MARJA HEIMONEN
University of the Arts Helsinki (Finland)

MARIA WESTVALL
University College of Music Education in Stockholm (SMI) (Sweden)

November 2025

Published in Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 24 (6): 89–113 [pdf]. https://doi.org/10.22176/act24.6.89

---

Abstract: In this article, the authors examine the interconnections between the potential roles of music and arts education in people’s lives and social contexts. How can contemporary society act as a democratic learning space for music and other arts in an era of extensive societal challenges? Following an exposition of the Nordic context, the authors delve into learning and education through the lens of transitions in music education, guiding readers from critical pedagogy to counter-critical pedagogy. The discussion addresses the current era, an era marked by insecurity and fear—yet also hope—and examines its implications for citizenship and artistic citizenship education. The concept of artizenship is introduced, wherein artistry and citizenry are viewed as interconnected practices. In conclusion, the authors advocate for a novel educational approach, artizenship education, which underscores the potential of society as a democratic learning space for music and other arts, fostering hope for the future.

Keywords: Artizenship, artistic citizenship, democratic learning spaces, music education

---

In this article, we (the authors) examine the interconnections between the potential roles of music and arts education as a means for co-existence in contemporary society, “in dialogue” with Thomas A. Regelski. This examination includes themes related to society as a democratic learning space, as well as other significant contemporary topics regarding justice, fear, hope (e.g., Nussbaum 2019), and values in music education (e.g., Jorgensen 2021; Silverman 2024). Furthermore, the authors elaborate on the concept of artizenship as suggested by Charles Carson and Maria Westvall (2024), which emphasizes the practice-related and relational aspects in and of the arts. We (the authors) suggest that an examination of society as a generic context for arts education can contribute to a wider discussion on the arts as a fundamental component of a welfare society. The context of our article is partially rooted in the Nordic region, where arts education has long been an integral part of cultural politics. This is the environment in which we (the authors) live, work, and conduct research, and it was also the home of Thomas A. Regelski for more than 20 years (Väkevä, Ojala and Heimonen 2024). Regelski cherished this region and critically engaged with and sought to advance music education, asking “Why teach music?” (Regelski 1996, 1998, 2009, 2010, 2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b). Therefore, we aim to thoroughly explain this context for international readers, for, as Thomas Regelski noted, the same questions are highly relevant globally.

The approach could be characterized as analytical and hermeneutical (Heimonen 2010), grounded in research across music education and artistic citizenship (Carson and Westvall 2024; Westvall and Carson 2025; Narita 2024; Qi 2024; Achieng’ Akuno and Westvall 2024; Silverman 2024; Elliott, Silverman and Bowman 2016; Elliott 2012; Turino 2016) and philosophy (e.g., Jorgensen 2021; Nussbaum 2019). Our principal research question is: How can contemporary society act as a democratic learning space for music and other arts in a time of extensive societal challenges?

The Nordic Context

The Nordic welfare states have traditionally prioritized the well-being of their citizens as grounded in values of fairness and solidarity. The Swedish model of Folkhemmet (the home of the people) is a metaphor for a robust, well-functioning society that operates like a “household,” where everyone also contributes as an active citizen. Consequently, a welfare state is characterized by its support for the so-called weaker sectors of society, aiming to create more equitable living conditions for all (Khayati and Dahlstedt 2014; Nordvall 2005; Pripp and Westvall 2020).

The strong engagement in social movements and popular education in the Nordic countries has been closely linked to the formation of welfare state principles. Public finances have supported healthcare, basic and secondary education, and university education, not only for national students but also for students from EU countries. However, there has been a recent trend towards reducing these welfare amenities. For instance, the right-wing government in Finland is decreasing financial support for health services, university education, and social security due to increasing state debt incurred to cover public expenses. This economic insecurity and the potential decline in living standards may instill strong insecurity and, in some cases, fear in individuals today (Rajavuori 2024).

The Nordic welfare states are founded on the rule of law and are said to be built on theories of social justice such as John Rawls’ (1972) Justice as Fairness. The ideas of democratic discursive processes presented in social contract theories, such as Jürgen Habermas’s deliberative democracy and communicative action, have also been applied to music education in Sweden and Finland (Bladh and Heimonen 2007). These processes emphasize argumentation among equals and the ideal of the best argument prevailing. However, scholars such as Martha Nussbaum (2019) and Marissa Silverman (2024) have raised concerns about whether the voices of all individuals, including minorities and women, are genuinely acknowledged in practice. Silverman (2024) discusses care and feminist ethics, along with dialogical ethics as articulated by Martin Buber (2004), positioning them as critiques of the prominent social contract theories of justice developed by “white men” like Rawls (1972) and Habermas (1985). Silverman (2024) argues that these theories often overlook the perspectives of women and asserts that the ethics of care as proposed by Nel Noddings (1986), for instance, takes greater account of individual needs.

Politics and education, including arts education, are consequently closely interconnected in Nordic societies. The core curricula are formulated by national agencies and serve as the foundation for local and school curricula. Traditionally, democratic goals have been highly central to public education in the Nordic countries (see for instance SOU 2022:28). Nevertheless, this indisputable focus on democracy as a main pillar of education seems to be gradually receiving less attention recently in favor of an increased focus on subject knowledge, cognitive science, and practical methods.

Governments in the Nordic Region, elected democratically, typically influence the legislation governing educational institutions and the design of national core curricula by setting educational aims in the government program (e.g., HE 212/2024). Following democratic parliamentary elections, a new government is formed based on political success. This implies that the aims and resources of education may change according to the elected authorities. Generally, right-wing governments emphasize individual freedom and academic subjects, while left-wing governments focus on communal values.

Nordic cultural politics reflect both social realities and political ideologies that have emerged alongside the development of the Nordic welfare states. These policies have in many respects become tools for enhancing welfare and well-being while also serving other societal functions. Specifically, art and cultural policies have been viewed as promoting aesthetic values in society. In parallel to this approach, participation in, and the production of, various and diverse forms of culture have also been promoted as an attempt to promote equality over the past 50 years. The autonomy of the arts sector has long been central to culture politics, with an emphasis on the “arm’s length principle,” which highlights that the role of cultural politics is to create conditions for cultural activities and expressions, without controlling the content (Norden, Kulturanalys, 2017).

