Berstein's Pedagogic Device Theory and Formal Music Schooling

Theory Into Practice, 51:212220, 2012

Copyright The College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University

ISSN: 0040-5841 print/1543-0421 online

DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2012.690307

Ruth WrightHildegard Froehlich

Basil Bernsteins Theory of thePedagogic Device and FormalMusic Schooling: Putting theTheory Into Practice

This article describes Basil Bernsteins theory of

the pedagogic device as applied to school music

instruction. Showing that educational practices

are not personal choices alone, but the result

of socio-political mandates, the article traces

how education functions as a vehicle for social

reproduction. Bernstein called this process the

recontextualization of knowledge: From its point

of inception, originally conceived knowledge un-

dergoes changes through selection and filtration

Ruth Wright is Chair of Music Education at the Don

Wright Faculty of Music, University of Western On-

tario; and Hildegard Froehlich is professor emeritus,

in Music Education, at the University of North Texas,

Denton.

Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Ruth

Wright, Don Wright Faculty of Music, Talbot College,

University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A

3K7, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

processes, eventually becoming curriculuma

relay for certain social and cultural values. Gaps

in the recontextualization process allow teach-

ers to place their own individual stamp upon

the learning and teaching that occur in their

classroom. Teacherpupil interactions, guided by

school-internal processes, lead to school knowl-

edge that is further reproduced by the pupils

in particular ways. A teachers awareness of

socially conditioned and habitual patterns of

preference and behavior (habitus) may be key

to making socially inclusive and emancipatory

instructional choices.

THREE INCIDENTS, SHORTENED FROM

Froehlich and Johnson (2008), set the tone

for the questions guiding this article. Although

212

Wright and Froehlich Basil Bernsteins Theory and Formal Music Schooling

the stories are about verbal discourse in the

classroom, they are also about power, ownership

of knowledge, and rules of conduct as a reflection

of political mandates in education, issues raised

by numerous sociologists, socio-linguists, and

critical pedagogues everywhere over the past 50

years. This article, however, is devoted exclu-

sively to Basil Bernstein (19242000), British

socio-linguist and educator, whose theoretical

framework, named by him the pedagogic device,

seems especially well suited to illuminate the

concerns raised by the stories. Surprisingly, his

work does not seem to be well known among

many music educators in the United States.

Story 1

After music class, 40 second-graders are lined

up two-by-two in the music room, waiting for

their homeroom teacher. In accordance with a

schoolwide policy, the music teacher gives out

stickers for those children who stand quietly. She

also gives out pops to especially well-behaved

children. Two children are still running all over

the place, refusing to line up as instructed. As

is her practice, the teacher points to the well-

behaving students and says, I like the way

Johnny is standing so quietly. Wow! Johnny, you

pick your favorite one of these really cool bug

stickers. To this, Jason, one of the out-of-control

boys, calmly but loudly responds, Johnny wears

pantyhose while looking straight ahead and

continuing to stand well out of line. Two worlds

of discourse had clashed.

Story 2

Ms. J was always intent on wanting her stu-

dents to understand that they were in an environ-

ment where it was okay to share their feelings

about music in many ways. Encouraging them to

express themselves freely, she reminded them of-

ten that it was okay to speak their minds and ask

questions. One day, after a music-listening expe-

rience in which some students had really dug into

their innermost feelings and shared them with

the class, a strong sense of camaraderie seemed

to emerge. All were laughing about something

that one of the students had saidone of those

teaching moments all teachers long for. At that

instance, one of sheer pleasure for Ms. J, Marcus

raised his hand and, when called on, asked, Miss

Johnson, how old are you? Immediately feeling

uncomfortable with answering the question, she

answered Marcus, thats not something you ask

a teacher. A hierarchy of power was solidified.

Story 3

In a music lesson about the major orchestral

instrument familieswoodwinds (flute, clarinet,

oboe, and bassoon); brass (trumpet, trombone,

horn, and tuba); strings (violin, viola, cello, and

bass); and percussion (timpani, snare drum, xy-

lophone, and bass drum)the students are asked

to summarize what they have learned. Ms. J asks,

Who can name one instrument you heard from

the woodwind family? Tim responds, Clarinet.

