Nordic Journal of Music Therapy

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rnjm20

Music therapy as multiplicity: Implications for

music therapy philosophy and theory

William Matney

To cite this article: William Matney (2020): Music therapy as multiplicity: Implications
for music therapy philosophy and theory, Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, DOI:
10.1080/08098131.2020.1811371

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08098131.2020.1811371

Published online: 02 Sep 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 198

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rnjm20
NORDIC JOURNAL OF MUSIC THERAPY
https://doi.org/10.1080/08098131.2020.1811371

ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Music therapy as multiplicity: Implications for music

therapy philosophy and theory
William Matney
Division of Music Education/Music Therapy, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

ABSTRACT
Introduction: The field of music therapy is diverse and complex. Authors have navi­
gated such complexity in myriad ways, often to locate the field’s unique values and
purposes. Ensuing orientations and models have been valuable, but do not encompass
the entirety of current and future practices/practitioners. I introduce the multiplicity
concept to highlight intricacies and promote opportunities.
Method: I re-envision Bruscia’s construction of music therapy as a multiplicity – an
interactive relationship between art, science, and humanity – through the rigor of Gilles
Deleuze’s multiplicity concept: (a) difference between and within, (b) the extensive and
intensive, and (c) the actual and virtual through a range of examples and illustrations.
I also note how the multiplicity of music engages with context (client, therapist, and
environment), seeking to illustrate the potential for multiplicity to address our unique­
ness in a more nuanced and dynamic fashion than is commonly presented.
Results: In order to show resonance and variation, I dialogue with historical and
current concepts and perspectives employed in music therapy. A resultant conceptual
edifice includes: processes that are multiple, outcomes that multiply, and options that
allow one to decenter and pivot as needed in context. The unique dynamism of
multiplicity allows us to engage in between the components of creativity, organiza­
tion, and human relationship in new ways.
Discussion: The ideas I present here are not entirely new, but have rarely if ever been
highlighted in this fashion. This re-envisioning of Bruscia’s multiplicity offers a unique,
dynamic metatheoretical frame for the field to (re)consider current perspectives.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 3 June 2019; Accepted 3 August 2020

KEYWORDS Philosophy; theory; Deleuze; multiplicity; music therapy

Introduction
The field of music therapy suggests great complexity and diversity, resulting in a broad
array of practices and related theoretical perspectives. I agree with authors that
promote a greater understanding and continued development of theory, metatheory,
and philosophy within our work (Abrams, 2012; Aigen, 2014; Bruscia, 2014; Hanson
Abromeit, 2015; Robb, 2012; Stige, 2002). Theories and practices guide each other
through sets of implied assumptions about the ways our work exists, how we under­
stand that work, and how we value it; we interact with and modify these assumptions

CONTACT William Matney matneyb@ku.edu Division of Music Education/Music Therapy, University of

Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
© 2020 GAMUT – The Grieg Academy Music Therapy Research Centre
2 W. MATNEY

through experience and examination. Metatheories can help us examine our assump­
tions within and across particular theories, as well as help us to support, assess, and
critique from a broader vantage point (Stige, 2002).
Philosophy can be understood as embedded inquiry, allowing for theories and
metatheories to be explored, understood, generated, and modified. Philosophy, histori­
cally translated as “love of wisdom” (Matney, 2019), can also be described as “thinking
about how we think” (Daugherty, 2014, p. 20). We generally seek through philosophy to
better understand what is real (metaphysics), what exists (ontology), how we know it
(epistemology), why it matters (axiology), and how these branches inevitably intersect
each other (Matney, 2019).1 Regarding music therapy, we may find ourselves asking
about the “nature” of music, the various ways we “understand” health-promotion, and
the “values” that play a role in both. Philosophical exploration includes the development
of concepts, as well as the historical examination of theory and practice.
I am a music therapist who has formally and informally engaged with philosophy
for more than three decades. As a pre-teenager, I aligned with a musical subculture that
included a particular ethos,2 facilitating my interest in philosophical inquiry and
reflection. My personal study of critical, classical, environmental, and Eastern philo­
sophy informed latter engagement in philosophies of art, music, music education, and
music therapy. My study of and performance experience in world musics, primarily
through percussion, gave me entry into music philosophies from a range of cultures.
I have been interested in how our field has been conceptualized, not conceptualized,
and re-conceptualized over time.
In this article, I explore a philosophical concept – multiplicity – primarily through
mentions/constructions in music therapy and formulations in philosophy; I enter into
multiplicity through a brief offering by Kenneth Bruscia (1998, 2014). I then employ
the conceptual work of Gilles Deleuze to deepen Bruscia’s construction. Many of the
ideas related to this concept are not entirely new to the field, but they are presented in
a unique, and I believe relevant fashion. I therefore continue by “dialoguing” with
some music therapy theories to show how multiplicity may enhance and challenge
current lines of thought, as well as potentially re-shape the way we think about the
field’s existence, it’s knowledge, and its values.

Multiplicity: A point of entry

We commonly define the word multiplicity to mean a diverse set. A “multiplicity of
drums” denotes a group of static items through a “nominalized adjective” (Deleuze, n.
d., n.p.). We can also define multiplicity in a more active, verb-like sense: multiple
interacting components. As musicians play drums with each other, the individual
differences between each drum highlight salient-yet-connected qualities. In this
sense, a multiplicity is understood as an event. The event in this sense also exemplifies
a unique way of understanding identity, difference, and change, which can then be
related to music and music therapy.
Bruscia (1989, 2014) framed music therapy as a multiplicity; his description pro­
vides a platform with which to explore the process of music therapy in more detail.

1
Credit to Nancy Hadsell as the origin of this simple paraphrasing.
2
Ethos can be understood as the beliefs, aspirations, character formation, and practices of a community.
 NORDIC JOURNAL OF MUSIC THERAPY 3

As an art, music therapy is organized by science and focused by the interpersonal process. As
a science, it is enlivened by art and humanized by the therapist-client relationship. As an
interpersonal process, it is motivated and fulfilled through art and guided by science . . . music
therapy has to be conceived in a way that embraces this multiplicity yet preserves its integrity
(Bruscia, 2014, p. 10). 3

Like the second definition above, Bruscia’s multiplicity denotes an active, gerund-like
quality; his description allows us to consider how the act of music therapy occurs, how
we understand it, how it promotes change, and how we may value the various ways we
work as clinicians. Now that we have entered multiplicity through Bruscia’s construc­
tion, I will seek to detail, build upon, and re-envision it through my understanding of
Deleuze’s conceptual rigor. I feel it worthwhile to first provide some context regarding
the philosopher.

