)’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, State

University of New York at Buffalo.

Coffield, F. (1999), ‘Breaking the consensus: Lifelong learning as social control’, British

Educational Research Journal, 25, pp. 479-499.

Coffin, J. (2005), ‘Why did we join? Why have we stayed? Membership in a women’s

barbershop chorus: A narrative inquiry into leadership, learning, and the development of

voice through singing’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Prince Edward

Island
   30  

Coffman, D. (1996), ‘Musical backgrounds and interests of active older adult band members’,

Dialogue in Instrumental Music Education, 20, pp. 25-34.

---------- (2002a), ‘Adult education’, in R. Colwell and C. Richardson (eds), The New Handbook

of Research in Music Teaching and Learning (pp. 199-209), New York: Oxford

University Press.

---------- (2002b), ‘Music and quality of life in older adults’, Psychomusicology — A Journal of

Research in Music Cognition, 18, pp. 76-88.

Commission of the European Communities (2000), A Memorandum on Lifelong Learning.

Brussels.

Cope, P. (1999), ‘Community based traditional fiddling as a basis for increasing participation in

instrument playing’, Music Education Research, 1, pp. 61-75.

Dabback, W. (2007), ‘Toward a model of adult music learning as a socially-embedded

phenomenon’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester.

Darrough, G. (1990), ‘Older adult participants in selected retirement community choruses’,

unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.

---------- (1992), ‘Making choral music with older adults’, Music Educators Journal, 79, pp. 27-

29.

Darrough, G. and Boswell, J. (1992), ‘Older adult participation: A review of the related

literature’, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 111, pp. 25-34.

Edwards, R. (2006), ‘Beyond the moorland? Contextualising lifelong learning’, Studies in the

Education of Adults 38, pp. 25-36.

   31  

---------- (2008), ‘Actively seeking subjects?’ in K. Nicoll and A. Fejes (eds), Foucault and

Lifelong Learning: Governing the Subject (pp. 21-33), London New York, NY:

Routledge.

Ernst, R. E. and Emmons, S. (1992), ‘New horizons for senior adults’, Music Educators Journal,

79, pp. 30-34.

Faivre-Ransom, J. L. (2001), ‘An investigation of factors that influence adult participation in

music ensembles based on various behavioral theories: A case study of the Norfolk

Chorale’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Shenandoah Conservatory.

Fejes, A. (2008), ‘Historicizing the lifelong learner: Governmentality and neoliberal rule’, in K.

Nicoll and A. Fejes (eds), Foucault and Lifelong Learning: Governing the Subject (pp.

87-100), London New York, NY: Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1972), The Archaeology of Knowledge, London: Tavistock Publications.

---------- (1995), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of The Prison, New York: Vintage Books.

Foucault, M., Frye, N. and Gordon, C. (1980), Power/knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other

Writings, 1972-1977, New York: Pantheon Books.

Gilbert, J. P. and Beal, M. R. (1982), ‘Preferences of elderly individuals for selected music

education experiences’, Journal of Research in Music Education, 30, pp. 247-253.

Gorard, S., Rees, G. and Selwyn, N. (2002), ‘The “conveyor belt effect”: A re-assessment of the

impact of national targets for lifelong learning’, Oxford Review of Education, 28, pp. 75-

89.

Griffith, M. J. (2006), ‘Personality traits and musical interests of adult learners in an instrumental

music program’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Oklahoma.

   32  

Gustavsson, B. (2002), ‘What do we mean by lifelong learning and knowledge?’, International

Journal of Lifelong Education, 21, pp. 13-23.

Hake, B. J. (1999), ‘Lifelong learning in late modernity: The challenges to society,

organizations, and individuals’, Adult Education Quarterly, 49, pp. 79-90.

Hartle, T. and Kutner, M. (1979), ‘Federal policies: Programs, legislation, and prospects’, in R.

Peterson (ed), Lifelong Learning in America (pp. 276-342). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Heintzelman, T. D. (1988), ‘Adult concert band participation in the United States’, unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.

Higgins, L. (2012), Community Music: In Practice and in Theory, New York: Oxford University

Press.

Holmquist, S. (1995), ‘A study of community choir members’ school experiences’, unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.

Houle, C. O. (1961), The Inquiring Mind, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Koopman, C. (2007), ‘Community music as music education: On the educational potential of

community music’, International Journal of Music Education, 25, pp. 151-163.

Kruse, N. B. (2009), ‘An elusive bird: Perceptions of music learning among Canadian and

American adults’, International Journal of Community Music, 2, pp. 215-225.