Ms. J says, Good, now name one instrument

from the string family. Alexis, very interested

in classical music from a young age and having

studied on her own, raises her hand and, when

called on, says, Harp. Although correct, Ms. J.

had not mentioned harp, nor was she planning

on talking about it. Her response, therefore, is,

Alexis, how about a stringed instrument that

we have talked about? An opportunity to affirm

Alexiss own knowledge base had been missed.

The Questions

Why was Alexiss effort to connect her world

of musical knowledge with that of school music

knowledge (Story 3) downplayed, rather than

elevated to a moment of genuine student-initiated

instruction? What is the teachers role in turning

real-life knowledge into school knowledge? Or,

as often asked by Bernstein himself, why does

what is taught under the label of wood shop differ

so very much from the parent discipline of car-

pentry? In academic terms: How does knowledge

as originally generated (primary knowledge) turn

213

Education in and Through Music

into something different, once filtered through

curricular decisions and classroom realities (re-

contextualized knowledge)?

How primary knowledge is turned into recon-

textualized school knowledge, music included,

should be considered central to any pedagogic

theory that looks at instructional methods in the

context of subject matter. For each school subject,

selections are made about the what and how of in-

struction that impact what the students take away

as seemingly impartial (and complete) knowl-

edge. The selection process occurs at several

levels of decision making, and thereby changes

(recontextualizes) what once was discovered and

first articulated as original knowledge away from

compulsory education of all kinds. What happens

in various research settings or musicians studios

is generally far removed from doing math, music,

or social studies in school. Rarely, for instance,

do students get encouraged to think like a math-

ematician, musician, or historian.

Bernstein explanatory framework (the ped-

agogic device) claims as the main function of

education the reproduction, rather than a change,

of society. It portrays the mechanism by which

such reproduction occurs and virtually ensures

that school knowledge is never transmitted in

isolation from norms and values condoned and

propagated by dominant societal groups. Curric-

ular choices and instructional practices are not

personal predilections alone, but also the result

of socio-political mandates and demands.

Viewing music education through Bernsteins

theoretical lens, we believe that important ques-

tions are raised concerning how and by whom

primary knowledge is selected to become the

curricular subject matter of music. The queries,

easily applicable to other school subjects, reach

into issues of educational policies and politics;

that is, matters pertaining, in large part, to self-

interests among educators and those in control

of school policies. Challenging questions then

arise concerning (a) the curriculum presented

to pupils, (b) the pupils images of worth and

self-worth in relation to such curriculum con-

tent, and (c) teachers views of themselves as

autonomous decision-makers and/or reframers of

knowledge.

The political nature of pedagogic discourse

may be exemplified by who selects what, for

what purpose, and under what circumstances?

Who is qualified to call others a musician (or

mathematician, etc.) or musical (mathematically

gifted)? What knowledge and skills do and do

not count as being worthy of school instruction?

Whether knowingly or not, school and higher

education teachers are integral to answering those

questions by the decisions they make. Examining

the extent to which teacher culture and habitus

(that with which we are familiar) predetermine

the form and content of those choices leads to

implications for future teacher education.

Applied to music education practices, one

wonders: From all the music there is in existence,

what becomes selected and authorized as the con-

tent for music education in schools? How does

this selection process occur? What values are

condoned or rejected by that process? What are

the effects in the classroom? Any and all of these

questions lead to examining the processes by

which the self-interests of musicians, educators,

music educators, and those in control of school

policies connect to or interfere with students

interests.