Understanding Deleuze and the multiplicity

Gilles Deleuze is considered one of the most influential philosophers of the latter
twentieth century. He lived most of his life in France, where he studied, taught, and
wrote from the 1940s to the 1990s. While his work often falls under the monikers of
“postmodernism” and “poststructuralism,” he is perhaps better understood as
a process-oriented metaphysician; he sought to articulate the world and life as a set
of complex events, where change and difference constantly play a role in our con­
structions and inform our understandings.
Deleuze initially wrote books that examined and re-envisioned the work of prior
thinkers, merging such innovations into his conceptual structures.4 He also incorpo­
rated ideas from math, science, biology, psychology, sociology, and the arts into his
writing, resulting in examples that form a unique type of integrative thinking. He
discussed the arts to great extent, most often painting (e.g. Deleuze, 2005) and film (e.g.
Deleuze, 1986), while also discussing literature and music (e.g. Deleuze & Guattari,
1987). Deleuze’s diverse engagements have inspired and facilitated new strands within
philosophical thought: for example, the affective turn (Massumi, 2002), neo-realism
(DeLanda, 2006), speculative realism (Bryant, 2011), posthumanism, (Braidotti, 2012),
and precursors to metamodernism5 (Hardt & Negri, 2000). He also inspired authors in
many professional fields, including but not limited to musicology (e.g. Nesbitt & Hulse,
2010), health care (e.g. Holmes & Gastaldo, 2004), and music therapy (e.g. Benenzon,
2009; Dos Santos, 2018, 2019; Miyake, 2010; Smith, 2012).
Deleuze sought to provide an alternative to a common theme in Western philoso­
phy: difference based on identity. He instead asserted that difference and change could
be more subtly understood through multiplicity. I will present and build on introduc­
tory examples of this concept below, with examples being revisited in new ways
throughout the manuscript.
I bring in a box of items for a group of people to categorize, based on each item’s
identity. We could begin by noting those items that qualify as “spoon” or “not spoon,”
3
While the second edition (1989) mentions interpersonal process, the third edition mentions humanity. These
two terms become intertwined in Bruscia’s elaborations.
4
Examples include Duns Scotus, Bergson, Nietszche, Kant, and Spinoza.
5
Metamodernism is a relatively new arena in philosophy and literature that oscillates between aspects of
modernism and postmodernism; it promotes simultaneous engagement with philosophy, politics, art, and
culture through shifting technological practices.
4 W. MATNEY

likely a straightforward endeavor with participants largely agreeing upon the resulting
classifications. We could then take the same box and attempt to categorize each item as
“tool” or “not tool” (or as “instrument” or “not instrument”); we likely see less
agreement and more discussion due to the nuance of the category. We begin to take
into account what each item is made of, how each item (including the spoon) engages,
how it might be (or might not be) useful, and how it relates to other items through
events (regardless of whether those items are inside or outside of the box). We also may
consider more deeply how that item relates to us, individually and collectively. We
begin to see difference differently, as far more complex and diverse than “spoon/not
spoon,” but also as purposeful, tangible, and even practical.
Taking this idea a step further: one may perceive “spoon” as a “non-musical
example” of multiplicity. They may question how relevant or meaningful such is to
the field of music therapy. However, if I present my box with the intention to
categorize “musical instruments,” responses would likely be complex and diverse as
well. For example, are spoons not played in folk music traditions throughout the
world? The instruments of many traditions originated through items common to
particular times, places, and cultures, as well as in relation to various functions linked
to all three. Music and its instruments manifest in relation to a dynamic environment
entwined with dynamic thought. Music functions in relation to design, moving toward
new events. The large grain mortar becomes djembe in Guinea and Mali. The crate
becomes cajon in the port cities of Cuba and Peru, engaging with drumming traditions
of the African diaspora, but also dynamically re-envisioning them in new contexts. Our
conceptions of “musical” and “non-musical” become nuanced and permeable, if not
entirely questionable.
The above examples illustrate many of the facets of multiplicity. We find a construct
that is not confined to form, function, or creative quality, but can readily engage with
all three. We give less priority to identifications, particularly when oppositional. We
become more aware of the event and its potential. We begin to spend less time
asserting “what is” and more time asking “what if?”
Deleuze’s multiplicity acts as a driving force within his distinctive metaphysics,
helping to generate related concepts and ideas.6 He articulates difference and change
through events that promote connection, movement, interaction, and potential.
Deleuze (1988) evolved his understanding of multiplicity through its earlier uses in
math (via Riemann) and philosophy (via Bergson and Husserl). Deleuze analogized
a manifold structure that does not reference a prior unity or essence, but rather is
created through events that establish “a multiplicity of fusion, of interpenetration”
(Deleuze, n.d., p. 1); fusion – in this case an ongoing act itself – does not create a static
“whole,” but rather unfolds a “dynamic, constantly changing continuity” (Kebede,
2019, p. 54). Multiplicity in this sense is vital, interactive, and heterogeneous.
A multiplicity can neither be completely represented by a single identity nor by two
abstract, oppositional identities7 (Deleuze, 2008; Roffe, 2010, pp. 182–183).
The question then becomes, how does the concept operate? Particular considera­
tions of multiplicity help us to better understand the apparatus in action: (a) the

6
Examples of related concepts include rhizome, becoming, assemblage, and deterritorialization/reterritorialization
7
Instead of seeking a Hegelian synthesis between the opposing “one and many, ” Deleuze noted that there exist
constantly changing “ones” and “manys.”
 NORDIC JOURNAL OF MUSIC THERAPY 5

extensive and intensive, (b) differences between and within, and (c) the actual and
virtual. Within these considerations, I will continue to layer in examples.

The extensive and intensive

The extensive and intensive elaborate on the two definitions of multiplicity I first
presented: the noun and the verb. Extensive (or quantitative) multiplicities can be
categorized and counted as things; they exist in space, like the way we may commonly
think of a spoon or a conga. Intensive (or continuous) multiplicities occur through
interactions over time. They cannot be divided up without changing their state of
affairs. Simple examples of intensive multiplicities include temperature, pressure,
tension (as on a drum head), or frequency.
While a spoon and a conga can be considered extensive, they can also be understood
for their intensive qualities. A spoon can change in temperature. A conga (like many
instruments) can change in pitch, resonance, and rebound; the tightening of the conga
head will likely change all three characteristics.
The extensive and intensive are not presented as a dualism, but rather two aspects of
the same thing. The intensive is developed within the extensive, and vice versa.
A multiplicity is “what happens between the two” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994,
p. 152), and how both aspects promote difference and change as a result.
Understanding the interactions between the extensive and intensive allows us to
discuss differences within and between multiplicities.