Lambeir, B. (2005), ‘Education as liberation: The politics and techniques of lifelong learning’,

Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37, pp. 349-355.

Larson, P. S. (1983), ‘An exploratory study of lifelong musical interest and activity: Case studies

of twelve retired adults’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University.

Lauder, H., Young, M., Daniels, H., Balarin, M. and Lowe, J. (Eds) (2012), Educating for the

Knowledge Economy?: Critical Perspectives, New York: Routledge.

   33  

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Leglar, M. and Smith, D. (2010), ‘Community music in the United States: An overview of

origins and evolution’, International Journal of Community Music, 3, pp. 343-353.

Lonnberg, E. D. (1960), ‘The influence of secondary music education on adult musical

participation’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.

Mason, J. (2008), ‘A look to the future’, Music Educators Journal, 65, p. 56.

Mason, R. J. (1968), ‘Designing music programs for junior college’, Music Educators Journal,

54, pp. 89-94.

Merriam, S. B. and Brockett, R. G. (1997), The profession and Practice of Adult Education: An

Introduction, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S. and Baumgartner, L. (2007), Learning in Adulthood: A

Comprehensive Guide, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B., Grace, A. P. and Jossey-Bass Inc. (2011), The Jossey-Bass reader on

Contemporary Issues in Adult Education, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Myers, D. (1992), ‘Teaching learners of all ages’, Music Educators Journal, 79, pp. 23-26.

---------- (2008), ‘Lifespan engagement and the question of relevance: challenges for music

education research in the twenty-first century’, Music Education Research, 10, pp. 1-14.

Nazareth, T. C. (1998), ‘Achieving lifelong music education: Cooperation, coordination, and

coherence’, General Music Today, 11, pp. 21-23.

Nicoll, K. and Fejes, A. (eds) (2008), Foucault and Lifelong Learning: Governing the Subject,

London New York, NY: Routledge.

   34  

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2000), Motivating Students For

Lifelong Learning. Organisation For Economic Co-Operation And Development.

Olson, K. (2005), ‘Music for community education and emancipatory learning’, New Directions

for Adult and Continuing Education, 2005, pp. 55-64.

Olssen, M. (2008), ‘Understanding the mechanisms of neoliberal control: Lifelong learning,

flexibility and knowledge capitalism’, in K. Nicoll and A. Fejes (eds), Foucault and

Lifelong Learning: Governing the Subject (pp. 34-47), London New York, NY:

Routledge.

Patterson, F. C. (1985), ‘Motivational factors contributing to participation in community bands

of the Montachusett region of North Central Massachusetts’, unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Connecticut.

Peterson, R. (ed) (1979), Lifelong learning in America, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pike, P. D. (2001), ‘Leisure piano lessons: A case study of lifelong learning’, unpublished

doctoral dissertation, The University of Oklahoma.

---------- (2011), ‘Using technology to engage third-age (retired) leisure learners: A case study of

a third-age MIDI piano ensemble’, International Journal of Music Education, 29, pp.

116-123.

Popkewitz, T. (2008), ‘The reason of reason: Cosmopolitanism, social exclusion and lifelong

learning’, in K. Nicoll and A. Fejes (eds), Foucault and Lifelong Learning: Governing

the Subject (pp. 74-86), London New York, NY: Routledge.

Popkewitz, T. and Lindblad, S. (2004), ‘Historicizing the future: Educational reform, systems of

reason, and the making of children who are the future citizens’, Journal of Educational

Change, 5, pp. 229-247.

   35  

Popkewitz, T., Olsson, U. and Petersson, K. (2006), ‘The learning society, the unfinished

cosmopolitan, and governing education, public health and crime prevention at the

beginning of the twenty-first century’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38, pp. 431-

448.

Powell, K. (2003), ‘Learning together: Practice, pleasure and identity in a Taiko drumming

world’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.

Putnam, R. D. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New

York: Simon & Schuster.

Quinn, J., Thomas, L., Slack, K., Casey, L., Thexton, W. and Noble, J. (2006), ‘Lifting the hood:

Lifelong learning and young, white, provincial working class masculinities’, British

Educational Research Journal, 32, pp. 735-750.

Regelski, T. (2007), ‘Amateuring in music and its rivals’, Action, Criticism & Theory for Music

Education, 6, pp. 22-50.

Rensink-Hoff, R. (2009), ‘Adult community choirs: Toward a balance between leisure

participation and musical achievement’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

Western Ontario.