Bernsteins Theory of the

Pedagogic Device

Keeping with his lifelong commitment to re-

searching what constituted barriers to upward

social mobility, Bernstein took his earlier insights

into social class, language codes, and school

learning (Bernstein 1971, 1973a, 1973b) and

raised general questions of pedagogic communi-

cation as a crucial medium of symbolic control

(Bernstein, 1996, p. 12). Adopting Bourdieus

concepts of field and habitus, Bernstein explored

the relationship of educational fields to the field

of power to understand the social processes

whereby consciousness and desire are given

specific forms, evaluated, distributed, challenged

and changed (p. 12). Substituting the word

knowledge for Bourdieus phrase consciousness

and desire, Bernstein asked (a) how general

knowledge becomes an educational form of that

214


knowledge, and (b) what happens to it along the

way that, at the end, the text is no longer the

same text (Bernstein, 1990, p. 57)?

The pedagogic device:

Acts as a symbolic regulator of consciousness;

the question is, whose regulator, what con-

sciousness, and for whom? It is a condition for

the production, reproduction, and transforma-

tion of culture. However, the device is not deter-

ministic in its consequences. The effectiveness

of the device is limited by two different features.

(Bernstein, 2000, pp. 3738)

To explain both features, the internal and

the external, Bernstein outlined a three-level,

multilayered system of rules and forms of dis-

course, knowledge, social relations, power, and

consciousness. As detailed in the following, the

pedagogic device links them to each other in

nondeterministic ways. The internal and exter-

nal conditions of the device make possible the

transformation of power at various stages of

knowledge production and acquisition in differ-

ent ways.

Linking linguistic rules to cultural and contex-

tual influences, Bernstein asserted that language

is never neutral (see Story 2: Marcus was re-

minded that he should speak differently to his

teacher than to his friends or family members).

Rather, language possesses internal rules that

regulate the communication at the same time that

it makes the communication possible. In a similar

manner then, the pedagogic device is a series of

rules that regulate the pedagogic communication

it makes possible (Davies, 2006, p. 4). Not

ideologically neutral, the pedagogic device may

act selectively on potential pedagogic mean-

ings (Davies, 2006, p. 4.). It becomes a ruler of

consciousness (Davies, 2006) and governs school

instruction at all levels.

Both Bourdieu (e.g., 1984) and Bernstein

asserted that schools exist to do it over, that

is, to reproduce knowledge and culture and,

thereby, solidify existing class relations. Curricu-

lum debates, seen in this light, are, in large

measure, struggles for cultural dominance (see

also Green, 2008: Shepherd & Vulliamy, 1994;

Wright, 2010). Dominant classes seek to imprint

their worldviews or, in Bourdieus terms, their

habitus, upon the rest of society. Culture is

used in pursuit of social and political control or

hegemony; in some measure those who own the

curriculum own society: They attempt to define

the thinkable or legitimate knowledge by the

choices they allow and the rules they set.

Rules That Govern School Instruction

Three stable and hierarchical sets of rules

distributive, recontextualizing, and evaluative

determine which approved knowledge is being

selected, changed, authorized, and confirmed to

become transmitted, through education, to so-

ciety at large. Bernstein saw the rules to both

confirm and reproduce the interests of the dom-

inant social groups; see Figure 1) because the

rules reflect the culture of which they are a part;

sociologically, they are field-dependent.

Figure 1. The Pedagogic Device (after Bernstein,

1996). (color figure available online)

215


Distributive rules regulate knowledge. They

do this by governing who transmits what to

whom and under what circumstances. Increas-

ingly controlled by the state in many societies,

the rules regulate who is allowed to produce

knowledge and how such knowledge is grouped

into disciplines (e.g., the Fine Arts, Humanities,

or Natural Sciences). That classification results in

what becomes thinkable knowledge. That which

is excluded becomes the unthinkable knowledge.

An example from the world of music education

would be the process described by Wright (2010)

of selecting the content of the National Curricu-

lum for Music in the UK: Who was allowed

to participate in these processes? Whose vested

interests were represented and protected during

the curriculum selection process? And, just as

important, whose interests were omitted from

such considerations?