Following an era of “cultural democratization,” when so-called high-quality art was intentionally made more accessible to people regardless of their socioeconomic background, the concept of “culture democracy” became a cornerstone in culture politics during the 1970s. More participatory and multi-faceted aspects of culture were increasingly considered by the politicians and the public, and community-based cultural initiatives were also politically encouraged, as well as various expressions of everyday culture, which gained greater acknowledgment as forms of artistic and cultural expression. One consequence of these cultural-political efforts was that arts and culture were increasingly seen not just as valuable for their own sake, but also as assets for achieving social and political goals. From the 1980s onwards, so-called commercial culture was no longer as politically questioned as it had been during the 1970s. Instead, the commercial market also became more central to cultural life as well as an important element of international recognition, and economic success was seen as a legitimate sign of “high artistic quality.” For instance, the “Swedish Music Miracle” is a concept that highlighted the international significance of Swedish songwriters, producers, and performers, and it was defined as an important trade “export.” At the same time, this “miracle” was often connected with the outcomes of community-based music education in local music schools and leisure time centers (Westvall 2007; Svenska institutet 2025). Consequently, several rationalities and discourses now coexist within Nordic cultural politics, making it quite varied (Norden, Kulturanalys, 2017, 22–23).

Current problems

Several generations have now experienced an era of enhanced societal well-being and improved living conditions. Sociologist Hartmut Rosa (2018) critiqued the entrenched notions of modern institutional life in Western societies that rely on economic growth, technical acceleration, planning, and the medical-technological control of human life. However, the lived experiences of people today, across various age groups, are marked by distressing challenges such as environmental and eco-social crises caused by human activities (Foster and Sutela 2024; Piispa 2018), wars, and pandemics such as COVID-19 (Jorgensen 2021, 3). These issues, often referred to as “wicked problems” (Westerlund 2023), consist of interdependent elements that many perceive as unsolvable. Consequently, they induce fear and hinder continuous development, in turn affecting the steady rise in living standards, which modern Western societies have assumed as a premise for many generations up until now (Niemelä and Laaninen 2024; Rajavuori 2024; Rosa 2018). Understandably, many individuals may become anxious if living standards appear to stagnate or decline, and when they realize that the global ecological system may be destroyed by human activities.

Additionally, the world is moving towards “a time of surprises, contradictions, and conflicts” (Dufva and Rekola 2023), which also induces fear in human beings. Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman (2007) discussed “liquid fear,” a fear directed towards something formless in the uncertain contemporary social context. This type of fear, encompassing both humans and non-humans, was the theme of the University of the Arts Helsinki artists’ exhibition in 2024 titled “Liquid Fear,” referring to Bauman (2007) and addressing “wavering tensions and contradictions” (Lumme 2024). Philosopher Martha Nussbaum also explored fear in uncertain times, along with its connections to hope, in her work Politics of Fear (2019). We will delve further into her ideas in the following section.

On Fear and Hope in an Era of Insecurity

In Politics of Fear, Nussbaum (2019) discussed how individuals fear losing their future and the dreams they hold for themselves and their loved ones. In a similar vein Rosa (2018) asserted that the improving lives of future generations is no longer guaranteed in contemporary Western societies. These phenomena may amplify scapegoating, toxic envy, and visions of revenge (Nussbaum 2019).

Fear is described as primitive, asocial, and narcissistic (Nussbaum 2019). “It drives out all thoughts of others, even if those thoughts have taken root in some form” (Nussbaum 2019, 29). It takes away concern for others and relates to the helplessness of infants, whereas compassion is outward-oriented and relates to social networks. Nussbaum (2019) referred to Donald E. Winnicott (2007), who posited that primitive fear relates to the helplessness of babies and children, who need a “facilitating environment” to flourish and show concern for others. This suggests that the personal and political environments in which children grow are closely connected to and inseparable from the beginning of life (Nussbaum 2019). In addition, fear regarding environmental degradation is prevalent in our contemporary global society (Jorgensen 2021, 3).

We assert that it is the fundamental task and objective of all educators to foster a learning environment devoid of fear. In such environments, education is perceived as a transformative process, wherein children and youth evolve into individuals with “a voice of their own” (Rosa 2018, 91) through a process of enculturation, “whereby the beliefs and practices that constitute a culture are transmitted and transformed from one generation to the next” (Jorgensen 2021, 7). The Greek term paideia originally encompassed both the concepts of education and culture, although “its modern interpretation is emphatically transformational” (Jorgensen 2021, 7). Educators aim to develop their students into critically acting and thinking citizens capable of transforming society and improving the world, as advocated also by Regelski (1996, 1998, 2009, 2010, 2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b, 2016). Additionally, in Democracy and Education, Dewey (2004) emphasized the significance of viewing schools as microcosms of society, where students learn to coexist, solve problems, and respect diverse perspectives. This approach is essential for all democratic societies and learning spaces.  

In an era of fear, Nussbaum (2019, 220) emphasized a hopeful future, arguing that hope empowers human beings to resist the detrimental effects of fear, fostering a more inclusive and empathetic society. According to Nussbaum, the following five practices promote hope and, concurrently, democracy: 1) Music, poetry, and other art; 2) Critical thinking, schools, universities; 3) Solidarity groups, dialogical ways of acting; 4) Religious groups if they use peaceful practices for love and respect; 5) Theories of justice. As a specialist in literature, Nussbaum (2019, 225) writes extensively about hope and literature. In addition to literature promoting hope, she mentions other arts as well, such as making music and engaging in artistic activities together, as mentioned above. Nussbaum stresses the importance of experiences of action in which people are active and kinetic, such as acting in a play together. She also emphasizes seeing beauty and doing something beautiful together.

