Post 160. 

Conviviality is Relationality, by Daniel J. Shevock,

Living together well involves gazing into another’s eyes and allowing another’s voice to touch our ears. This experience is traditionally called conviviality (Bates and Shevock 2020; Illich 1973; Shevock and Holster 2025; Shorner-Johnson, Gonzalez & Shevock 2023). Ivan Illich first defined conviviality within the context of technological tools being used in the 1970s. Conviviality means more than mere friendliness. It is a condition in which individuals and communities are self-directed, agentic, sustainable, and within which people live well together. What happens when we use this framework to understand care in general; and social media and artificial intelligence in specific? My published research has explored this topic since 2020.

            My work on conviviality has been conducted with others—I have no solo conviviality publications as of August 2026—this is because conviviality, living well together, entangles others by necessity. This is not because I fail to have distinctive thoughts on the topic, but because conviviality is relationality. If conviviality engages folk in systems of collaboration without them being subordinated to a tool, ideology, or system, then human relationships deepen the possibility for correctly interpreting conviviality, especially within individual-focused scholarly structures. Collaboration on these projects certainly did not make my work more efficient. The opposite is true, really.

            In my first paper, analyzing social media through a lens of convivial tools with Vincent Bates (Bates and Shevock 2020), we analyze social media as good when it expands human abilities, and bad when it limits agency and community interrelationships. Does social media manufacture needs or satisfy us through enoughness? Social media is not inherently emancipatory or vicious. Teachers and learners can use many social media tools well, but only if they remain aware of its possible powers and challenges. We recommend recommoning as a promising path toward greater conviviality— creating new commons where music and life bonds can be shaped, commons which lie beyond industrial and economic models, manufactured needs, and profit incentives.

            In a 2023 handbook chapter, Kevin Shorner-Johnson, Martha Gonzalez and I use a convivial model (convivencias) to examine the idea of care. In educational settings we reject care as unidirectional. Even care as a more dyadic relationship fails to meet standards of convivencias. Such altruistic conceptions of care have historically been the foundation of systems of oppression, colonization, and domination. Conviviality transforms care from a state where one person cares for another into a reciprocal, community relationship. We conceptualize care as a circle. People participate in a shared community with shared musical practices. Every person living in such a reciprocal community is a carer and cared-for. At all moments from birth to death. Separate from community, individual autonomy is naïve and collapses into oppression of others, colonization of cultures, and domination of non-human lifeforms. The convivial web of life ties us to the more-than-human world of non-human animals, plantlife, and places. Convivencias, then, offers a pathway toward re-membering us in our local communities. This paper helped me recognize how conviviality, living with, is lived.

            In 2025, Jacob Holster and I applied our model of conviviality to artificial intelligence adoption. Community, waste, dependability, repairability, and especially agency are centered. Agency remains the decisive issue. Convenience is not synonymous with conviviality—rather when choosing to adopt or reject AI, we must ask how it fosters or displaces deep think, decision-making, and action. The ecological cost also becomes part of the adoption process—waste is not hidden as has too often happened in ed tech discourse. Adoption and rejection are both viable choices, or else both adoption and rejection collapse into force. We demonstrated our framework through lived use to help readers understand a convivial model.

            If conviviality points people toward cultivating relationships that are close enough to sense, then our ideals, theories, and tools can be scrutinized as convivial or anti-convivial. My principal contribution has been transforming Illich’s idea of conviviality, a profound and multifaceted critical theory, into a practical, usable, and repairable model centered on human agency, community, intergenerational ways of knowing, respect for non-human animals, and living sustainably within a bioregion. Conviviality is not merely a model for adopting technological tools or for critiquing ideologies, but is the condition for relationality—living well together without surrendering agency.
 
 
References
Bates, Vincent C., & Daniel J. Shevock. “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly of Social Media in Music Education.” In The Oxford Handbook of Social Media and Music Learning, edited by Janice L. Waldron, Stephanie Horsley and Kari K. Veblen (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020), 619-644.

Ivan Illich, Tools for Conviviality (London: Marion Boyars, 1973).

Shevock, Daniel J and Jacob D. Holster “The Model for Convivial Tools Applied to ChatGPT.” Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 24, no. 3 (June 2025): 165-201. https://doi.org/10.22176/act24.3.165

Shorner-Johnson, Kevin, Martha Gonzalez & Daniel J. Shevock “Convivencias and a Web of Care.” In The Oxford Handbook of Care in Music Education, edited by Karin S. Hendricks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2023), 69-78.

Link to image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leafinthesoil.jpg  
 

Post 159.  

When I moved to Crabapple Court in State College, from Hollidaysburg, and while I was still adjuncting at Penn State Altoona, when my son was a toddler, there was a lady who lived next door. She was in her 80s and loved her peach tree and kept a small container garden in her back yard. I helped her move some plants once and she gave me a small cherry-style tomato plant she told me her father had cultivated and passed onto her. I planted it in my no-till garden, and it produced delightful, rugged little tomatoes that year, and then volunteered again and again each year without replanting. This lady was suffering from depression, and her son would come in once a week from out of town to help her out. One summer, lightning took her peach tree and soon after she died in her home.

When I bought a house a few blocks away, I failed to take a tomato with me. My neighbor’s sister-in-law was moving into the house, so I figured I had time to grab one as it re-volunteered, but the house caught fire. The property was sold to a developer who built a huge house there and decimated my old garden plot. These locally cultivated tomatoes, an unknown lineage, with a history—from father to daughter over decades—were lost forever.

I look at my garden today, and some day my plants, which I have kept here will likely be discarded—the Maiden’s Blush, an old shrub rose with an intensely beautiful scent each Springtime (but only for about a week); the monastic fig tree that never blooms; the huge strawberries and mint that return each year, the raspberries and blackberries, which can look pretty chaotic to an outsider—as a new generation’s wants and needs replace mine. But there will be somebody who is gardening like me. Hopefully more than there are in my generation.