Recontextualizing rules derive from distribu-

tive rules and form the link between originally

produced knowledge and its transmission through

education. They govern the process by which

knowledge is removed from its original site

of production and turned into something else:

the educational subject (or school) version of

that knowledgethe pedagogic discourse. Three

basic elementstime, text, and spaceimpact

that discourse: Timelines become operationalized

in terms of age and grade groupings; text be-

comes subject matter with credit hour allotments;

and space issues turn into matters of location

and availability. When these elements legitimize

knowledge recontextualization, Bernstein (1996)

noted what he termed the potential discursive

gap (p. 30).

Two sets of actors contribute to that discursive

gap: (a) members of the government (or state)

with its agents and offices; and (b) individual

teachers, universities, subject journals, teacher

educators, private research groups, and textbook

publishers. Bernstein labelled the first group the

Official Recontextualizing Field (ORF, empha-

sis ours) and the second group the Pedagogic

Recontextualizing Field (PRF, emphasis ours).

Both groups, each of them powerful, struggle to

control education by selecting subject content,

sequencing of knowledge, pacing of instruction,

and advocating a prevailing pedagogic theory.

Note, for example, the current initiative of the

National Key Stage 3 Strategy for Music (Eng-

land), to all intents and purposes a state-authored

pedagogic manual for the teaching of music in

schools to 11- to 14-year-olds. We see here

the English government attempting to exercise

control over all aspects of music education, right

down to lesson planning and pedagogic strategies

in the classroom.

Evaluative rules are the key to pedagogic

practice (Bernstein, 1996, p. 47). Evaluation

rules are in operation throughout all levels of the

pedagogic device and have increasingly been ap-

propriated by the federal or state government(s)

not only in the UK but also in the United States.

Music education has witnessed such struggles

over whether to test musical skills nationally and,

if so, what skills should be tested (Woodford,

2011).

Moreover, state and federal agencies increas-

ingly seek to control the evaluative criteria

by which acquired knowledge is tested across

schools. Representatives of the ORF and PRF

use evaluative rules when they filter thinkable

knowledge further by making additional curric-

ular choices that represent school knowledge. A

teacher, too, employs evaluative rules by stress-

ing what, in her own mind, is or is not important

for her pupils to learn. Evaluation rules within a

school thus govern even further the reproduction

of previously recontextualized knowledge. This

explains why not all teachers do cover music

curriculum content equally. Each of them decides

anew what is good, bad, worthy of their time, or

a waste of time.

Instructional and Regulatory Discourse

At different levels of decision making, various

agents select the what and how of curricular con-

tent. Pedagogic discourse, therefore, is affected

by ideology and, like language, never neutral.

Bernstein (2000) identified two separate forces

in operation in the classroom, which he called

216


instructional and regulative discourse, respec-

tively. Instructional discourse creates tangible

skills and knowledge within particular school

subjects, whereas regulative discourse controls

relations between all actors, creating social order

and constructing identities. Stories 1 and 2 at

the beginning of this article speak to regulative

discourse in a music teachers daily teaching

routine. The second story, in particular, illus-

trates that we, as educators, send to students

conflicting messages about who controls whom

and why. We try to give the students the illusion

that we are free and open to them expressing

themselves, but we pull back when hidden codes

of power are violated (Froehlich & Johnson,

2008).

Emphasizing that regulative discourse is al-

ways dominant over instructional discourse,

Bernstein (2000) visualized their relationship as

follows:

INSTRUCTIONAL DISCOURSE

REGULATIVE DISCOURSE

ID

RD

The link between instructional and regulative

discourses forms the pedagogic discourse. Not

distinguishing between transmission of skills and

what educators tend to call the transmission

of values (Bernstein, 2000, p. 32), Bernstein

emphasized that pedagogic discourse lies out-

side the official instructional content but carries

equal, if not more, weight. It is the secret voice

disguising that two elements, content and value

transmission, are at work. The two elements of

teaching become one.

Pedagogic discourse as defined by Bernstein,

then, is: (A) Discourse without a discourse. It

seems to have no discourse of its own. Ped-

agogic discourse is not physics, chemistry or

psychology. Whatever it is, it cannot be identi-

fied with the discourses it transmits (Bernstein,

2000, p. 32). Figure 2 is an overview of these

processes in application to music as a curricular

subject.