Nussbaum (2019, 221) proposed some solutions to overcoming fear and its negative effects on society. Firstly, she emphasized the importance of hope as a counterbalance to fear, since hope can empower individuals and communities to resist fear and its manifestations, fostering a more inclusive and empathetic society. Secondly, by encouraging compassion and understanding towards others, individuals can mitigate the divisive effects of fear, since compassion helps bridge gaps between different groups and thus promotes social cohesion. Thirdly, she advocated active participation in democratic processes, since engaging in constructive political deliberation and civic activities can help individuals feel more empowered. Fourthly, she highlighted the role of education in overcoming fear; since education fosters critical thinking and encourages individuals to question and understand their emotions, it can also reduce the irrational aspects of fear. Fifthly, she promoted building trust in institutions, because strengthening trust in democratic institutions and the rule of law can help alleviate fear; when people have confidence in their institutions, they are less likely to feel powerless and fearful.

Nussbaum (2019) endeavored to cultivate a society characterized by resilience and optimism, thereby equipping it to effectively confront the multifaceted challenges engendered by fear. She also introduced a sixth practice for hope: citizenship—national service to bring young people into close contact with people of different races, ages, economic and social levels, etc. This could be interpreted as everyday practice citizenship, connected to artizenship (Carson and Westvall 2024) and to hope, which is part of Narita’s reasoning (2024, 19) as a Freirean music teacher-educator: to be able to change in dialogue with others, and to become more human.

Learning or Education? Transitions in Music Education

Changes in the objectives of music education are often intertwined with the prevailing educational values in societies. For instance, the transition from behaviorism, which views learning as a change in observable behavior caused by external stimuli, to constructivism in music education reflects a move towards more student-centered learning approaches (López-Íñiguez et al. 2022). Behaviorism, with its focus on reinforcement and punishment in shaping student behavior and learning outcomes, has been supplanted by constructivism, which emphasizes the active role of learners in constructing their own understanding and knowledge through experiences. This transition, also evident in Regelski’s (1981, 1986) work on action learning in the 1980’s, underscores the importance of practical engagement and hands-on activities in fostering deeper learning and skill acquisition in music education. As Joseph Shively (2015, 128) argued, “constructivism, as a theory of learning, has taken on an increasingly important role in music education.” In her 2017 work, Guadalupe López-Íñiguez advocated for the application of constructivist principles in music education. She emphasized such a constructivist approach for instrumental music instructors to foster equality between students and teachers and to enhance student-centered learning in music education. Moreover, ethics of care has been highlighted in a wide range of music education practices to nurture students’ well-being (López-Íñiguez and Westerlund 2023; Silverman 2024).

In addition, music education in the Nordic countries has expanded its focus from an exclusive emphasis on Western art music to include diverse musical traditions. This expansion acknowledges the cultural specificity of musical practices and promotes a more inclusive and representative curriculum. By recognizing the intrinsic worth of a wide range of musical genres, educators can foster a greater appreciation for musical diversity and intercultural dialogue that encourages students to explore a wide range of musical expressions (Carson and Westvall 2016; Thomson 2024). Popular music is now favored in general music education (Georgii-Hemming and Westvall 2010; Kallio 2015; Koskela 2022), and critical pedagogy, even activism, has been interpreted to be part of Nordic music education (Ferm Thorgersen, Brinck, Kvaal, and Thorgersen 2015; Westerlund and Heimonen 2015). Regelski (1996) underscored the potential of critical pedagogy and praxial philosophy in his article “Prolegomenon to a Praxial Philosophy of Music and Music Education,” published in the first issue of the Finnish Journal of Music Education (FJME). The ideas articulated in his article—for instance, the assertion that “Praxially, music is ‘good time’” (36)—draw upon the author’s earlier explorations of action learning in the 1980s. This publication served as a foundational text for his subsequent body of work. Just two years later, in 1998, the same journal featured his influential article, “Schooling for Musical Praxis.” Further contributing to the discourse, Regelski (2009) published a column titled “Music as Praxis: Some Implications for Teachers” in the 2009 special issue of the FJME, which focused on history of music education. Moreover, his “Culturalism, Multi-Culturalism, and Multi-Musical Prosperity” published in the 2010 special issue on multicultural music education of the FJME stressed the importance of “culture as praxis.” According to Regelski (2010, 96), “Many of the problems of multiculturalism are overcome when social (not cultural) pluralism is stressed.”

The trend to emphasize popular music and promote informal learning seems to stress the importance of authenticity in musical experiences. Informal learning, characterized by self-directed and peer-based activities, aims to allow students to engage in music in more natural and meaningful ways (Green 2002; Regelski 1996, 1998, 2009, 2016; Väkevä and Westerlund 2007). This approach fosters a sense of ownership and intrinsic motivation, aiming at more authentic and personally significant musical learning. However, Lauri Väkevä and Aleksi S. Ojala (2015) problematize authenticity in music classrooms and suggest that the gap between the so-called real world and the school could be narrowed if students could use technical tools in the music classroom, which could be regarded as a specific place for cultural production. A transition towards digital music education is apparent, with AI as the most recent such component in education (Cheng 2025).

The distinction between learning and education in music highlights a shift towards a more pedagogically focused approach. While learning refers to the acquisition of knowledge and skills, education encompasses broader goals such as fostering critical thinking, creativity, and personal growth. Aims and values in music education are intertwined, like clusters, but include nuances, as Estelle Jorgensen (2021, 14–17, 119, 126–128) has argued. The ability to hear, see, and express nuances is regarded as essential to the work of musicians and other artists; and nuances are crucial in music and arts education.

Jorgensen applied clusters of words, such as the “quartet” of fidelity, persistence, patience, and loyalty, to demonstrate how values are intertwined yet distinctive. Persistence, for instance, is of great importance in arts and all forms of education, as achieving the social and cultural aims of education and realizing educational visions takes time. Additionally, patience, a crucial value in arts and arts education, may be understood both as a noun and in an active sense, as acting patiently.

The aforementioned pedagogical approach emphasizes the role of educators in guiding and facilitating holistic musical development, leading to a broader understanding of aims and values in music and arts education. Consequently, we will explore music and arts education and their relationships with social contexts and circumstances. This theme leads us to explore critical pedagogy.