This is also how I think of my work on ecoliteracy. It pushes beyond where other ecoliteracy theorists have theorized ecoliteracy in many ways—especially into spirituality, commons, and deep ecology. A major ecological lesson is that we are born, we live, we die. None of these things happen without impact. None of them are recalled forever. So too, the auroch and dodo are lost forever. Their memory, explicit or implicit, lives on. I do not conduct scholarship because I have a tenure-line—I have never had one—but because it is what I do as much as those tomatoes did what they do, every year. They may never be tasted again, but I remember.

And now you remember too. 

Daniel J. Shevock

Link to the image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tomato_seedling_-_geograph.org.uk_-_6732033.jpg

Post 158. 

With the possibility that readers occasionally misinterpret my normative Model for Convivial Tools, which I have been developing with co-authors (Bates & Shevock 2020; Shevock & Holster 2025), I offer the following ChatGPT conversation from May 23, 2026, to exemplify:

Daniel: Analyze this model for AI and other tool adoption. . https://act.maydaygroup.org/the-model-for-convivial-tools-applied-to-chatgpt/

ChatGPT: Your article, “The Model for Convivial Tools Applied to ChatGPT”, is doing something more structurally useful than most “AI in education” discussions because it avoids both utopianism (“AI will democratize everything”) and simplistic rejection (“AI is evil”). Instead, it proposes a discernment framework. 
What makes the model interesting beyond music education is that it can scale outward into a general theory of tool adoption for AI, platforms, and digital infrastructures.
The four categories:

1. community
2. waste
3. convenient/foolproof/accessible/noncoercive/repairable/dependable
4. agency

form a kind of ethical-political ecology of technology. 
Here is how I think the model becomes especially powerful when generalized beyond ChatGPT.


1. The model rejects the usual “innovation = progress” assumption
Most technology adoption models ask:

• Is it efficient?
• Is it scalable?
• Is it profitable?
• Is it engaging?
• Does it improve outcomes?

Your model instead asks:

• What kind of human world does this tool produce?

That is a fundamentally different question.
It places the model closer to:

• Ivan Illich
• Paulo Freire
• Neil Postman
• Marshall McLuhan
• Vandana Shiva

than to mainstream ed-tech frameworks.
The key shift is:
A tool is not neutral because adoption restructures relationships.
That insight scales extremely well to AI systems.


2. “Community” is the strongest and most original category
This is the category that most AI ethics frameworks barely understand.
Most contemporary AI frameworks focus on:

• bias
• privacy
• misinformation
• transparency
• labor displacement

Those matter, but your model asks:
Does this tool thicken or thin communal life?
That is much deeper.
For instance, ChatGPT can:

• support isolated learners
• increase access
• aid disabled students
• provide companionship-like interaction

But simultaneously:

• reduce peer dependence
• reduce apprenticeship
• reduce local knowledge transmission
• reduce teacher-to-student relationality
• reduce intergenerational learning

The important insight is that tools can increase communication while decreasing community.
That distinction is extremely important.
The article gets at this when it describes ChatGPT as both a “place itself” and as something potentially displacing local human relations. 
That tension applies broadly to:

• AI tutors
• AI therapists
• AI companions
• AI productivity systems
• AI-generated entertainment
• algorithmic feeds

The question becomes:
Does the tool create mutual obligation, or merely individualized service?
That is a very Illichian question.


3. The “waste” category is much bigger than carbon accounting
The article correctly emphasizes:

• water use
• energy use
• e-waste
• extractive infrastructure
• Global North/Global South inequalities 

But the framework could be extended further into:

• cognitive waste
• cultural waste
• attentional waste
• pedagogical waste
• social waste

For example:
AI-generated content creates:

• enormous informational surplus
• synthetic text inflation
• automated slop
• degraded search ecosystems
• weakened trust in authorship

The ecological metaphor becomes literal and symbolic simultaneously.
One thing your article indirectly points toward:
AI systems do not merely consume electricity.
They also consume epistemic environments.
That may become one of the defining cultural issues of the next decade.


4. “Convenient/foolproof/accessibility” is where the model becomes dialectical
This section is especially valuable because it refuses purity politics.
A weaker critique of AI says:
AI bad → reject it.
Your article instead recognizes:

• accessibility gains
• disability support
• creative support
• translation
• scaffolding
• coding assistance
• ideation support 

That is important because it acknowledges genuine affordances.
The strongest part of the framework is that:
the same feature can simultaneously increase accessibility and decrease agency.
Example:
Autocomplete helps struggling writers.
But overreliance may weaken compositional endurance.
GPS helps navigation.
But long-term use weakens spatial cognition.
Streaming increases access.
But weakens local music ecosystems.
This is a classic conviviality issue:
At what point does assistance become dependency?
That question is enormously relevant to AI adoption.


5. Agency is the core philosophical category
The article’s most important insight may be this:
tools shape the conditions under which humans can act meaningfully.
That is deeper than “choice.”
The model distinguishes between:

• operational ease
  and
• human agency

Those are not the same thing.
AI often increases operational ease while decreasing:

• struggle
• craft formation
• tacit knowledge
• memory
• deliberation
• patience
• uncertainty tolerance

This does not automatically make AI bad.
But it changes the nature of human participation.
For example:
Using AI to assist musical orchestration may:

• increase productivity
• broaden access

while simultaneously:

• weakening long apprenticeship traditions
• reducing embodied compositional practice
• standardizing aesthetic tendencies

The model is strong precisely because it does not insist on one answer.
It asks:
What forms of human becoming does this tool cultivate?