Differences between and within

Deleuze (1994) offers a nuanced understanding of difference that “replaces schematic
and crude oppositions” (p. 182). Differences between multiplicities involve the dissim­
ilarities between two things or events; these differences may be understood “in kind,”
as in spoon/not spoon and drum not/drum, but also different types of spoons (or
drums) in relation to their material qualities, their properties, their historical origins,
and so on.
Differences between multiplicities can also be understood in degrees of difference,
through intensities such as weight, temperature, softness, and so on. A metal spoon and
a wooden spoon differ, for example, in terms of weight, flexibility, and porousness.
Similarly, a djembe made of lenke wood differs from one made of tweneboa, or one
made of synthetic materials. A synthetic djembe made of fiberglass commonly has
a longer sound envelope and more overtones than a wooden djembe due to the
materials used and the ways they are constructed. In the case of the spoon and the
drum, each characteristic can be seen as a simultaneous strength and limitation,
depending on the context within which it is used.
Differences within multiplicities include the changes that occur to any entity
through an event. The qualities of a spoon may change due to the way it interacts
with something else (e.g. abrupt changes in temperature, scraping against something).
The struck drum or plucked guitar detunes ever so slightly. Multiplicity acknowledges
something composite and dynamic about how things are identified, differentiated, and
sometimes re-identified through events.
6 W. MATNEY

The actual and virtual

Deleuze also discussed the intermingling of the actual and virtual in multiplicities. The
actual is the complex state of a thing or event, including all of its properties. For
example, water can be understood as an actual multiplicity, having properties includ­
ing (but not necessarily limited to) hydrogen and oxygen. Water can also include other
properties (e.g. toxins, fluoride, a particular temperature) that will differentiate it from
other water (i.e. differences between multiplicities). As mentioned before, a spoon may
be made of metal, wood, or plastic; it also has a length, width, thickness, and depth.
These materials and related properties play a role in the strength, sharpness, and
flexibility of the spoon, promoting a set of actual, finite tendencies. Similarly, the
materials and components of a drum play a role in its pitch, timbre, resonance, and
physical rebound. The actual helps us understand the “status” of water, the spoon, and
the drum; they are identified as the same, but their difference is noted. Even the spoon
manufactured in the exact same way is not precisely the same, particularly over time
and through continued interactions with the world.
The virtual can be understood as the potential for difference; it articulates the ability
of a complex state to transform based on its actual properties, its intensive capacities,
and the context within which a multiplicity engages. The virtual and actual are also two
aspects of the same thing, promoting a generative power where the whole is larger than
the sum of its parts. Roffe (2010) explained the virtual as “something like a ‘real
openness to change’ that inheres in every situation” (pp. 182–183). The virtual is
real, even before it is actualized. Water is virtually open to changing to steam or ice,
in relation to temperatures that it is exposed to. However, this openness to change is
not only a passive, cause/effect process. A spoon is virtually open to change regarding
its use – as a scoop, as something that stirs, as something that cuts, as a replacement for
a screwdriver, or as a musical instrument – depending on the context within which it is
presented. A drum’s capacities are open to change both within and through the music
experiences employed. The drum can act as a conduit for improvisation, a catalyst for
discussion, as a prop for visual artwork, as a cultural artifact, and as a way to promote
health in a range of domains; this can be understood as operating on “multiple
registers” (O’Sullivan, 2006, p. 256).
Furthermore, the actual and virtual enact difference and change between and within
multiplicities. The intermingling of the actual and virtual can promote shared capa­
cities between things through events. The spoon has the capacity to cut items that have
the capacity to be cut by that spoon. Each item in the relationship has the capacity to
affect and to be affected8; the item cut by the spoon will also interact in a way that affects
the spoon (e.g. dulling the spoon that cuts, leaving residue). The water that becomes
steam can also reduce the area temperature that symbiotically affected its transition.
A metal spoon can also change form due to a rise in temperature. The conga, when its
pitched is raised higher, becomes quinto.9 Inevitably, more complex, dynamic interac­
tions are to be taken into account as more components engage in the multiplicity.
A spoon may only be capable of cutting into a particular thing, such as cheese, at
particular temperatures. The struck snare drum results in a reciprocal bounce and

8
This consideration of multiplicity and affect (agencement) has its lineage in Baruch Spinoza, Henri Bergson,
Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari, and more recently Manuel DeLanda and Brian Massumi.
9
The three common tumbadores in Cuban ensembles are quinto, conga, and tumba; they are differentiated
largely by pitch.
 NORDIC JOURNAL OF MUSIC THERAPY 7

bend of drum head and drum stick; the uniquely resultant sound is contingent upon
the characteristics of these instruments, each of which can also be changed, contingent
upon the act of the strike itself. The ability for a stick or mallet to create resonant sound
on a drum will also be contingent upon the temperature and humidity, as well as in
relation to the current motoric capacities of the person who plays it.
Up to this point, I have primarily (although not exclusively) focused on particular
material considerations of multiplicity, with limited offerings of the mental and social
that we also engage with in our work. Keep in mind that the spoon and the drum are
both constructions designed and redesigned by humans. Our agency provides unique
types of force as we interact with the world. We are able to individually assess,
speculate, and act. Our collective endeavors as social beings inevitably promote differ­
ing ways to communicate and (re)situate the items we use. Our creations and recrea­
tions of the spoon and drum are connected to their materials, properties, tendencies,
and capacities. Multiplicity informs the integration of material, thought, movement,
form, function, the individual, and culture. Music can follow this same line of thought.

Music as multiplicity
Philosophers have historically discussed music as multiplicity, albeit briefly (Bergson,
2011; Husserl, 2003). Music can be understood as a complex event, actualized through
silences, sounds, and duration. These three components combine to form rhythms.
Sounds are nuanced through timbre, volume, and sustain, resulting in variations in
dynamics and sonic envelopes. Rhythms may be structured through consistent (or
inconsistent) patterns in tempo, phrasing, dynamics (accented beats or agogic empha­
sis), and layered duration (metric organization). Combinations of attack, sustain, and
decay facilitate the relative connectivity of notes (legato/staccato).
Bergson (1910) noted of music that, “We can thus conceive of succession without
distinction, and think of it as a mutual penetration, an interconnexion and organiza­
tion of elements, each one of which represents the whole, and cannot be distinguished
or isolated from it except by abstract thought” (p. 60). Each singular element con­
tributes to a fluid system, offering potential for difference and change. Timbre and
pitch relations interact with rhythm and dynamics to form texture, pitch, melody, and
harmony. Repetitions and resulting deviations in rhythm, melody, and harmony create
evolving musical forms. Changes in tempo can affect levels of attack and decay.
A minor melodic variation changes the harmonic structure of a song.
Words uniquely contribute to the multiplicity of music. Vocal articulations are
doubled10 in that they both affect the musical form (“extra-musical” [Bruscia, 1998,
p. 111]) and enhance the potential for new (extra!)-linguistic meaning. Formants,
phonemes, and semantic frameworks combine with dynamics, rhythm, melody, har­
mony, and timbre to create a dynamic “whole” larger than the sum of its enterable
parts.
Music is porous, interconnected, and engages with the virtual; its intensive compo­
nents can vary at any time, and maintain the capacity to affect and be affected.
Colebrook and Bennett (2009) note “Any sound, refrain, fragment or even chord
progression possesses a potentiality that exceeds its already actualized form” (p. 72).
The virtual gives music a generative power. Similar to the spoon, music can change
10
Doubled in the sense that they are two aspects of the same thing.
8 W. MATNEY