From Critical Pedagogy to Counter-Critical Pedagogy

Critical pedagogy, as articulated by scholars such as Paulo Freire (1998) and John Dewey (2004, 1990), has historically engaged with themes of democracy, social justice, educational equality, power dynamics within educational relationships, and the empowerment of students. In the context of music and arts education, these themes have been further explored by Deweyan researchers (e.g., Väkevä 2023; Westerlund 2002) and praxial music education philosophers, including Thomas A. Regelski (1996, 1998, 2009), Wayne Bowman (2007), and David Elliott (1995). Dewey’s conception of democracy, as noted by Paul Woodford (2004, 2), is the “releasing of human capacity for communal action.” For Dewey, democracy is not merely a political system or governmental framework but an ethical ideal and a communal way of life.

Praxialists such as Regelski (1996, 2016) and Small (1998) prioritize the processes and practices of making music, emphasizing the praxis itself over the pursuit of outcomes such as exemplary concert performances. Small (1998) advocated for the appreciation of diverse levels of “musicking,” with a particular focus on participatory performances, viewing music and music making also as a social activity. Rather than conforming to universal standards, praxialists (such as Regelski in 1996) assert that the functions of music and individual experiences inform music’s context-specific values.

However, contemporary artist-researchers in higher arts education, such as Kevin Skelton (2023a, 2023b), advocate not only for practices such as musicking (Small 1998) and trans-disciplinarity (e.g., the integration of, for instance, musicology and performing arts), but also for a counter-critical (not anti-critical) pedagogy (Skelton 2023a, 2023b). This approach seeks to unify various aspects, including the Aristotelian concepts of praxis, poiesis, and techne, concepts Regelski (1996) previously examined in his 1996 article in the Finnish Journal of Music Education. Skelton posits that in counter-critical pedagogy, the “way of being” is central, viewing it as a “philosophy of life” that prompts the question: How do I relate to others? He characterizes counter-critical pedagogy as an ongoing process in everyday life, teaching, curriculum development, and more relational aspects, making it appropriate for addressing contemporary challenges faced by individuals who must adapt swiftly to changing conditions in a world beset by wars and ecological crises.

From Citizenship Education to Artizenship Education 

Citizenship Education

We have highlighted that active citizenship has been central to the idea of Folkhemmet (the home of the people) and the welfare state. Thus, we would like look into the role of active citizenship with regards to arts and music practices. In contemporary societies, citizenship, as a status, is typically conferred by birth or residency, or through formal processes. This suggests that the definition of citizenship can vary within a society or across different social contexts, contingent upon an individual’s contextual activities. For example, Aristotle posited that citizenship necessitates political participation. In some monarchies, individuals may possess citizenship status without the right to participate, which deviates from Aristotle’s conception of citizenship (Miller 2020, 24).

The autonomy and freedom of citizens to act within societies is closely tied to the roles of the states. A liberal state, maintaining neutrality regarding the diverse ways individuals choose to lead their lives, often offers a minimalistic account of the concept of human good. In contrast, societies that emphasize the common good, such as the Nordic welfare states, provide a thick description. In these societies, the state plays an active role in promoting the good life of humans. Confucian citizenship education, which favors passive citizenship, unquestioned obedience, and authoritarian leadership, is characterized by a very thick description of human good (Tan 2020, 5).

Aristotle’s perspective on citizenship education was intrinsically linked with his virtue ethics and his conception of a good, flourishing human life. According to him, a good citizen is synonymous with a human being leading an ethically virtuous life. Moreover, acting in accordance with virtues necessitates extensive training (Miller 2020, 21). Aristotle, therefore, underscored the connection between civic and ethical education (18) in Politics and Nicomachean Ethics.

Currently, communitarians base their ideals on participatory communities, associated with civic education in Aristotle’s ideas. In other words, they believe that politics and ethics are interconnected (Miller 2020, 17–18). Facilitating a good life for citizens is the ultimate purpose of the government (22). This also relates to education in music and other arts. For instance, Elliott (1995) and other music education researchers (e.g., Björk and Heimonen 2019; Regelski 1996) referred to Aristotle and his virtue ethics when discussing practices and the role of arts education in promoting a good, flourishing life, as has Nussbaum (1998, 2001).

In the realm of citizenship education, Dewey’s work, particularly Democracy and Education (2004), is considered paramount (Van der Ploeg 2020, 113–114). Dewey viewed schooling as a democratic practice, and social life and education as organically and closely connected. He perceived education as explicitly social; it serves as the means for the social continuity of life (Dewey 2004, 2). Shared experiences and collaborative activities facilitate learning and teaching, which is essential in community building. Conversely, to ensure society’s continuity, social life necessitates education, the transformation of shared aims, language, and beliefs. However, education is not merely transmission; it involves transformation, renewal, and critical thinking and creativity (van der Ploeg 2020, 115; Regelski 1996, 1998, 2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b).

In Dewey’s view, citizenship education is not a separate subject (van der Ploeg 2020, 113). All education promotes democratic citizenship if it is inclusive and accessible to all. As Dewey (1990) argued in The School and Society, schools should be open to all children, irrespective of their social or economic background. Learning to live together and to think critically is of the utmost importance, and school is viewed as a microcosm of society. Democratic citizenship is interpreted broadly; rather than merely voting in elections; democracy is seen as a form of social life, not a form of government (Van der Ploeg 2020, 115).

Artistic Citizenship Education

In line with citizenship education, Elliott (2012) highlighted the role of music educators as citizenship educators by emphasizing that they “should help students conceive and practice ‘music-making as ethical action’ for social justice” (Elliott 2012, 22). Elliott’s approach to artistic citizenship thus highlighted the roles and tasks of arts educators to a greater extent than, for instance, other researchers in the field, such as Campbell and Martin (2006), who foremost connected the concept of artistic citizenship to public art and the concept that artists have a special role in public life. Regarding arts in public life, Achieng’ Akuno and Westvall (2024) described artistic citizenship as “an act of responsibility and negotiation on the part of an artist within a defined environment that is of value to them or to which they aim to add value” (137), which is also highly relevant for arts educators. In Elliott, Silverman, and Bowman’s edited publication Artistic Citizenship: Artistry, Social Responsibility, and Ethical Praxis (2016), the concept is related to ethics, various forms of activism, and the social responsibilities of artists and educators. Moreover, Narita (2024) suggested that music education as an artistic citizenship practice may humanize both educators and students, not only through actions but also through critical reflection. Silverman (2024) acknowledged that “although music education cannot provide ultimate, once-and-for-all answers to the world’s problems, music educators can help students tap into their civic responsibilities through music teaching and learning. Additionally, music educators can help students experience and feel ‘hope’” (32).