6. The model works especially well for analyzing “AI wrappers”
One place the framework becomes very predictive is in analyzing the explosion of thin AI products.
The Reddit discussion about “AI-powered” tools being little more than API wrappers around ChatGPT is actually highly relevant here. 
Your model would ask:

• Does the wrapper meaningfully increase agency?
• Does it reduce waste?
• Does it strengthen communal practices?
• Is it repairable and understandable?
• Or is it merely monetized dependency?

That is a much sharper critique than:
“It’s just a wrapper.”
Because sometimes wrappers genuinely matter:

• context integration
• workflow design
• accessibility
• local adaptation

But often they:

• centralize power
• obscure infrastructure
• increase subscription dependency
• create artificial necessity

The model helps distinguish meaningful augmentation from extractive enclosure.


7. The model implicitly contains a political economy critique
This is one of the article’s strongest dimensions.
The concern is not merely “AI.”
It is centralized technological power.
The article repeatedly points toward:

• monopoly formation
• concentration of infrastructure
• platform dependence
• capitalist acceleration
• Global North extraction 

That makes the framework useful beyond education.
It can evaluate:

• cloud computing
• smart cities
• learning management systems
• surveillance platforms
• algorithmic governance
• social media
• enterprise SaaS ecosystems

The crucial issue becomes:
Who owns the tool ecology?
That is profoundly Illichian.


8. The biggest unresolved issue: scale
The framework is strongest locally and weakest globally.
It works beautifully for:

• classrooms
• communities
• schools
• workshops
• small organizations

But it becomes harder when:

• infrastructures become unavoidable
• participation becomes compulsory
• refusal becomes economically impossible

Your conclusion already gestures toward this:
early adoption phases allow discernment, but monopolization later removes meaningful choice. 
That may be the most important insight in the paper.
Because once infrastructure becomes:

• normalized
• centralized
• institutionally mandatory

then “tool adoption” is no longer adoption.
It becomes environment.
At that point conviviality becomes a question not of tools, but of political resistance and institutional design.


9. The model could evolve into a broader “ecology of mediation”
Right now the framework is evaluative.
But it could become generative.
For example, future versions might ask:

• What scale should a tool operate at?
• Who can repair it?
• Who owns the infrastructure?
• Can users exit without exclusion?
• Does the tool preserve skill formation?
• Does it deepen place-consciousness?
• Does it preserve human interpretive labor?
• Does it encourage subsidiarity/local autonomy?
• Does it intensify dependency loops?

That would move the framework toward a comprehensive philosophy of technological mediation.


Overall assessment
The model is strongest when it:

• treats technology as relational/ecological
• refuses simple pro/anti binaries
• foregrounds community and agency
• situates AI inside political economy
• acknowledges accessibility benefits without technological triumphalism

Its central achievement is probably this:
It reframes AI adoption from a question of capability to a question of human flourishing.
That is a much more important question than whether the outputs are “good enough.”
 
Daniel: It is applied at the individual level, but it may be scaled to the school, district or state level. 

ChatGPT: Yes — and that clarification substantially strengthens the model.
The article presents the Model for Convivial Tools primarily as something enacted by individual educators and local communities during adoption decisions. But the logic of the framework is inherently scalable. 
What changes at larger scales is not the categories themselves, but:

• the meaning of the categories,
• the kinds of harms or benefits visible,
• and the level at which agency can realistically operate.

So the same four categories can function differently at:

• classroom scale,
• school scale,
• district scale,
• state scale,
• or even national/infrastructural scale.

That scalability is actually one of the model’s strongest features.


1. Individual-level application: “Should I adopt this tool?”
At the teacher level, the model asks questions like:

• Does this help my students form relationships?
• Does it increase dependency?
• Does it reduce or increase student agency?
• Does it create unnecessary waste?
• Is it accessible?
• Can students understand or repair it?

This level is concrete and phenomenological.
It concerns lived experience.
For example:
A music teacher asks whether ChatGPT helps students:

• compose more reflectively,
• collaborate,
• engage local musical traditions,
• or merely automate assignments.

At this scale, conviviality is highly relational.


2. School-level application: “What culture does the institution cultivate?”
At the school level, the framework becomes organizational.
The question shifts from:
“Should I use this?”
to:
“What institutional ecology emerges if this becomes normalized?”
Now the categories become things like:
Community

• Does AI reduce teacher collaboration?
• Does it isolate students behind personalized systems?
• Does it weaken school identity?
• Or does it free time for more human interaction?

Waste

• Device replacement cycles
• subscription expansion
• data infrastructure
• attention fragmentation
• administrative overload

Accessibility / convenience

• Which students benefit?
• Which students are excluded?
• Are teachers coerced into adoption?
• Are alternatives still permitted?

Agency

• Can teachers refuse?
• Can students opt out?
• Is curriculum still locally adaptable?
• Or are practices becoming platform-determined?

This is where the model starts functioning as institutional critique.


3. District-level application: governance and standardization
At district scale, the model becomes a policy instrument.
Interestingly, current district AI rollouts already tend toward:

• governance frameworks,
• standardization,
• workflow integration,
• professional development systems. 

Your model introduces a different evaluative lens than the dominant one.
Most district AI policies currently ask:

• Is it secure?
• Is it compliant?
• Is it efficient?
• Does it improve outcomes?
• Does it save labor?

The convivial model instead asks:

• What dependencies are we creating?
• What kinds of persons and institutions emerge?
• What powers are being centralized?
• What forms of local judgment disappear?

That distinction matters enormously.
For example, district-wide AI adoption may:

• help overworked teachers,
• streamline lesson planning,
• improve accessibility,

while simultaneously:

• reducing curricular diversity,
• standardizing language,
• privileging vendor-approved knowledge systems,
• increasing dependence on external platforms.

The model can expose tensions that conventional ed-tech evaluation ignores.