The Theory of the Pedagogic Device

Applied to Music Education Practice

Applying Bernsteins theory of the pedagogic

device to music schooling in compulsory educa-

tion, three related issues become clear: (a) Cur-

ricular choices in music education can never

be more than recontextualized knowledge and

skills in and about music, (b) the recontextualiza-

tion processes are manifestations of power and

control by certain social groups, and (c) music

schooling is the result of class- and code-specific

educational practices (Wright, 2007). The three

issues are equally central to the sociological

study of music as a curriculum subject.

Bernsteins theory also points to the fact that

music teachers decisions are limited by the

choices available to them in particular instruc-

tional contexts, the latter of which are influenced

by forces outside the control of teachers and stu-

dents alike. Pedagogic practices across teachers

and schools, however, are unique as well. Indeed,

despite formal curricular guides, either national

or local, that seek to unify pedagogic discourse in

music, instructional practices vary from school to

school and teacher to teacher (Woodford, 2011;

Wright, 2010). They are the micro forces at play

while the larger outside (macro) forces set their

limits and parameters of choices.

The dialectic between macro controls and

micro framing needs further attention by socio-

logical research in music education. In particular,

insights are needed about the recontextualiza-

tion processes concerning the music curricula

at all levelsfrom local to state/federal levels.

At the macro-level, we need well-researched

insights into whether pupils from diverse social

groups perceive discrepancies between school

knowledge and life knowledge in fundamentally

different ways and, if so, how? How do such per-

ceptions either facilitate or hinder the learning of

subject matter on the one hand and a pupils own

values and everyday knowledge on the other?

Concerning teachers in the role as recontext-

ualizers of knowledge, do they perceive of them-

selves as autonomous decision-makers and/or

reframers of knowledge? If so, how do they nego-

217


Figure 2. The process of recontextualizing original knowledge. (color figure available online)

tiate issues of time, text, and space in light of

their own knowledge base of music content and

values? Finally, if aware of their role as recon-

textualizers of knowledge in andaboutmusic,what

concerns do teachers voice about the processes

in place? Do they see themselves in full charge

of repertoire choices and other content matters in

the curriculum? What and whose values do they

see as being condoned or rejected through the

curriculum choices they make or agree to? What

are the effects of such choices on pupils learning?

Outlook

Bernstein raised awareness about the relation-

ship between representatives of the ORF and

the PRF. Those relationships, likely different for

each nation state, impact how school knowledge

comes about and is presented to generations of

students. Presently, school music in the United

States has not been designated federally as a

required curricular subject at all levels of school-

ing. Should that happen, federal, state, and re-

gional education accreditation boardsall part of

the ORFwould be deeply involved in the artic-

ulation of curricular requirements everywhere in

the country. Thus, educational policy decisions

controlled by the ORF would profoundly im-

pact the articulation of music teacher education

programs at the state and local level. Would

such changes also affect policies of the National

Association of Schools of Music and set the

boundaries of musical and academic skills and

knowledge deemed most necessary to meet the

demands by ORF representatives?

218


Presently, the absence of an explicit national

curriculum for music in the United States affords

potentially more autonomy to agents of the PRF.

As a result, regional partnerships between local

organizations could implement music educational

policies that are sanctioned jointly by musicians,

music educators, community music centers, ad-

vocacy groups, professional organizations, and

business leaders. Nationwide partnerships, on the

other hand, likely put together by representatives

of the ORF, might tend to exclude as possible

dialogue partners any social groups far removed

from the interests of those in power at the federal

or state level.

Consequences for Action

We emphasize here what has been asserted be-

fore (e.g., Al-Ramahi & Davies, 2001; Thomas &

Davies, 2006): Whether by choice or not, school

and higher education teachers play a role in

the recontextualization of music knowledge and

skills whenever they make musical or pedagogic

choices. Each music teachers culture and that

with which she is familiar (habitus) predetermine

the form and content of those choices.