In line with political scientist James Tully’s definitions of global and diverse citizenship “as actors and activities in contexts” (Tully 2014, 35), Nathan Thomson (2024) introduced the concept of global artistic citizenship, which addresses the intercultural dimension of artistic practices. From a citizenship education perspective, this can be an important interconnection between the arts and citizenship education: “our communities become more diverse, our learning environments more intercultural” (151). This argument also aligns with Qi’s (2024) autoethnographic description of artistic citizenship as a way of negotiating interculturality. Artistic citizenship education focuses on the ideas that “[a]rtistic actions are ways of participating in society” (Achieng’ Akuno and Westvall 2024, 136). In that regard, communal and inclusive goals can be achieved more efficiently through inclusive artistic practices that highlight mutuality and dialogue among participants, thus leading to increased social trust and care. This decentralized approach challenges the idea of artistic citizenship education as one-directional—e.g. from the artist and/or educator to “other” citizens and/or students—to more interactional practices in which democratic processes become an integral part of artistic citizenship education.

Artizenship—Artistry and Citizenry as Combined Practices

The concept of artizenship (Carson and Westvall 2024; Westvall and Carson 2025) expands on an interactive approach to, and the intersection between, artistry and citizenry. This integrative foundation of arts and citizenship elucidates the role that arts can have in a communal context. Artizenship, then, places the focus on the possibilities of the arts as a democratic practice where individuals’ creativity, expressiveness, and interactions can be performed and reciprocated in both quotidian and exceptional ways. An artizenship approach to education contributes to sustainable and equitable prerequisites that can support individual and communal agency and social trust (Pripp and Westvall 2020) as well as ways of expressing both hope and resistance (Pripp 2024). In this manner, society can function as a democratic learning space of and with the arts, similar to Tully’s (2014, 35) description of citizenship as praxis. Thus, artizenship serves as a lens for experiencing and understanding citizenship through the practice of artistic collaboration and negotiation in communal settings.

Conclusions: Artizenship Education for the Future 

In conclusion, we will synthesize and critically discuss our findings. Initially, we posited that societies could function as democratic learning spaces, contingent upon the expansion of the aims and values of music education, and posed the question: How can contemporary society act as a democratic learning space for music and other arts in a time of extensive societal challenges?

In an era marked by pervasive fear, environmental crises, and conflicts, the significance of social agency cannot be overstated. To nurture communal agency among individuals, the arts, particularly education in music and other arts, serve as vital instruments for building bridges and fostering human connections. Silverman (2024, 44) integrates “compassionate, concerned, and caring action” alongside social justice within her conceptualization of radical empathy, and cites Givens (2022), who contends that radical empathy “requires we move beyond focusing on personal growth.” We similarly advocate for such caring and empathetic actions, which instill hope for the future, as integral components of artizenship education, manifested through everyday practices.

Jorgensen (2021) posited that values in music education can be elusive in practice. We suggest that these values could be actualized if our societies function as democratic learning spaces for music and other arts. This necessitates an expansion of the objectives of music and arts education: rather than concentrating solely on traditional skills such as learning to listen, play and sing, the values and aims of music education should be viewed more broadly. This expansion could be realized by emphasizing active participation in society by artizenship education, in the ways in which it is described above, such as recurring artistic collaboration and negotiation in communal settings. Values in music education, such as patience, should be interpreted as verbs—acting patiently—within and through the arts characterizing artizenship education, as well as the processes of negotiating and collaborating. Furthermore, clusters of practices, akin to the clusters of values articulated by Jorgensen (2021), delineate artizenship education, intertwining while maintaining their distinctiveness. These clusters of practices resemble the “way of being” that characterizes counter-critical pedagogy, as proposed by Skelton (2023a, 2023b). Additionally, this framework emphasizes relationships, posing the question: How do I relate to/with others? This perspective underscores the fundamental objective of artizenship education, which is to learn and to experience how to actively coexist and collaborate with others by, through, and with the arts. Addressing fundamental and global contemporary issues such as climate crises and environmental challenges can be facilitated through education in music and other arts, thereby nurturing hope for the future.

Artizenship education can be seen as a means of acknowledging emotions such as fear, passion, and anger (Nussbaum 2019) within contemporary society, and approaching these with alternative courses of action. Rather than employing exclusionary tactics, essentially constructing a metaphorical cage or prison for potent emotions like anger and passion, artizenship education advocates for inclusivity and communal artistic endeavors. As Jorgensen (2021) suggested, passion is particularly vital in the realms of music and other arts. Artizenship education has the potential to cultivate and channel emotions such as passion, fear, and anger, thereby facilitating the integration between individuals into our contemporary societies and fostering hope and well-being. In this manner, society can function as a democratic learning space for music and other arts.

Within the framework of artizenship, educational activities are designed to cultivate independence, care, autonomy, and critical thinking, with learning perceived as context-bound and situational. Emphasis is placed on relationships rather than on individuality and rationality. Consequently, the promotion of active citizenship is prioritized, with the objective of nurturing critical, caring, and creative citizens, as opposed to unquestioningly obedient and passive individuals. To achieve this, a diversity of artistic expressions is valued and necessary, facilitating an understanding of the world and its inhabitants. Furthermore, the promotion of diverse modes of communication and accessibility to communicative means is emphasized, fostering a sense of competence in self-expression and awareness of how to engage with the arts in various and co-creative ways. Consequently, the ways in which teachers–facilitators–artists are trained, is then central to the ways in which (higher) arts education can expand into more inclusive, democratic, and consolidative practices (Westvall and Carson 2025).

Society can therefore be conceptualized and highlighted as a central learning space where negotiated practices are emphasized and ethical and moral principles can be integrated into individuals, thus becoming intrinsic to their being and evolving through interactions with others. Artizenship is then woven into the fabric of co-existence, enabling individuals to develop a range of competencies throughout their lives. This approach provides a palette of diverse and sometimes interactive ways of acting, doing, and interacting within society though the arts.