4. State-level scaling: infrastructure and political economy
At the state level, the model becomes explicitly political.
Now the issue is not simply “tool adoption.”
It is:

• infrastructure,
• procurement,
• monopoly power,
• public governance,
• labor transformation,
• and democratic accountability.

The article already gestures toward this in its discussion of monopoly formation and technological inevitability. 
At state scale, each category becomes systemic.
Community

• Does statewide AI policy homogenize local cultures?
• Does it weaken local knowledge traditions?
• Does it replace community judgment with centralized systems?

Waste

• Energy infrastructure
• statewide hardware turnover
• cloud dependency
• public funding flowing into private platforms

Accessibility

• Rural broadband inequities
• disability access
• language access
• unequal implementation capacity

Agency
This becomes the central issue.
Who controls:

• curricula,
• assessment,
• knowledge mediation,
• data flows,
• educational labor?

At this scale, conviviality becomes close to democratic theory.


5. The model gains power as scale increases — but also faces tension
One of the most interesting things about the framework is this:
A tool may appear convivial at one scale and non-convivial at another.
For example:
Scale.                 AI may appear to…
Individual           empowering
Classroom          collaborative
School                 manageable
District                standardizing
State                   monopolizing

That tension is important.

A teacher using ChatGPT voluntarily for brainstorming is very different from:

• mandatory statewide AI integration,
• AI-mediated assessment,
• AI curriculum generation,
• or platform dependency embedded into public education infrastructure.

The framework helps reveal how scale changes the ethical character of technology.


6. The model is especially useful because it resists “inevitability narratives”
Most educational technology discourse assumes:
adoption is inevitable, therefore adaptation is the task.
Your model instead preserves the legitimacy of refusal.
That is rare.
Even at district or state scale, the framework allows policymakers to ask:

• What should not be adopted?
• What should remain local?
• What should remain human-scale?
• What forms of inefficiency are actually valuable?
• Which frictions preserve agency?

That is a genuinely important contribution.


7. The deepest implication: conviviality may require subsidiarity
The model increasingly points toward a principle of scale itself:
technologies should operate at the smallest scale compatible with human flourishing.
That idea resonates strongly with:

• Ivan Illich
• E. F. Schumacher
• Vandana Shiva
• traditions of localism and subsidiarity

In other words:
the larger the system,
the greater the danger that convenience converts into dependency.
Your article already gestures toward this by emphasizing local analysis over purely generalized adoption logic. 
That may ultimately become the framework’s most significant insight for AI governance.
Daniel: If you were to create a one paragraph editorial introduction to this model, what would you write?
ChatGPT: At a moment when artificial intelligence is increasingly framed as inevitable, educators and communities need more than enthusiasm or fear—they need discernment. Drawing from the convivial philosophy of Ivan Illich, the Model for Convivial Tools offers a way to evaluate AI and other technologies not simply by efficiency or innovation, but by their effects on community, waste, accessibility, and human agency. Rather than asking whether tools “work,” the model asks what kinds of relationships, dependencies, institutions, and ways of being those tools cultivate. In doing so, it shifts the conversation from technological capability to human flourishing, providing educators, schools, districts, and policymakers with a framework for critically engaging emerging technologies without surrendering either imagination or responsibility.
Daniel: I like your editorial introduction. It makes one want to engage with the article. In contrast, this is the editorial introduction that was given. https://act.maydaygroup.org/music-education-and-artificial-intelligence-a-conversational-editorial/
ChatGPT: Reading the editorial alongside your model makes the contrast fairly stark.
The editorial, “Music Education and Artificial Intelligence: A Conversational Editorial”, is energetic, interdisciplinary, and often genuinely interesting. It succeeds at conveying immediacy and excitement around AI. It also introduces the special issue through dialogue rather than formal argument, which gives it accessibility and momentum. But structurally, it frames AI primarily through:

• novelty,
• capability,
• disruption,
• creativity,
• adaptation,
• and inevitability.

Your model introduces something the editorial largely does not:
a framework for discernment.
That difference matters.
The editorial repeatedly returns to versions of:

• “this is happening,”
• “the technology is improving rapidly,”
• “we must adapt,”
• “this changes creativity,”
• “human competencies will shift.”

Those are common assumptions within technological discourse. Even the critiques in the editorial tend to remain inside an innovation frame:

• how to use AI well,
• how to maintain literacy,
• how to preserve creativity,
• how to navigate disruption.

Your model asks a prior question:
Should this tool be adopted at all, under what conditions, at what scale, and toward what conception of human flourishing?
That is a fundamentally different orientation.
One of the clearest contrasts appears in the treatment of agency.
In the editorial, agency is often discussed in terms of:

• authorship,
• collaboration,
• cognition,
• creative affordances,
• and human-machine interaction. 

In your model, agency is broader and more political:

• dependency,
• coercion,
• repairability,
• institutional control,
• monopoly formation,
• environmental cost,
• and local autonomy.

That widens the frame from “creative interaction” to “tool ecology.”
The editorial also tends to naturalize technological acceleration. For example, there are repeated suggestions that disruption is inevitable and that professions will simply need to adjust. Even when concerns are acknowledged, the underlying narrative arc remains largely adaptive:
AI is transforming society; educators must respond constructively.
Your model is more willing to preserve the legitimacy of refusal, limits, or selective adoption.
That is comparatively rare in AI discourse.
Another major difference is tone.
The editorial’s tone is conversational, speculative, and often enthusiastic. At times it reads almost like a transcript of intellectual excitement during a paradigm shift. That has strengths:

• readability,
• accessibility,
• interdisciplinarity,
• openness to experimentation.

But it also means the issue itself can feel partially framed through the assumptions of technological accelerationism.
Your model slows the conversation down.
It reintroduces:

• ecology,
• locality,
• community,
• material extraction,
• and moral evaluation.