(and be changed) through its properties, capacities, and contextual uses. Not dissimilar
to the tool or instrument, music can simultaneously be direct and indirect, abstract and
practical, functional and creative, and relational amidst its unique manifestations.
My descriptions of music-as-multiplicity thus far have been described largely on
“musics’ terms,” with somewhat limited reference to the role of human co-
construction, human experience, or the ecological considerations that play a role in
its creation. Music is both permeable within itself, and an “open structure that
permeates and is permeated by the world” (Bogue, 1991, p. 85). I’ve already made
mention of enhancements between music and verbal language; this idea can of course
be extended to the larger realm of communication. Similarly, music relates to move­
ment (such as dance) in many ways where the two can enhance and affect each other
through the event. Music exists both in its own organizational structure – what has
already materialized and the potentials that any interaction may foster – and in a set of
creative options that are available over time to those who involve themselves with it.
This ontological positioning promotes a tapestry of relationships and enriched
engagements.
Music can be understood as a science, as an art, and as a way to engage in human
relationships.11 Within my brief description of music-as-multiplicity, we can begin to
see the intermingling of these three components and how they may inform each other.
These three components are not seen as oppositional, but rather as multiple aspects of
the same thing. Szekeley (2010) noted that “Music presents itself to us as simply, and
unintentionally, productive, not dialectical (at least in the sense of harboring opposi­
tion or contradiction) – as producing certain tendencies and intensities” (p. 6).
As an alternative to dualistic, dichotomous, and dialectic thinking, musicologists
have either implied or discussed the ways that music multiplies. Nettl (2005) acknowl­
edges a “multiplicity of overlapping functions” in the creative arts (p. 247). Turino
(1993) notes that music is an “apt media for simultaneously articulating and uniting
widely divergent and even conflicting images and meanings” (p. 99). The ability for
music to multiply gives us a unique perspective with which to consider music therapy.

Music therapy as multiplicity

Some of Deleuze’s latter writings include collaborations with Felix Guattari, who was
a philosopher, (anti) psychoanalyst, and political activist. For Deleuze and Guattari
(1987), music (and other arts) offers those who create and experience it an opportunity
to resolve diverse challenges. I believe their description provides an open yet functional
underpinning for thinking about music and health. As already mentioned, the relation­
ships between music and language, as well as music and movement, present the
opportunity to engage with solutions that are embedded within particular needs.
Along these lines, music therapist Rolando Benenzon (2009) suggested Deleuze as
a philosophical guide to explore “the multiplicity of factors” (p. 3) regarding music in
health promotion. These assertions segue us back into music therapy-as-multiplicity.
Bruscia’s multiplicity of music therapy, viewed through a Deleuzian lens, promotes
a pervious and dynamic image of organization (science), creativity (art), and human
engagement (see Figure 1). Organization implies our pursuits of function and
11
While details to this effect are beyond the scope of this paper, further study of the doctrine of symbolism, the
doctrine of ethos, and the evolution of aesthetics provide a point of entry.
 NORDIC JOURNAL OF MUSIC THERAPY 9

Figure 1. Components of multiplicity in music therapy

prediction by engaging with actual states of affairs (such as in sessions, through

intervention planning and implementation, and through particular types of research).
We seek through science to better understand actualities and tendencies, as well as
model virtual possibilities in the particular contexts we work. Engaging scientifically
does not result in absolute generalizability, but does inform trends, helping us to
develop and organize our efforts toward effectiveness and impact. We might also
think about the scientific portions of our work that relate to physics, biology, neurol­
ogy, the environment, and technology. Art indicates our pursuits of sensation, expres­
sion, experience, reflection, volition, and production through creative events. We can
consider how creative pursuits can affirm life, intention, and beauty for us, but also
promote growth in a range of areas. The creative component also allows us to
proactively respond to the inevitable unpredictability and individuality found within
clinical needs; it also allows us to see the new ways music can manifest through the
creation of new media (e.g. found sound, technology). Humanity implies our con­
nective power and potential as unique beings. Human relationship in this sense
includes but is not limited to the promotion of presence, co-existence, compassion,
dignity, freedom, selfhood, and justice (Abrams, 2018).
Perhaps most important to multiplicity: Deleuze and Parnet (2002) note that “what
counts are . . ..not the elements, but what there is in between, a site of relations which
are not separable from each other. Every multiplicity grows in the middle” (p. viii).12
Dynamic interactions between science, art, and human relationship are inseparable,
and remain open to change in the moment. Each interactive component is permeable,
and can vary in its level of emphasis (or intensity) during music therapy. Each
component also has the capacity to affect and be affected by the others. Similar to
the spoon, drum, or elements of music, the capacities of science, art, and relationship
result in changes distinct to the individual process. New actualizations and new

12
Credit to Dos Santos (2018) as secondary source for this quote.
10 W. MATNEY

capacities result, creating the potential for change in new contexts. Authors have often
asserted or implied a need to identify from a prescribed theoretical approach to
practice effectively; however, my experience suggests that most clinicians in the real
world of practice rarely operate through a consistent, static position over time. As an
alternative, music therapy-as-multiplicity can be critically inclusive of current theories
and models, while also being open to new creations within them, between them, and
dynamically “beyond” them.

Dialoguing with histories of music therapy theory

Theories and metatheories are developed historically, in particular places and times.
Often times, these theories and metatheories are developed for particular reasons, in
relation to a specific problem or set of problems. We can examine ideas historically to
understand where we have been, to assess where we are, and to envision where we wish
to go. This examination also includes the ways multiplicity have been alluded to or
described in music therapy literature. I seek below to “dialogue” with some histories of
music therapy in relation to multiplicity.