Artizenship education has the potential to provide access for all individuals to engage in the creation and co-creation of art, fostering relationships with music and other art forms. It encourages immersion in music and other art practices, recognizing and embracing diverse modes of expressing their existence. This serves as our rationale and justification for the development of teaching music and other forms of arts, and it is our response to Thomas Regelski’s (2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b) critical and ongoing question: Why teach music?

---

About the Authors

Dr Marja Heimonen serves as a University Lecturer in music education at the Sibelius Academy of the University of the Arts Helsinki, Finland. Heimonen’s research encompasses the philosophy of music education, legal, social, and comparative approaches, as well as cultural diversity and educational rights. Marja Heimonen has edited the Finnish Journal of Music Education and has contributed to numerous books and scientific journals, including Music Education Research, Arts Education Policy Review, Philosophy of Music Education Review, Visions of Research in Music Education, Nordic Research in Music Education, Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, and the Finnish Journal of Music Education.

Dr Maria Westvall is Professor in Music Education at University College of Music Education in Stockholm (SMI), Sweden, and the director of CReArC Global (Centre for Research in Artistic Citizenship). Westvall’s research focuses on the sociological and artistic dimensions of music education, intercultural approaches, musical and cultural diversity, community practices and migration. Maria Westvall has published her research in several books and international scientific journals such as Music Education Research, British Journal of Music Education, Journal of Music Teacher Education, International Journal of Community Music, Música em perspectiva, El oído pensante, Intercultural Education, Action, Criticism & Theory for Music Education, Nordic Research in Music Education, Danish Musicology Online and the Finnish Journal of Music Education.

---

References

Achieng’Akuno, Emily, and Maria Westvall. 2024. Conclusion: Artizenship, agency, actions. In Music as agency: Diversities of perspectives on artistic citizenship, edited by Maria Westvall and Emily Achieng’ Akuno, 135–140. Routledge.

Aristotle. 1984. Nicomachean ethics. In The complete works of Aristotle, edited by Jonathan Barnes. The revised Oxford translation. Volume two. Princeton University Press.

Aristotle. 1941. The politics. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. In The basic works of Aristotle, edited by Richard McKeon. Random House.

Bauman, Zygmunt. 2007. Liquid times: Living in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press.

Björk, Cecilia, and Marja Heimonen. 2019. Music schools and human flourishing: What can national politics enable and restrict? In The future of music schools–European perspectives, edited by Michaela Hahn and Franz-Otto Hofecker, 35–59. Musikschulmanagement Niederösterreich.

Bladh, Stephan, and Marja Heimonen. 2007. Music education and deliberative democracy. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 6 (1): 2–20. https://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Bladh_Heimonen6_1.pdf

Bowman, Wayne. 2007. Who is the “We”? Rethinking professionalism in music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 6 (4): 109–31. https://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Bowman6_4.pdf

Buber, Martin. 2004/1923. I and Thou. Continuum.

Campbell, Mary Schmidt, and Randy Martin (Eds.) 2006. Artistic citizenship: A public voice for the arts. Routledge.

Carson, Charles D., and Maria Westvall. 2024. Art for all’s sake: Co-creation,“artizenship” and negotiated practices. In Music as agency. Diversities of perspectives on artistic citizenship, edited by Maria Westvall and Emily Achieng’ Akuno, 8–18. Routledge.

Carson, Charles D., and Maria Westvall. 2016. Intercultural approaches and “diversified normality” in music teacher education: Reflections from two angles. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (3): 37–52. https://act.maydaygroup.org/volume-15-issue-3/act-15-3-37-52/

Cheng, Lee. 2025. The impact of generative AI on school music education: Challenges and recommendations. Arts Education Policy Review, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2025.2451373

Dewey, John. 2004/1916. Democracy and education. Dover.

Dewey, John. 1990/1956. The school and society and the child and the curriculum. An Expanded Edition with a New Introduction by Philip W. Jackson. The University of Chicago Press.

Dufva, Mikko, and Sanna Rekola. 2023. Megatrends. Sitra. https://www.sitra.fi/en/publications/megatrends-2023/

Elliott, David J. 2012. Music education as/for artistic citizenship. Music Educators Journal 99 (1): 21–27. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0027432112452999

Elliott, David J. 1995. Music matters: A new philosophy of music education. Oxford University Press.

Elliott, David J., Silverman, Marissa, and Wayne D.  Bowman (Eds.) 2016.  Artistic citizenship: artistry, social responsibility, and ethical praxis. Oxford University Press.

Ferm Thorgersen, Cecilia, Lars Brinck, Camilla Kvaal, and Ketil Thorgersen. 2015. Musical activism towards equality among youths in Scandinavia. Musiikkikasvatus / The Finnish Journal of Music Education 18 (2): 88–101. https://fjme.journal.fi/issue/view/11277/2526

Foster, Raisa, and Katja Sutela. 2024. Ecosocial approach to music education. Music Education Research 26 (2): 99–111. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14613808.2024.2319586

Freire, Paulo. 1998. Pedagogy of hope. Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed. Translated by Robert R. Barr. Continuum.

Georgii-Hemming, Eva, and Maria Westvall. 2010. Music education—A personal matter? Examining the current discourses of music education in Sweden, British Journal of Music Education 27 (1): 21–33. https://oru.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:218803/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Givens, Terri E. 2022. Radical empathy: Finding a path to bridging racial divides. Policy Press.

Green, Lucy. 2002. How popular musicians learn. A way ahead for music education. Taylor & Francis.

Habermas, Jürgen. 1985. The theory of communicative action. Volume two. Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason. Beacon Press.

Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle perusopetuslain muuttamisesta HE 212/2024 vp (Government proposal to Parliament to amend the Basic Education Act). https://www.finlex.fi/fi/esitykset/he/2024/20240212.pdf

Heimonen, Marja. 2010/2002. Music education and law. Regulation as an instrument. Lambert Academic Publishing.

Jorgensen, Estelle. 2021. Values and music education. Indiana University Press.

Kallio, Alexis. 2015. Who cares what music teachers teach, as long as it’s good music? Musiikkikasvatus / The Finnish Journal of Music Education 18 (2): 104–10.