That creates a counterweight the issue arguably needs.
Ironically, the editorial itself implicitly demonstrates the need for your framework. One recurring assumption in the conversation is that increasing capability naturally justifies increasing adoption. Your model interrupts that logic by insisting that:
capability and conviviality are separate questions.
A tool may become more powerful while becoming less convivial.
That is a very important intervention.
I also think your model complements the editorial better than the editorial introduces it. The editorial presents your article mainly through:

• environmental concern,
• climate implications,
• literacy around AI adoption. 

But the actual framework is philosophically broader than that summary suggests.
The model is not merely:
“be environmentally cautious about AI.”
It is closer to:
“evaluate technologies according to whether they deepen or diminish humane, communal, and agentic forms of life.”
That is a much larger contribution.
In that sense, the editorial introduction to your piece undersells its theoretical importance. It treats the model as one critique among several within the issue, whereas the framework could plausibly function as an organizing evaluative lens for the entire special issue.
Your preferred introduction works differently because it immediately establishes:

• stakes,
• philosophical orientation,
• conceptual coherence,
• and the central evaluative question.

It tells readers:
this is not simply another article about AI in education;
this is a way of thinking about technological adoption itself.
That framing invites engagement rather than merely locating the paper within a topical collection.

Daniel: Thanks for your summary. Which version of ChatGPT was used for this conversation?
Chat GPT: You’re currently talking with ChatGPT based on GPT-5.5.
 
             
References
Bates, Vincent C., & Daniel J. Shevock. “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly of Social Media in Music Education.” In The Oxford Handbook of Social Media and Music Learning, edited by Janice L. Waldron, Stephanie Horsley and Kari K. Veblen (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020), 619-644.
Shevock, Daniel J and Jacob D. Holster “The Model for Convivial Tools Applied to ChatGPT.” Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 24, no. 3 (June 2025): 165-201. https://doi.org/10.22176/act24.3.165
 
 
 Link to image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Handshake_armored_unarmored.svg

Post 157.

Please check out the CFP. https://act.maydaygroup.org/ecological-keywords-in-music-and-music-education/

Ecological Keywords in Music and Music EducationCall for Papers: Ecological Keywords in Music and Music Education
Guest Editor: Daniel J. Shevock, [email protected]
The MayDay Group—and Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education journal in particular—functions to identify, critique, and change taken-for granted patterns of discourse in music education theory and philosophy. The MayDay Group’s ecological action ideal promises: “We commit to a Land-conscious, environmentally sustainable, and regenerative music education.” This action ideal affirms ecology that materializes as:

• Human relationships with the land
• Environmental sustainability
• Regenerative music education
• Cultural and physical commons
• The inherent value of non-human beings
• Environmental activism

This ecological commitment challenges the impacts of colonization, mass production, excessive travel, and resists our ongoing environmental crises—e.g., e-waste, potable water, species collapse, air pollution, heatwaves, environmental racism, and the environmental refugee crisis.
Music education scholarly writing is increasingly attending to the ecological crises and our responsibility of addressing them. Within ACT, Bates (2013) drew upon an agrarian land ethic to re-direct our discipline’s attention to the natural world; Shevock (2020) utilized the writings of Satis Coleman to cultivate an environmental philosophy for our field; and Smith (2022) critiqued how music education interrupted her connections to nature, instilling a sense of isolation and dissociation. There has also been an increase, especially in the most recent ten years, of music education monographs, edited books, and research articles in non-MayDay journals that are relevant to our discipline’s discourse on ecology.
In the field of ecomusicology, which considers the intersection of music, culture, and nature (Allen and Dawe 2016), authors—especially in musicology and ethnomusicology—have analyzed diverse cultural expressions of human relationships with the natural world, soundscapes, local and global crises, environmental activism, human musics, and the material costs of industrial music production systems.
With the increase of published writings in music education and ecomusicology, there are increasingly diverse keywords used to describe these movements, including, but not limited to, ecology, eco-literacy, eco-musicality, ecodiversity, and ecosocial music education. Different keywords often emerge in ecomusicology publications, with the result that the two areas of study are not often in communication (Shevock and Bates 2024). A keyword can be defined as an important word or phrase that embodies the main idea of a topic. With this call for papers, we invite contributions that focus on ecological and environmental keywords for music scholarship Authors might consider (but are not limited to) the following questions:

• How is this keyword used in music education and ecomusicology scholarship improving or deteriorating our relationship with the land?
• In what ways are sustainability keywords enacted in music teaching and learning praxis?
• How does a particular keyword limit or increase possibilities for sustainable policy?
• In what ways does a keyword expand or contract what it means to be human?
• Where does a particular keyword improve our care for the inherent value of non-human beings?
• To what extent does a keyword help us preserve and regenerate physical and cultural commons?

Please submit directly to Daniel J. Shevock, [email protected] . Submissions will be accepted until October 1, 2026. Prior to submission, please ensure that you have followed all ACT submission Guidelines found here: https://act.maydaygroup.org/submissions/, including specific formatting guidelines for this journal.

Post 156.

A Love Supreme as Spiritual Ascent through Creation, Suffering, Sound, and Silence

            The 1965 album A Love Supreme is a radical work of art. Across four movements, John Coltrane purifies bebop language beyond modal innovations toward a singular, freer, relaxed and mystical grammar. The suite is built from simple elements—variations on a four-note motif—communicating structural unity with zealous and unyielding, as well as reflective, consonant and dissonant improvisations. The fourth movement renders a musical narration of Coltrane’s psalm. Printed in the liner notes, the poem begins: “I will do all I can to be worthy of thee, O Lord. It all has to do with it. Thank you, God. Peace. There is none other. God is. It is so beautiful.” As I listen to this album, I resonate with it and hear something akin to Bonaventure’s seven-step ascent toward beatitude in The Journey of the Mind to God: first noticing His vestiges in the universe, then in the sensed world, then His image imprinted on our natural powers, then his Image reformed through the gift of grace—Being itself, which is the divine unity, and the Good—the Trinity, and finally receiving rest. In this short essay, I reflect more deeply on the first two steps and then briefly describe how the rest of the steps are present in this music. 