Understanding complexity, context, and diversity: Differences within and between

The ideas I present here are not entirely new to the field, particularly those related to
complexity and context. Kenny (1996) noted “Music Therapy is different to different
people at different times in different places” (p. 3). Bruscia (1998) stated that contextual
differences require the employment of a wide range of clinical practices and orienta­
tions. Multiplicity provides insight into how differences within and differences
between music therapy approaches occur in a nuanced fashion. We can think about
context in relation to the client(s), the therapist, and the environment. Client con­
siderations include but are not limited to ongoing needs, strengths, past experiences,
expectations, preferences, and level of familiarity. Therapist considerations include but
are not limited to assessment interpretation, expectations, past experiences, theoretical
orientation(s), preferences, and level of familiarity. Environmental considerations may
include but not be limited to: room spacing, time of day, focus and expectations of the
facility, level of co-treatment employed, timing of treatment in relation to other daily
events, family expectations, level of support from family, the instrumentation available,
and collaborative processes with other professionals.
Extensive contextual differences are accompanied by differences in degree, and the
ability to change processes according to ongoing need. Understanding these contextual
components enhances the potential for changes in intensity, with varying emphases on
organization, creativity, or human relationship as needed. As a brief example, a client
engaging in gait rehabilitation through metronomic audio-motor coupling may find
increased motivation and endurance through the use of conjunto music, due to its
aesthetic and cultural underpinnings. The music therapist responds in kind by employ­
ing a song, changing the intervention process and differentiating intensities between
organization, creativity, and human relationship as warranted. Teenagers who often
express themselves musically through group drumming walk in to a session exhausted
and anxious, resulting in a therapist spending the overwhelming majority of the
session verbally processing and being present; intensive changes between creativity
and relationship meet particular needs in the moment. We see in these brief examples
that there exists power in planning and power in changing the plan. Within
 NORDIC JOURNAL OF MUSIC THERAPY 11

multiplicity, we avoid the assumption that a rigid medical protocol, music-focused

process, or even a cultural focus provides, in themselves, the best path towards health
promotion. Generally speaking, I believe that clinicians make these types of practical
decisions based on the contextual intensities of their everyday work. What I present as
a metatheoretical construct, I believe already exists in some ways that our writings and
orientations do not always reflect.
Music therapy-as-multiplicity remains open to change at any given instant through
situated interactions between the client, therapist, and environment. What has already
been actualized is always accompanied by the virtual. Music, the environment, the
therapist’s training, and the clients’ experience have the capacity to affect and be
affected by each other through events, promoting differentiation and change in future
contexts. One must acknowledge that music therapy (-as-multiplicity) has the capacity
to promote health, but also for contraindication – to promote harm. During the
COVID 19 pandemic experienced around the time of this publication, we have seen
just how detrimental certain acts of music can be in particular contexts, while also
seeing its power to heal trauma and loneliness. This highlights an important point that
is just now beginning to be discussed in the field. We scientifically assess the evidence,
seek to become creative in new ways with our clients during sessions while maintaining
their safety, and maintain our relationships with them through new means. We can
carry forward this idea of music therapy as multiplicity, in relation to both health and
harm as we move forward. The considerations of culture, art, and science are not only
generative, but also act as checks and balances within the music therapy process.
With this overarching presentation music therapy-as-multiplicity up front, I will
engage in dialogue with music therapy literature below. My intentions will be to show
how multiplicity may change the ways we understand (a) dichotomies, (b) the proto­
musical and paramusical, (c) centering (d) musicking, (e) ecology and community, (f)
affordances, and (g) complexity theory.

Challenging dualistic and dichotomous thinking

Music therapists have often discussed outcomes as a way to demonstrate the unique
value of the field, or unique values of particular theories or models. Early authors
employed a “music/non-music” dichotomy to attempt differentiation from music
education, performance, and other music-related fields (Cady, 1963, p. 7; Duerksen,
1977, p. 95; Gaston, 1968, p. 292; Michel, 1953, p. 7), with somewhat more recent
literature continuing to promote such thinking (Bruscia, 1998, p. 15313; Thaut, 2000,
2005, 2014). Some have noted the non-musical outcome as a predominant belief
among clinicians (Ansdell, 1995, p. 3; Darrow, 2007, p. 98; Jellison, 1983).
Challenges to the primacy of the non-musical outcome have also been presented,
citing limitations in scope (Isern, 1964, p. 139), and risks that the value of musical
experiences may be reduced or eliminated (Abrams, 2012; Aigen, 2005).
In some cases, writers have instead asserted the value, and sometimes even the
primacy, of the “musical” or “aesthetic” outcome (Abrams, 2012, p. 115; Aigen, 2005,
p. 56; Lee, 2003). Music-centered thinking has also been criticized as having its own
limitations in some areas of clinical practice (Garred, 2006).

13
The more recent edition of Defining Music Therapy (Bruscia, 2014) does not include this wording, but the
historical significance of the second edition warrants its discussion.
12 W. MATNEY

History therefore suggests that the field has often (perhaps most readily in the
United States) toggled between these “two basic positions” regarding outcomes (Aigen,
2014, p. 70), largely focusing on a negation of the “other.” Some authors have main­
tained the music/nonmusic dichotomy to promote different ways of practicing music
therapy, or even to identify one’s self as a particular type of practitioner. One may
however wonder if we have limited ourselves and our work through this “basic” way of
thinking.
The music/nonmusic dichotomy suffers a conspicuous operational challenge. Music
has garnered a strong reputation for eluding an agreed-upon definition (Aigen, 2005,
pp. 62–63; Bruscia, 2014, p. 13–15, 91–106; Ruud, 2020, p. 211; Taylor, 1999, p. 4).
Such a challenge immediately renders it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to
anchor or negate either opposing identity.
Bergson (2007) and Deleuze (1966) both warned against abstract, categorical
opposition; such differentiation can result in limitations, perceived hierarchies, and
devaluations. As we’ve encountered through our current explorations of multiplicity,
simple identities are challenged by the intricacies and capacities of the world, along
with our intricacies and capacities within it. Multiplicity also provides a unique way to
understand difference and change. Perhaps most important to this concept: outcomes
are understood as changes that multiply over time in new contexts, and that can
actively influence the development of new contexts (see Figure 2).
Other dichotomies have also been explored in our field. Multiplicity provides
a sophisticated way to address each of them by acknowledging “what is between the
two.” Regarding the internal/external dichotomy (Bunt & Stige, 2014, p. 79):
a multiplicity conceives a “disjunctive fold that goes beyond the opposition of inter­
iority and exteriority in favor of the idea of intensity” (Gilliam, 2014). Similarly, the
individual/collective dichotomy in music therapy (Stige, 2002, p. 50) can be viewed as
a dynamic confluence, where autonomy and collective endeavor are folded into each
other. Our interactions acknowledge our social and cultural backgrounds, while also
recognizing our individual ability to influence society and culture. Stige’s (2002)
definitions of culture and nature promote an initial opposition. However, he later
seeks to provide space for reciprocal interaction (pp. 329, 334) that resonates with the
nuance of multiplicity. The addressing of dichotomies opens up space for better
understanding what happens before, between, within, and through.