Khayati, Khalid, and Magnus Dahlstedt 2014. Diaspora formation among Kurds in Sweden. Nordic Journal of Migration Research 4 (2): 53–56. https://journal-njmr.org/articles/10.2478/njmr-2014-0010

Koskela, Minja. 2022. Democracy through pop? Thinking with intersectionality in popular music education in Finnish schools. Studia Musica 90. Doctoral diss., Sibelius Academy, University of the Arts Helsinki.

López-Íñiguez, Guadalupe. 2017. Toolkit for instrumental music teachers in Finland. Promoting constructivist instrumental music education as a mechanism for pedagogical equality. ArtsEqual. University of the Arts Helsinki. https://www.artsequal.fi/documents/14230/0/artsequal+-+2017+-+toolkit+-+lopez+-+english+-+2017+11+06.pdf/d1105b15-0e44-43ab-91a6-4a75aa4a1688

López-Íñiguez, Guadalupe, and Heidi Westerlund. 2023. The politics of care in the education of children gifted for music: A systems view. In The Oxford handbook of care in music education, edited by Karin S. Hendricks, 115–39. Oxford University Press.

López-Íñiguez, Guadalupe, M.P.  Pérez Echeverría, J. I. Pozo, and J. A. Torrado. 2022. Student-centred music education: Principles to improve learning and teaching. In Learning and teaching in the music studio. Landscapes: The arts, aesthetics, and education, edited by J. I. Pozo, M. P. Pérez Echeverría, G. López-Íñiguez and J. A. Torrado, J.A., vol 31. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0634-3_18

Lumme, Isa. 2024. Endless drop. Kuva/Tila, 1.–17.11.2024.  Academy of Fine Arts. University of the Arts Helsinki.  https://www.uniarts.fi/en/events/endless-drop/

Miller, Benjamin. 2020. Aristotle on citizenship and civic education: The central role of political participation. In The Palgrave handbook of citizenship and education, edited by Andrew Peterson, Garth Stahl, and Hannah Soong, 17–34. Palgrave Macmillan.

Narita, Flavia Motoyama 2024. Social engagement towards artistic citizenship in music teaching. In Music as agency. Diversities of perspectives on artistic citizenship, edited by Maria Westvall and Emily Achieng’ Akuno, 19–33. Routledge.

Niemelä, Mikko, and Markus Laaninen, 2024. Suomalaisten koettu hyvinvointi kriisien aikana. In Eriarvoisuuden tila Suomessa, edited by Anna Rajavuori, 19–46. (Perceived well-being of Finns during crises. In The state of inequality in Finland). Kalevi Sorsa -säätiö. Into Kustannus.

Noddings, Nel. 1986. Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral theory. University of California Press.

Norden. 2017. Kulturanalys. Vem får vara med? Perspektiv på inkludering och integration i kulturlivet i de Nordiska länderna. https://kulturanalys.se/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/antologi_vem-far-vara-med_webb.pdf

Nordvall, Henrik. 2005. Att konstruera ett folk. In Folkbildning – samtidig eller tidlös?, edited by Ann-Marie Laginder and Inger Landström, 311–336. Mimer/Skapande vetande.

Nussbaum, Martha C. 2019. The monarchy of fear. A philosopher looks at our political crisis. Simon and Schuster.

Nussbaum, Martha C. 2001/1986. The fragility of goodness. Luck and ethics in Greek tragedy and philosophy. Cambridge University Press.

Nussbaum, Martha C. 1998. Cultivating humanity. A classical defense of reform in liberal education. Harvard University Press.

Piispa, Mikko. 2018. Yhdeksän sanaa Y-sukupolvesta. (Nine words about generation y) Teos.

Pripp, Oscar. 2024. Artistic citizenship as practices of ethical worlds and everyday resistance. In Music as agency. Diversities of perspectives on artistic citizenship, edited by Maria Westvall and Emily Achieng’ Akuno, 63–76. Routledge.

Pripp, Oscar, and Maria Westvall. 2020. Cultural immersion and production. The meaning of musicking for social trust and inclusion. In The social, political and cultural meaning of sound and music, edited by Oscar Pripp and Maria Westvall, 15–25. Nätverket—etnologisk tidskrift 22.

Qi, Nan. 2024. Practising citizenship artistically: An autoethnographic account of a Chinese-Canadian-Brazilian Music Educator. In Music as agency. Diversities of perspectives on artistic citizenship, edited by Maria Westvall and Emily Achieng’ Akuno, 77–90. Routledge.

Rajavuori, Anna. 2024. Monikriisi ja eriarvoisuus. In Eriarvoisuuden tila Suomessa, edited by Anna Rajavuori, 11–18. (Multiple crisis and inequality. In The state of inequality in Finland.) Kalevi Sorsa -säätiö. Into Kustannus.

Rawls, John. 1972/1971. A theory of justice. Oxford University Press.

Regelski, Thomas A. 2016. Music, music education, and institutional ideology: A praxial philosophy of musical sociality. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (2): 10–45. https://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Regelski15_2.pdf

Regelski, Thomas A. 2013b. Why teach music? Part 4. Musiikkikasvatus / The Finnish Journal of Music Education 16 (2): 75–81. https://fjme.journal.fi/issue/view/11273/2522

Regelski, Thomas A. 2013a. Why teach music? Part 3. Musiikkikasvatus / The Finnish Journal of Music Education 16 (1): 63–66. https://fjme.journal.fi/issue/view/11272/2521

Regelski, Thomas A. 2012b. Why teach music? Part 2. Musiikkikasvatus / The Finnish Journal of Music Education 15 (2): 71–75. https://fjme.journal.fi/issue/view/11271/2520

Regelski, Thomas A. 2012a. Why teach music? Part 1. Musiikkikasvatus / The Finnish Journal of Music Education 15 (1): 48–52. Vol 15 Nro 1 (2012): The Finnish Journal of Music Education – pdf

Regelski, Thomas A. 2010. Culturalism, multi-culturalism, and multi-musical prosperity. Musiikkikasvatus / The Finnish Journal of Music Education 13 (1): 95–98. https://fjme.journal.fi/issue/view/11266/2515

Regelski, Thomas A. 2009. Music as praxis: Some implications for teachers. Musiikkikasvatus / The Finnish Journal of Music Education 12 (1): 105–107. https://fjme.journal.fi/issue/view/11264/2513

Regelski, Thomas A. 1998. Schooling for musical praxis. Musiikkikasvatus / The Finnish Journal of Music Education 3 (1): 7–37.