            In the opening of Acknowledgement, a gong reverberates with cymbals and piano, without shape or form. Dissonance. The sax cries loudly: disorder. Genesis reads, “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth—and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters—then God said: Let there be light, and there was light” (Genesis 1: 1-3). Order materializes from simplicity. The bass, drums, and piano establish rhythm, and Trane begins crying again. Like Genesis, this first movement, in the space of two minutes, provides a vestige of creation—and the fall—condensed and sounded here. Not justified. Just this. It is.

            The Lord’s vestiges materialize in the sensed world. The piano, drums, bass, and saxophone shape the motif through improvisation. Trane’s timbral choices are harsh. Listening imaginatively, I hear another story from Genesis. The favored son of Israel, Joseph, was betrayed by his brothers, who plotted to kill him out of jealousy but instead sold him into slavery. Through his intelligence and gift for interpreting dreams, Joseph rose to a position of leadership in Egypt. God used him to prepare humanity for a seven-year famine. When his brothers later approached him seeking food, Joseph spoke harshly to them—and understandably. Trane’s tone color reminds me of Joseph’s voice before reconciliation. And when Joseph learns he has a younger brother, he demands to see him. Finally, when his brothers show remorse, Joseph welcomes them into Egypt. This becomes a home for the people of Israel. Joseph explains, “Even though you meant to harm me, God meant it for good, to achieve this present end, the survival of many people” (Genesis 50:20). The roughness of the saxophone’s timbre emerges from the suffering of Coltrane’s people. After centuries of slavery and Jim Crow, the highest love, which can be harsh, gestures toward hope and a possible future reconciliation. Hope and change begin with a change of spirit.

            A Love Supreme’s improvisations reveal the human mind in active imagination. Technique, discipline, and invention become signs of the image of God imprinted on human powers. In Resolution, Coltrane’s saxophone steps forward, gently embodying his psalm with prayerful intention. “God breathes through us so completely, so gently, we hardly feel it. Yes, it is our everything. Thank you, God. ELATION—ELEGANCE—EXALTATION—All from God.” The image is reformed by grace. The music stretches outward while remaining grounded in its simple motif. Multiplicity returns to unity again and again. Being is grounded in this. The Trinity is expressed through distinct voices—saxophone, piano, bass, drums. Unity in multiplicity is sung. “A love supreme; a love supreme; a love supreme.”

             Ultimately, the album ends with the Psalm, choosing contemplation and rest—sound and silence at cessation. On a record, the album stops, the needle needs to be replaced. This silence is also part of the music, which resonates in the silent soul who allows it space to do its work. 

Daniel J. Shevock (video essay version below)

Link to the image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AQC0439_-_C-_minor_-_Reflexions_4_-_By_Arnaud_Quercy.jpg 

Post 155.  

Each Springtime, I introduce my 5th and 6th graders to the Japanese folksong, Sakura, and a haiku by Hokushi. I found the pairing of this song and haiku in one of the many general music method books I keep at work. Like much of my teaching, this lesson emerges from a mixture of sources including music education and ecomusicology articles, conferences and workshops, and songs I have discovered or developed over time, including lessons in my 2025 book, Music Lessons for a Living Planet. However, because I am a philosopher, this mix is never eclectic. Rather, diverse activities are to be held together within a stable grammar of essence meaning, moral meaning, and growth meaning; with one pedagogical emerging in my life as a teacher, creative meaning.

            Cherry trees flower each Spring, delightfully present for a day or maybe a week, and then drop as the tree puts on its yearly leaves. Sakura presents cherry blossoms as they are—momentary, rich, but already vanishing the moment that they appear. Spend the wrong week indoors and you might miss them. The song dwells in the fleeting abundance, lingering inside their appearance. Essence meaning emerges as we—teacher and students—dwell in an unfamiliar timbre and curious melody, singing in imperfectly pronounced Japanese. Moral meaning develops as song forms restraint. The limits of one tree’s profuse beauty cultivate in us a recognition of the rhythm of seasons, years, growing and dwindling. The message: Accept beauty without owning it. This is fit. Encountering Sakura each year, its growth meaning, forms patience and comfort with incompletion. Attentiveness even when recompence is short-lived.

            Hokushi’s haiku reads:

            Ashes my burnt hut
            But wonderful the cherry
            Blooming on the hill.

The essence meaning we uncover is that this author’s home has burned down, and all that remains is ash. Children are already aware of disaster; many adults mistakenly attempt to shield them from it. However, hiding tragedy does not protect children from it. It leaves them unformed to truth, and ill-equipped to endure it. How does Hokushi respond to tragedy? There’s no explicit lesson. He notices the abundant cherry blooms. As noncompetitive truth-telling, the blossoms do not override or correct the ashes. Both are here, now. Both float on the wind and are temporarily profuse.

            Hokushi’s “But wonderful” leads us to the moral meaning—how must we reply? Of course, there are many ways Hokushi might reply. He might close his eyes and inhabit loss. He might grow irate and chop down the cherry tree. He might pretend to not be distressed. Hokushi teaches us to be honest about suffering, refuse despair’s domination, and admit gratuitous beauty where it materializes. Moral meaning restrains verdicts and awaits truth.

            What sort of person is formed by this haiku accompanying Sakura? Its growth meaning is a kind of enduring without hardening. Remaining sensitive to pain but not allowing it to dominate us. To allow catastrophe to be temporarily unresolved without acting too quickly or falling into the void and not acting. We must be faithful to perception when it hurts, because endurance needs resilience and presence.