Exploring the before and between: multiplicity, protomusicality, and the

paramusical
Some theoretical perspectives in music therapy have employed the terms protomusical
and paramusical to help describe the nuances of our work, providing alternatives to the
music/nonmusic dichotomy. Protomusicality refers to the capacity for human beings,
through the evolutionary process, to express and experience themselves through
sound, and towards the organization of such processes (Stige, 2002). This capacity
can also be found in other animal species to certain degrees and in particular ways
(Matney, 2007). However, a focus on human capacity and evolution acknowledges
a remarkable type of vitality and virtuality, one that may underpin something more
relevant to universality than “music(s).” Protomusicality also articulates an important
precedent regarding complexity; the act of music can include something that precedes
it, occurs alongside it, and informs any outcomes that may occur through it. In relation
to protomusicality and multiplicity, music can be seen as an evolutionary technology
 NORDIC JOURNAL OF MUSIC THERAPY
13

Figure 2. Music therapy-as-multiplicity

14 W. MATNEY

(Patel, 2008) that survives with us individually and collectively: one that does not
dictate, but rather co-mingles with our histories and futures.
Ansdell (2016) describes the paramusical as a reciprocal engagement between the
musical event and various actions and responses that occur through that act; these
aspects are not necessarily separable from the music process, but are also not necessa­
rily confined to it. The prefix “para” refers to that which happens along with and
alongside. Dynamic, contextual creations of music exist in conjunction with sensation,
movement, awareness, expression, communication, social interaction, and so on.
Paraphrasing and extending Dos Santos and Wagner (2018), I note that para-
musical things, “such as emotions, identities, memories or movements, take shape in
relation to music within a confluence” (p. 7), a constant act of merging and emerging.
Implied in the terms protomusical and paramusical is that which is multiple and
multiplies, reinforcing what is noted in Figure 2; what we have referred to as musical
and nonmusical become striated and folded into each other, promoting an active
fusion and interconnection through the events at hand. This idea of multiplicity, as
an alternative to simple difference and opposition, is also not new to music and health.
The Bantuic word egwu (eg’-woo) – a term implying “force motion” – refers simulta­
neously to drum, drumming, dance, sport, healing, and health; it is also an event,
a ritual that combines all of them (Mereni, 1996). Ruud (1988) discusses the “poly­
semic nature” of music (p. 37): that it contains multiple senses, and has the ability to
lead to personal change through porous boundaries. Ruud (2020) also discusses music
as a multiplicity: as “many ways to conceptualize” music and the changes that occur
through it (pp. 209–210). Cross (2014) notes the “floating intentionality” of music,
where direct affect and individualized meaning can simultaneously occur (p. 814).
Tomaino (2015) notes that through music therapy, our skills “are developed over time,
and our brain learns to apply our repertoire in an infinite array of possible outcomes”
(p. 49). Along these lines, Hunt (2015) describes neurophenomenology in music
therapy, where both lived experience and neurological indicators are gauged in relation
to health promotion. Gilbertson (2015) proposes “an ontology of multiplicity” (p. 511)
that opens up new opportunities for connecting “textual, living, non-living, embodied,
material, metaphorical, and phenomenological” narratives (p. 489). These ideas chal­
lenge dualistic and dichotomous thinking, which for me provide overly simplistic,
oppositional, and in my estimation inadequate responses to a world where the multiple
presents itself and proliferates. Having highlighted this challenge and emerging alter­
native, I now move to discuss other components of theory that I believe warrant
examination.

The decentered center: The dynamic of multiplicity

Some approaches to music therapy are identified by their use of centering. Centering
provides a focal point for a theory or perspective, often emphasizing a position or area
of interest. For example, music-centered music therapy is based on a set of established
music therapy practices; it centers in particular understandings of human creativity,
musical processes, and a focus on musical outcomes. Culture-centered music therapy
(Stige, 2002) centers in an “an awareness of music therapy as culture,” (p. 42); Stige
describes culture as being “in constant change and exchange” (p. 4), rightfully
acknowledging a dynamic element to our work.
The question then becomes if and how multiplicity informs the idea of centering.
Deleuze (1994) noted that his concepts are made (and unmade) “along a moving
 NORDIC JOURNAL OF MUSIC THERAPY 15

horizon, from an always decentered centre” (p. xxi). The motion of the world (i.e.
moving horizon) maintains a constant dynamism in Deleuze’s image of thought. He
was suspicious of any limitations or exclusions that centering could result in, because it
can risk a lack of movement or change. Centering has also historically tended to
privilege the importance of a particular identity (the self-same) over another (the
other): as examples, a portion of humanity over other portions, or the entirety of
humanity at the potential expense of other living beings and the world we live in.
Decentering allows an aperture to move or expand in real time, promoting visibility
of/in other areas (perhaps singular, perhaps multiple). One might wonder if our
theories and metatheories would evolve through dynamic re-positioning, acknowl­
edging differences in intensity amongst various components, according to the many
needs that can occur within contexts. By my estimation, multiplicity provides us ways
to change, contract, and expand focal points within our work. Decentering allows us to
re-think inclusion, reflection, and action through repositioned scopes. A “decentered
centre” provides us a new image with which we not only promote “tolerance for
diversity, in the broadest sense of the term” (Stige, 2002, p. 2), but also to promote
the potential for radicalized thought and action related to diverse needs, such as those
found in post-human stances (Ansdell & Stige, 2018; Braidotti, 2012; Ruud, 2020).
Through music therapy-as-multiplicity, music-centered approaches may be seen as
particular intensifications of art, the human being, and the creative endeavor. Culture-
centered approaches promote particular intensifications of human relationship. The
considerations of art, science, and humanity are maintained in every perspective,
model, and theoretical orientation, but their manifestations and intensifications are
dynamic. Our work is differentiated through the event, how it is situated, and how it is
open to being re-situated; we as clinicians can choose to be open to this differentiation
and our roles within it.