Regelski, Thomas A. 1996. Prolegomenon to a praxial philosophy of music and music education. Musiikkikasvatus / The Finnish Journal of Music Education 1 (1): 23–39. https://fjme.journal.fi/issue/view/11247/2506

Regelski, Thomas A. 1986. Concept-learning and action-learning in music education. British Journal of Music Education 3 (2): 185–216.

Regelski, Thomas A. 1981. Teaching general music: Action learning for middle and secondary schools. Shirmer Books.

Rosa, Hartmut. 2018. Det vi inte kan råda över. Om vårt förhållande till världen. Daidalos.

Sen, Amartya. 2009. The idea of justice. Harvard University Press.

Shively, Joseph. 2015: Constructivism in music education. Arts Education Policy Review 116 (3): 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2015.1011815

Silverman, Marissa. 2024. Civic responsibility through artistic citizenship and empathy: 21st-century feminist aims for music education. In Music as agency. Diversities of perspectives on artistic citizenship, edited by Maria Westvall and Emily Achieng’ Akuno, 32–49. Routledge.

Skelton, Kevin. 2023a. Breathe, dance, sing: Performing arts higher education through a transdisciplinary counter-critical pedagogy. PhD thesis, University of Toronto. file:///C:/Users/mhe10356/Downloads/Skelton_Kevin_202311_PhD_thesis.pdf

Skelton, Kevin. 2023b. Counter-critical pedagogy: A manifesto. Critical Studies in Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2023.2266522

Small, Christopher 1998. Musicking. The meanings of performing and listening. Wesleyan University Press.

SOU 2022:28. Sverige Kommittén Demokratin 100 år – samling för en stark demokrati (2022). Vår demokrati – värd att värna varje dag Volym 1. Stockholm: Regeringskansliet. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2022/06/sou-202228

Svenska institutet. 2025. The Swedish music miracle. How come Swedish music in such a chart-topper? Here are 4 main reasons, followed by 20 Swedish milestones. https://sweden.se/culture/arts-design/the-swedish-music-miracle

Tan, Charlene. 2020. A Confucian conception of citizenship education. In The Palgrave handbook of citizenship and education, edited by Andrew Peterson, Garth Stahl, and Hannah Soong, 3–16. Palgrave Macmillan.

Thomson, Nathan R. 2024. Global artistic citizenship:(Re-) imagining interculturalism, collaboration, and community engagement as central elements of higher music education. Nordic Research in Music Education 5: 133–59. https://nrme.no/index.php/nrme/article/view/6236

Tully, James. 2014. On global citizenship. Bloomsbury Academic. http://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/30133

Turino, Thomas. 2016. Music, social change, and alternative forms of citizenship. In Artistic citizenship: Artistry, social responsibility, and ethical praxis, edited by David J. Elliott, Marissa Silverman, and Wayne Bowman, 297–311. Oxford University Press.

Van der Ploegh, Piet A. 2020. Dewey and citizenship education: Schooling as democratic practice. In The Palgrave handbook of citizenship and education, edited by Andrew Peterson, Garth Stahl, and Hannah Soong, 113–126. Palgrave Macmillan.

Väkevä, Lauri. 2023. Considering Deweyan cultural naturalism as a philosophy of art(s) education: Restoring continuity. Landscapes: The arts, aesthetics, and education. Vol. 35. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38817-0

Väkevä, Lauri, and Aleksi S. Ojala. 2015. Keeping it real: Addressing authenticity in classroom popular music pedagogy. Nordic Research in Music Education 16, 87–99. https://nmh.brage.unit.no/nmh-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2425455/Ojala_&_Vakeva_Keeping_it_Real.pdf?sequence=2

Väkevä, Lauri, and Heidi Westerlund. 2007. The “method” of democracy in music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 6 (4): 96–108. https://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Vakeva_Westerlund6_4.pdf

Väkevä, Lauri, Juha Ojala, and Marja Heimonen. 2024, November 13. Kriittisen musiikkikasvatustutkimuksen kehittäjä. Muistokirjoitus. Thomas A. Regelski 1941–2024. (The developer of critical music education research. In Memoriam. Thomas A. Regelski 1941–2024). Helsingin Sanomat. https://www.hs.fi/muistot/art-2000010808481.html

Westerlund, Heidi. 2023. Kriisien ja epävarmuuksien ajan ekopoliittinen ammatillisuus musiikkikasvatuksessa. (Ecopolitical professionalism in music education in times of crisis and uncertainty) In Musiikkikasvatus muutoksessa (Music education in change), edited by Marja-Leena Juntunen and Heidi Partti, 453–79. Taideyliopiston Sibelius-Akatemia.

Westerlund, Heidi. 2002. Bridging experience, action, and culture in music education. Studia Musica 16. Doctoral diss., Sibelius Academy. https://taju.uniarts.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/60d2f65c-0ef8-4317-8272-4f42e281e820/content

Westerlund, Heidi, and Marja Heimonen. 2015. Lukijalle / Editorial. Musiikkikasvatus / The Finnish Journal of Music Education 18 (2): 4–6. https://fjme.journal.fi/issue/view/11277/2526

Westvall, Maria. 2007. Webs of musical significance: A study of student-teachers’ musical socialisation in Ireland and Sweden. PhD Diss., St Patrick’s College, Drumcondra.

Westvall, Maria, and Charles D. Carson. 2025. Accessibility and sustainability in higher music education through artistic citizenship. In Turning social. The social-transformative potential of music mediation, edited by Axel Petri-Preis and Annette Ziegenmeyer, 125–36. mdw Press.

Winnicott, Donald E. 2007/1965. The maturational processes and the facilitating environment. Karnac.

Woodford, Paul. 2004. Democracy and music education. Liberalism, ethics, and the politics of practice. Indiana University Press.