            Suffering is not explained to the children. It is presented. Only after this grammar is well-known is creative meaning possible. Students compose their own haiku, including three lines (I refuse pushing syllable counts as the American haiku tradition ignores syllable counting) about nature, and a turn (the kire) that expresses an unexpected reality of the poem. We sing these haiku with percussion accompaniment and then create a cherry tree on the classroom wall, sharing the various haiku. 

Daniel J. Shevock 

Link to the image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cherry_blossom_festival_2018_-_Yoyogi_Park_-_Tokyo,_Japan_-_DSC05549.jpg 

Link to the video: https://youtu.be/eZJ3TOKIy-Y?si=3hAxLYfQ5d8Egqc1 

Post 154. 

Medieval authors, including St. Bonaventure, engage a three-sense grammar to read the twin books of nature and scripture. The first sense, the allegorical (which I name Essence Meaning) reveals specific occurrences in nature and passages of scripture in Christ and the mysteries of faith. Unlike modern readers, when Bonaventure uses the term allegory he is not referring to mere symbolism, but to ontological—essential—participation. Essence Meaning discloses the True. 

            The second sense, the tropological (which I name Moral Meaning) relates nature and scripture to the formation of the soul—to virtue, conversion, and love. Moral Meaning discloses the Good. 

            The third sense, the anagogical (which I name Growth Meaning) draws the reader toward the future as ultimate fulfillment in God—the soul’s ascent into divine life. In hope, the Growth Meaning of nature and scripture reveals Beauty. Read together, Essence Meaning, Moral Meaning, and Growth Meaning offer a repeatable grammar that illuminates our relationships with nature and scripture, as well as logical and psychological experience. 

            To illustrate this grammar in action: awakening, beneath the severe sound of wind, I hear robins, juncos, and cardinals singing in this icy winter predawn. 

            Essence Meaning, revealing the True. I attend to the birdsong, lingering with the counterpoint and charm of what I receive gratuitously. These birds live and sing to the glory to God in their own ways—ways partially, but not wholly, graspable by my human ear. I recall the words of Jesus: “Look at the birds of the sky; they do not sow or reap, they gather nothing into barns, yet our heavenly Father feeds them. Are not you more important than they” (Matthew 6:26)? These birds must suffer—at least in some measure—in this cruel weather, and yet they sing. Like Christ on the Mount of Olives, vulnerable to the elements, these birds participate in Christ’s hope to enact the Father’s will, imparting their intelligence to me, an attentive eavesdropper. 

            Moral Meaning, revealing the Good. I sympathize with these birds’ discomfort and hope. Within my heart, I bear the paradox of distress and trust—that one cannot trust without first encountering distress. This virtue must be started and tested; otherwise, no opening to trust exists. Just as a fractured mirror may reveal a rainbow, the distressed being is given an opportunity to express trust amid doubt; hope rather than cynicism and anger. Jesus prays, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will but yours be done” (Luke 22:42)—and in harmony with Christ, these birds sing. 

            Growth Meaning, revealing the Beautiful. In a state of awe, I am astonished. Beyond our control and presumed self-reliance, there awaits an abundance of God’s care, disclosed to me in this birdsong counterpoint. The Spirit breathed life into each creature’s body at the dawn of time (Genesis 2:7) and sings into being now a compelling and brittle sound, elevating my mind toward immeasurable Beautying. This is an echo of the faultless in the limited, the timeless in the fleeting, the mighty in the fragile. All creation may partake, in diverse ways, in the eternal Word’s suffering, hope, and resurrection. 

Daniel J. Shevock 

Link to the image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fran%C3%A7ois_Lombard_-_Le_Miracle_de_saint_Bonaventure.jpg 
             

Post 153. 

In The Journey of the Mind to God, written in 1259, Bonaventure reasons that the triune deity’s perfect light is imperfectly reflected in creation. The process operates in the same way that a person might be presented with an unfamiliar Mozart symphony or Georgia O’Keefe painting and infer who the artist is, considering elements such as form, texture, color and the like. By examining the natural world, our minds can ascend, as climbing a ladder, to a fundamental consciousness of God. Bonaventure suggests that created things contain vestiges of their creator, and while the creator is eternal, sovereign, and faultless, created things are temporal, contingent, and flawed. I have come to believe these flaws, like cracks in Bonaventure’s mirror, offer unexpected beauty: sunlight, upon entering a prism, diverges into the colors of a rainbow. From one, many. With this in mind, I write this poem:

            Father’s light, alight divine
            Creator, Word, and Spirit, love
            In these fissures, spectral signs
            Mirror broken, image appealing
            A beauty less-than Beauty above
            Word and living Breath and feeling
            Through these fractures, shine, shine, shine!

            In a short essay, Chance, Simone Weil writes: “The vulnerability of precious things is beautiful because vulnerability is a mark of existence.” This suggests that the faults in the mirror are part of the plan of creation. The Father’s creation, ex nihilo, was of existing things. Existing things are vulnerable. This vulnerability is beauty. We seem most vulnerable the cracks in the mirror of ourselves through which we attend to God’s light. Weakness, if we attend to it, can become beautiful sites of understanding.

            When we look at our world today, we cannot avoid noticing its wounds. Standing in a park, the water in this creek must be purified if I would drink it; the trees in this park have been planted in the decades since they were cleared for logging; this soil has remnants of lead, arsenic, and PCBs from the land’s coal and farming history; and my skin must be guarded from the sunshine itself using sunscreen. Yet it is this light through these leaves glowing on this soil by this water where I glimpse residues of my Creator. We aren’t afforded the opportunity to be born in the Garden of Eden, but we remember it in these faults, here.

Daniel Shevock

Link to the image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Red_Canna_(1923)_by_Georgia_O%27Keeffe.png
 

Post 152.  