The act of music: Considering musicking and multiplicity

In philosophy, different thinkers often arrive at similar ideas around the same time.
While Deleuze established his multiplicity concept in the 1960s, translations from
French to English occurred decades later, perhaps limiting its employment in some
areas. Other thinkers have explored music as an event. Musicking is a concept devel­
oped and popularized by Christopher Small. Musicking can be described as the act of
music that occurs through sets of relationships (music-to-music, music-to-people, and
people-to-people). Musicking has also been employed and elaborated on in culture-
centered, community, and ecological perspectives.
We can certainly find parallels, and perhaps symbiosis, between this presentation of
multiplicity and Small’s musicking. Some music therapy publications employing
Deleuze’s ideas refer to musicking (Dos Santos, 2019; Miyake, 2010; Ruud, 2020).
We may wonder if/how multiplicity contributes something unique. The philosophical
reply can likely be found in the more subtle positions of the two thinkers that
originated them. Small describes musicking as a set of ideal relationships between
sound and sound, sound and people, and people and people. Small asserts that
relationships are “mental, not physical, events. They are made in our minds . . . .”
(Small, 1998, p. 112). He also notes that we experience relationships in the “body and
senses” (Small, 1998, pp. 96, 137), and seeks to integrate the mental and physical. He
suggests that the arts allow us to “think with our bodies” (p. 140). However, Small’s
overall description appears to give primacy to the mind. His presuppositions suggest at
16 W. MATNEY

least a tendency toward a type of idealism,14 not flawed, but worthy of mention and
engagement. In comparison, Deleuze’s multiplicity asserts the event as simultaneously
constructed15 through the mental and physical: simply put, as two concurrent aspects
of the same thing; Deleuze clearly offers no primacy when it comes to the existence of
relationships in a multiplicity; he rather acknowledges an importance of the mind in
the construction of meaning and value. Further study of Small, Gregory Bateson,16 and
Deleuze are likely warranted in this regard.
Having elaborated on nuanced philosophical differences, I now wish to show how
music therapy-as-multiplicity may enhance musicking in a more straightforward,
practical sense. The relationships described by Small (1998), and the rightful latter
elaborations of musicking as a situated practice by music therapy authors, can also be
considered in terms of their scientific organization, their artistic creativity (whether
prepared or extemporaneous) and their intentions regarding human value. They can
be engaged in regard to what is situated through the actual, but also re-situated
through the use of the virtual during the act of music. Culture-centered, community,
and ecological perspectives have used musicking to look holistically at the connections
between the individual, society, culture, and environment (Bruscia, 2014, pp. 99, 107).
Some have also sought to integrate the biological and psychological (Pavlicevic &
Ansdell, 2004, p. 74); I believe this level of comprehensive inclusion resonates with
Deleuze’s work.
Musicking has been rightfully elaborated on as a “situated practice” within music
therapy in ecological, cultural, and community perspectives. Through multiplicity,
client, therapist, and environment are not only situated, but are constantly re-situating
through events. For example, Pavlicevic and Ansdell (2004) discuss how community
music therapy allows us to re-think “self versus the world” into a more charitable “self
in the world” (p. 84). A multiplicity takes this idea further, as “selves moving within
a world that is also in motion;” this image promotes a shared creative power amidst the
individual, the sociocultural, and the ecological, as organized by science, emboldened
by art, and enacted through humanity. Adding to Pavlicevic and Ansdell (2004)
description of Jacques Derrida’s17 hospitality (p. 80), a multiplicity seeks an open,
porous understanding of a highly complex and dynamic set of relationships, resulting
in a practice where context requires our active attention as a dynamic contributor, for
it is never truly stationed.

Multiplicity and the energizing of affordances

The act of music therapy has also been described using other concepts. DeNora’s
(2000) use of affordance provides one way to explain the uses/functions of music
within situated practices. An affordance is a relational property, usually understood as
what happens interdependently between a person and a thing. Both multiplicity and
affordance focus on the how social and material/technological relationships are

14
Small’s assertions in this sense appear to hold greater parallel to Fichte, Schelling, or Hegel than to Deleuze.
These German Idealists noted that things are postulations of our own consciousness (the I).
15
Deleuze’s constructivism was about human creation, but strongly related to individual engagement with the
world. This definition largely parallels that of Michael Crotty (1998).
16
Gregory Bateson strongly influenced Small’s conceptualization of relationships and events. Deleuze and
Guattari reference Gregory Bateson in their work, both in terms of exemplifying their concepts and offering
critique in his implementation.
17
Jacques Derrida was a peer of Deleuze’s, although he focused more on language and its deconstruction.
 NORDIC JOURNAL OF MUSIC THERAPY 17

complimentary. Both provide space for events to occur. These similarities open the
question as to whether or not multiplicity offers anything salient. The answer to this
question likely exists in this article’s detailed descriptions of the intensive and exten­
sive, differences within and differences between, and the actual and virtual. Affordance,
as a noun,18 focuses by definition on the shared property. Multiplicity, as an act,
focuses more on the dynamic process where the sharing occurs.
For a more nuanced look at my assertion, we can also compare with DeNora’s
(2000) skillful navigation of Bruno Latour’s Actor Network Theory (ANT) (p. 40).19
Deleuze’s multiplicity emphasizes the virtual, the anticipatory, and emergence to
promote difference; in comparison, Latour shows preference for that which is already
constituted, and is more “fixed and stable,” (Müller & Schurr, 2016, p. 219). The
following illustrations from Tia DeNora (2000, p. 39) may show how multiplicity
can help us enhance and re-envision our understanding of affordance. While
a platform can afford us to stand on it, and a ball can afford to roll/us to roll it,
a larger dynamic reality entails how each platform differs from other platforms (e.g.
materially, culturally, functionally), and each ball differs from other balls. A ball can
roll/be rolled differently, based on its own sphericity, the speed with which we propel it,
the type of surface it is rolled on (e.g. unlevel, bumpy, striated), and so on. The rolling
of the ball can then also affect the way it rolls in the future, promoting difference
within. In these senses, items are afforded their own dynamism and differentiation
while they also can be (re)constituted through our engagement with them. Similarly,
music therapy-as-multiplicity differentiates through that which is constituted (actua­
lized), as well as through the capacities of its many constituents. The consideration of
affect within multiplicity (the capacity to affect and be affected) maintains a type of
autonomous, complexity for the event, a difference in itself that is neither entirely
technological nor sociological, but rather what happens in between both.

Multiplicity and complexity theory

Deleuze’s multiplicity conceptualizes a system in flux, acknowledging intensities and
flows that engage in a dynamic multiple. Of notable comparison is Crowe’s (2004)
complexity theory, where systems promote nonlinear “feedback and feedforward
loops” (p. xiv). Complexity theory takes into account the chaotic considerations of
the world, and of our individual and collective “messy” operations within it. Crowe’s
inclusion of emergence, novel interaction, disorganization, and fractal reorganization
invites us to rethink predictability. Deleuze shows similar affinities for non-linear
thought, for emergence, and for something near chaos. In multiplicity, we seek to
first sense, and then make sense of ourselves in a world of disruption and re-
organization – scientifically, “always already situated in a set of relations”
(Colebrook & Bennett, 2009, p. 71). Along similar lines, Dos Santos (2018, 2019))
evaluates and re-envisions music therapy practice regarding empathy and aggression
with “becoming-adolescents.” Dos Santos (2018) notes “Life is differential and is in
a continuous state of becoming. Difference is a multiplicity and a continuum . . .
a manifestation of connections and relations” (p. 51). She acknowledges her own
ongoing learning (becoming-therapist), understanding aggression in becoming-

18
James Gibson (1979) makes this point clear.
19
Latour (2005) provides direct reference to Deleuze and Guattari’s work as aligned with his own in many
regards.
18 W. MATNEY

adolescents as a realistic, functional response to a re-situating, sometimes chaotic

world.