For music education, then, the message seems

clear: Neither specific knowledge nor acquired

skills are ever neutral; they always carry hid-

den values and cultural preferences. The choices

toward which music educators presently teach

are predicated on an unspoken mandate by those

in positions to exercise control over curriculum

content and formation to perpetuate a particular

form of musical capital as valued knowledge.

The question is whether representatives of groups

who historically have been excluded from deci-

sions about school curricula share in the view

that such knowledge is, indeed, valuable.

To find an answer to that question, one per-

haps should look, first, at the education routes

offered in music teachers professional prepara-

tion. What habitus do prospective music teachers

reflect and how does it relate to the dominant

culture? What adjustments would be required

in the preparation of music teachers to make

them (a) aware of their habitus, and (b) willing

to override it by pedagogic decisions that are

in the best interest of those students who, by

their upbringing, do not share in the dominant

ideology?

Second, teachers would need to be sensitized

to read curriculum and policy documents with

awareness that no document is ever free of

messages of power and control. Analysis of the

messages underlying such documents and the

development of the ability to critically evaluate

policy prior to implementation are skills that

might usefully be developed during teacher pro-

fessional preparation and development.

Finally, and perhaps most important, not only

are teachers recipients of recontextualized knowl-

edge but they also are recontextualizers of knowl-

edge. In that role, and especially in music, they

have the ability to control to some extent what

Bernstein (1996) called the discursive gap that

operates at each level of the recontextualization

process. By envisioning a site : : : for alternative

possibilities : : : the site for the unthinkable,

the site for the impossible (Bernstein, 1996,

p. 30), future music educators should perhaps be

encouraged to work in the gap that lies between

the thinkable and unthinkable knowledge. Such

action could have the potential to reach a much

broader range of pupils through music education

than is currently the case. For them and their

students, and thus for music education as a

whole, exciting and emancipatory possibilities

may lie ahead!

References

Al-Ramahi, N., & Davies, B. (2001). Changing pri-

mary education in Palestine: Pulling in several di-

rections at once. International Studies in Sociology

of Education, 12, 159176.

Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control, Vol. 1:

Theoretical studies towards sociology of language.

London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Bernstein, B. (1973a). Class and pedagogies: Visible

and invisible. Paris: OECD, CERI.

Bernstein, B. (Ed.). (1973b). Class, codes and control,

Vol. 2: Applied studies towards a sociology of

language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

219


Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic dis-

course: Vol. IV. Class, codes, and control. London:

Routledge.

Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and

identity: Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor

and Francis.

Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and

identity: Theory, research, critique (Rev. ed.). Lan-

ham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of

the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Davies, B. (2006). Understanding policy, understand-

ing pedagogic discourse. In J. Fitz, B. Davies,

& J. Evans (Eds.), Educational policy and social

reproduction class inscription and symbolic control

(pp. 115). London: Routledge.

Froehlich, H., & Johnson, L. (2008). Silent messages,

loud and clear: Toward cracking the code within

the hidden curriculum in the music classroom.

In B. A. Roberts (Ed.), Sociological explorations.

Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on

the Sociology of Music (pp. 121136). St. Johns,

Canada: Binders Press.

Shepherd, J., & Vulliamy, G. (1994). The struggle

for culture: A sociological case study of the de-

velopment of a national music curriculum. British

Journal of Sociology of Education 15, 2740.

Thomas, E., & Davies, B. (2006). Nurse teachers

knowledge in curriculum planning and implemen-

tation. Nurse Education Today, 26, 572577.

Woodford, P. (Ed.). (2011). Re-thinking standards for

the twenty-first century: New realities, new chal-

lenges, new propositions. Studies in Music from the

University of Western Ontario, 23, 91108.

Wright, R. M. (2007). Music, educational equity and

social justice: A case study. Finnish Journal of

Music Education, 9, 618.

Wright, R. M. (2010). Sociology and music education.

Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Press.

220

Copyright of Theory Into Practice is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied oremailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Berstein's Pedagogic Device Theory and Formal Music Schooling

Documents

Transcript of Berstein's Pedagogic Device Theory and Formal Music Schooling