Rohwer, D. (2008), ‘Health and wellness issues for adult band musicians’, Medical Problems of

Performing Artists, 23, pp. 54-59.

---------- (2010), ‘Understanding adult interests and needs: The pitfalls in wanting to know’,

International Journal of Community Music, 3, pp. 203-212.

Rohwer, D. and Coffman, D. (2007), ‘Relationships between wind band membership, activity

level, spirituality and quality of life in older adults’, Research Perspectives in Music

Education, 10, pp. 21-27.

   36  

Rybak, C. (1995), ‘Older adults and ‘flow’: Investigating optimal experience in selected music

leisure activities’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.

Seago, T. (1993), ‘Motivational factors influencing participation in selected southern Baptist

church choirs’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston.

Shuler, S. C. (2012), ‘Music education for life: Music assessment, part 2—instructional

improvement and teacher evaluation’, Music Educators Journal, 98, pp. 7-10.

Simons, M. and Masschelein, J. (2008), ‘Our “will to learn” and the assemblage of a learning

apparatus’, in K. Nicoll and A. Fejes (eds), Foucault and Lifelong Learning: Governing

The Subject (pp. 48-60), New York: Routledge.

Smilde, R. (2008), ‘Lifelong learners in music; research into musicians’ biographical learning’,

International Journal of Community Music, 1, pp. 243-252.

---------- (2010), ‘Lifelong and lifewide learning from a biographical perspective: transformation

and transition when coping with performance anxiety’, International Journal of

Community Music, 3, pp. 185-201.

Smith, M. V. and Haack, P. (2000), ‘The long view of lifelong learning’, Music Educators

Journal, 87, pp. 28-33.

Spell, G. (1989), ‘Motivational factors and selected socio-demographic characteristics of

Georgia community chorus participants as measured by the education participation scale,

the community chorus participation scale, and the personal inventory form’, unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.

Spencer, W. (1996), ‘An attitude assessment of amateur musicians in community bands’,

unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas.

   37  

Strain, M. (1998), ‘Towards an economy of lifelong learning: Reconceptualising relations

between learning and life’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 46, pp. 264-277.

Tatum, M. E. (1985), ‘A descriptive analysis of the status of music programs in selected

retirement residences and senior citizens’ centers in the southeastern united states

(lifelong learning, satisfaction, elderly, leisure, old age)’, unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Indiana University.

Taylor, A. and Hallam, S. (2011), ‘From leisure to work: Amateur musicians taking up

instrumental or vocal teaching as a second career’, Music Education Research, 13, pp.

307-325.

Thaller, G. P. (1999), ‘The community contributions, recruitment, and retention practices of

select adult community bands in eastern Massachusetts’, unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Cincinnati.

Thorton, D. (2010), ‘Adult music engagement: Perspectives from three musically engaged

cases’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.

Tight, M. (1998), ‘Lifelong learning: opportunity or compulsion?’, British Journal of

Educational Studies, 46, pp. 251-263.

Tipps, J. (1992), ‘Profile characteristics and musical backgrounds of community chorus

participants in the Southeast United States’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, The

Florida State University.

Tsugawa, S. (2009), ‘Senior adult music learning, motivation, and meaning construction in two

New Horizons Ensembles’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.

   38  

Turton, A. and Durrant, C. (2002), ‘A study of adults’ attitudes, perceptions and reflections on

their singing experience in secondary school: Some implications for music education’,

British Journal of Music Education, 19, pp. 31-48.

Vanderark, S., Newman, K. And Bell, S. (1983), ‘The effects of music participation on quality of

life of the elderly’, Music Therapy Perspectives, 3, pp. 71–81.

Waggoner, R. (1972), ‘Factors relating to participation and non-participation in community

performance groups at the level in Atlanta, Georgia’, unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Florida State University.

Warren, S. and Webb, S. (2007), ‘Challenging lifelong learning policy discourse. Where is

structure in agency in narrative-based research?’, Studies in the Education of Adults 39,

pp. 5-21.

Wilhjelm, C. C. (1998), ‘A case study of the Ridgewood Concert Band, a New Jersey

community band dedicated to lifelong learning’, unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Columbia University Teachers College.

Wise, G., Hartmann, D. and Bradley, J. F. (1992), ‘Exploration of the relationship between

choral singing and successful aging’, Psychological Reports, 70, pp. 1175-1183.

Zajda, J. (2003), ‘Lifelong learning and adult education: Russia meets the west’, International

Review of Education, 49, pp. 111-132.