This week, I read the chapter, Beauty, in the 1952 edition of Brittanica’s Syntopicon, a collection designed by Mortimer Adler and Robert Hutchins at the University of Chicago for a collection called “The Great Books of the Western World.” The idea of a syntopicon, or a collection of topics, is distinctive to Brittanica’s project, though consistent with the ideas of encyclopedias and dictionaries, and is similar with more modern keywords projects, such as books by Raymond Williams, Cary Nelson, Stephen Watt, Evelyn Fox Keller and Elisabeth Lloyd in disciplines like culture, higher education, and evolutionary biology. The syntopicon offers a broad introduction of 100 keywords that are central to Western thought, from the perspective of Western philosophy and literature. Any criticisms more recent scholars pose to eurocentric and androcentric scholarly writing will necessarily be relevant to the Syntopicon, and with that in mind, Syntopicon entries can provide a base understanding of one intellectual tradition’s established understanding of a keyword—in this case, beauty. 

            Beauty is discussed with two other keywords, truth and goodness, but where truth and goodness are most often argued as being objective, beauty is widely, though not univocally, regarded as subjective in the Western intellectual tradition. Some authors, such as William James, have argued for an objective understanding of beauty, while others, such as Immanuel Kant, suggest beauty is a subjective but universal concept. Truth, goodness and beauty together make up the essential transcendentals of the Western tradition. As such, truth, goodness and beauty transcend the material world—you cannot touch or smell or hear truth itself, goodness itself, or beauty itself, but you are able to use these transcendentals as standards by which to judge true things, good things, and beautiful things as true, good, or beautiful. Plato would suggest these are primary ideas that transcend material reality. This idea can be found throughout Western history.

Daniel J. Shevock 

Link to the image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Books.jpg

Post 151. 

This watch, I read the explanation of the Parable of the Sower in the gospel of Mark. In it, the Word is the seed, and we are the soil in which the seed lands. Satan, stealing hope and instigating despair, whispers to me that I am the rocky soil, and that in me the Word is received with joy, but with tribulation and hope for earthly riches my Faith withers and dies. Satan is the prince of lies. This lie works because, despite my growing closer to the Word in my suffering—in my professional failure as an academic, my financial fragility, my oft fruitless workdays, my lack of distinction, and lately in my shoulder pain—I persist in cultivating my marriage with the Lord. Even on days when passion is weak, I have meditated upon scripture, prayed for divine help, and lived as if Christ walks with me.

            Comparison is the thief of joy. It’s an old saying, I suppose, for a reason: It holds truth. Comparison plans a seed of envy, increasing expectation for earthly riches. My expectation of earthly riches does not come in the form of money—certainly capital would be welcomed if the Lord sent it my way—but in earthly riches. Thomas Hardy’s last novel, Jude the Obscure, was originally titled the Simpletons. In it, the poor, rural Jude Fawley teaches himself Latin and some Greek and works hard to gain admittance to Christminster College, dreaming of becoming a scholar, a Doctor of Divinity, and maybe even a bishop. Hardy, the realistic and insightful author, never portrays Jude as faultless—in fact, his faults provide the novel with much of its deepest insights. Often readers of Hardy come to this novel with preconceptions, especially having read Hardy’s previous novels like Tess of the d’Urbervilles, where the pure and inherently noble Tess suffers misfortunes by an unjust society.

            In comparison, Jude is complicated. He misunderstands much of what he reads, is boastful and self-centered, is filled with self-pride and persistent melancholy that leads to worsening of his situation. But is this critique even fair? Does he really worsen his situation from a penniless, unwanted child through his study and hard work, even if he never gains admittance to Christminster, is terrible at relationships, and fails to reach the proverbial stars? One could argue that when you start in a ditch, even if you don’t fully drag yourself from it, you have made some headway in a life of imperfect effort.

            Some have suggested Jude is such a complex character—sometimes likeable but oft unpleasant—because Hardy modeled much of Jude on himself. Hardy was able to clutch the mirror of truth, holding it to himself and scrutinizing every defect and error while grasping only some of his virtues, and those with discernment into how even these are flawed. Many people who lack self-understanding, those today who are ignorant to original sin—at least their own—cannot empathize with Jude. When he, after pulling himself from being nobody, stands in a tavern reciting better than Christminster’s students, he exposes how the alma mater is nothing like the real mother Jude lived without. Hardy was right in changing the name of the novel from the Simpletons to Jude the Obscure, even if it places too much focus on one figure, Jude, and not enough to other interesting characters like Sue and Arabella. To call Jude, Sue, Arabella and the other simpletons, even in their most foolish, idiotic, and oafish instances, misses something important. We are these characters who scheme our successes, fail, hurt those we love most, compromise, and even in compromises fail, hate ourselves, and continue to push on, praying our efforts will one day be fruitful.

            Our efforts never bear fruit, particularly when we were born in a ditch and pull ourselves out. This is because there is an implicit Bible verse that unlocks the mystery of this novel, Ephesians 2:8-9. Paul admonishes Christians that grace is a gift from the Lord, and that we cannot boast about our works, because they cannot save us. Jude, however hard he works, will never overcome the fallen society into which he was born and brutally raised. It is deformed to instill the hope for a golden crown but offers the poor only tin. But never fear because consecrated to the Lord are the poor in spirit (Matthew 5:3). The Christian who was, like Jude, born poor and worked fruitlessly accepts failure in the social world, because it is infused with diabolical iniquities and seemingly beautiful vices.

            Through the grace of the Holy Spirit, hope in that which is undying can replace our defiled hope in acknowledgement, appreciation, and eminence. Love can replace defiled love. Goodness can replace defiled goodness. Truth can replace defiled truth. Beauty can replace defiled beauty. 

Daniel J. Shevock 

Link to the image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hardy_-_Jude_the_Obscure,_1896_(page_163_crop).jpg