Ritournelle: Considering current and future territories

Multiplicity – through its use of differences, extensions, intensities, tendencies, and
capacities – acknowledges that a situated practice is also re-situating through the event.
Music therapy-as-multiplicity acknowledges the contextual complexity of our work,
promoting a dynamic focus through the act of music, relating such to shared processes
with music, with people, and with the world around us. Music therapy-as-multiplicity
is therefore also a way to engage with multiple approaches. Dos Santos (2018) refers to
this engagement as a threshold, with which one can “plug in and out of . . . .” (p. vi).
I refer to such an encounter as a fulcrum or pivot point. As a metaphorical extension of
the egwu discussed earlier, we can consider the pivoting actions of the basketball player
(sport), the dancer (movement), and the marimbist (music). We pivot dynamically, to
create new spaces and strengths, to change our capacities. The moment allows us to
engage with new intensities, playing a role in re-situating contexts and empowering
new acts within the event. In the case of music therapy-as-multiplicity, we pivot
through the “in betweens” of art, science, and relationship. The multiplicity results
in a dynamic, living organism that evolves through ongoing events.
A generalized challenge to Deleuze’s project exists in its “indefiniteness” and
openness.20 All process-oriented philosophies21 run similar risks. I acknowledge that
multiplicity can be difficult to navigate at times, and may not be appreciated by all. I do
however believe it can provide a useful lens with which to help us re-envision our work.
Perhaps we will continue to see clinicians, researchers, and theoreticians move ideas
regarding context, complexity, emergence, dynamism, and nonlinear processes for­
ward, even if not explicitly through the concept I am presenting.

Conclusion
Deleuze’s multiplicity seeks overall to be a nuanced explanation of the practical world.
Oppositional, abstract categories can risk overgeneralization, limitation, and exclusion.
In the midst of music therapy-as-multiplicity, these categorical boundaries become
porous. Identities and outcomes evolve and multiply through complex interactions
that take into account gradients of difference, but also of differentiation. There will
always exist tensions between diverse approaches, but the multiplicity acknowledges
these tensions through more interesting and diverse spatial relations. Differences can
then be seen as critically inclusive options (Bruscia, 2014) within particular contexts,
and therefore as dynamic capacities between (and even within) clinicians.
Understood largely through Bruscia’s writing and Deleuze’s conceptual work,
multiplicity provides new ways to look at music and at what happens in between
science, art, and human relationship. This re-imaging of music therapy allows us to
challenge dichotomies and potentially re-orient our notions of centering. We gain new
20
For those interested, the work of Alain Badiou, Slavoj Zizek, Ray Brassier, and Graham Harman may be worth
exploring. Many of their critiques have also been addressed by Deleuze proteges such as Manuel DeLanda,
John Protevi, and Antonio Negri among others. There also exist feminist critiques and feminist supporters (e.g.
Braidotti, 2012) of Deleuze’s work.
21
E.g. Heraclitus, Hegel, Small, Whitehead, Deleuze.
 NORDIC JOURNAL OF MUSIC THERAPY 19

understandings of outcomes as multiple, due to our complex work and our clients’
constant engagement with new contexts over time. We see the potential for nonlinear
thinking. We open ourselves to new critique and new types of inclusivity. Perhaps this
type of opening gives our field permission to focus less time on defining “what is” and
more time on designing “what if,” through the organization, creativity, and (post-)
humanity of our work.

Disclosure statement
The author reports no conflicts of interest.

Funding
No funding was received for this study.

Notes on contributor
William Matney is an assistant professor at the University of Kansas. His published and presented
work has included study of philosophical and theoretical problems within music therapy, as related to
research, clinical practice, and training.

References
Abrams, B. (2012). Understanding music as a temporal-aesthetic way of being: Implications for
a general theory of music therapy. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 38, 114–119. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.aip.2011.02.001
Abrams, B. (2018). Understanding humanistic dimensions of music therapy: Editorial introduction.
Music Therapy Perspectives, 36(2), 139–143. https://doi.org/10.1093/mtp/miy019
Aigen, K. (2005). Music-centered music therapy. Barcelona.
Aigen, K. S. (2014). The study of music therapy: Current issues and concepts. Routledge.
Ansdell, G. (1995). Music for life: Aspects of creative music therapy with adult clients. Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Ansdell, G. (2016). How music helps in music therapy and everyday life. Routledge.
Ansdell, G., & Stige, B. (2018). Can music therapy still be humanist? Music Therapy Perspectives, 36(2),
175–182. https://doi.org/10.1093/mtp/miy018
Benenzon, R. (2009). The first nine congresses of music therapy. Voices: A World Forum for Music
Therapy, 9(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.15845/voices.v9i1.370
Bergson, H. (1910). Time and free will: An essay on the immediate data of consciousness. George Allen
and Unwin.
Bergson, H. (2007). The creative mind: An introduction to metaphysics. Dover Publications.
Bergson, H. (2011). Matter and memory. Martino Publishing.
Bogue, R. (1991). Rhizomusicosmology. SubStance, 20(3), 85–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/3685181
Braidotti, R. (2012). Nomadic theory: The portable Rosi Braidotti. Columbia University Press.
Bruscia, K. E. (1998). Defining music therapy (2nd ed.). Barcelona.
Bruscia, K. E. (2014). Defining music therapy (3rd ed.). Barcelona.
Bryant, L. (2011). The democracy of objects. Open Humanities Press.
Bunt, L., & Stige, B. (2014). Music therapy: An art beyond words. Routledge.
Cady, H. L. (1963). Musical abstraction in relation to societal development – Implications for the
therapist and the educator. Bulletin of the National Association of Music Therapy, 12(2), 1–15.
Colebrook, C., & Bennett, D. (2009). The Sonorous, the Haptic and the intensive. New Formations, 66
(66), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.3898/newf.66.05.2009
Cross, I. (2014). Music and communication in music psychology. Psychology of Music, 42(6), 809–819.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735614543968
20 W. MATNEY

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process.
Sage Publications.
Crowe, B. (2004). Music and soulmaking. The Scarecrow Press.
Darrow, A. A. (2007). Looking to the past: Thirty years of history worth remembering. Music Therapy
Perspectives, 25(2), 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/mtp/25.2.94
Daugherty, J. (2014). Philosophical research in music therapy. Week 2, session 1 notes [PowerPoint
slides]. http://cmed.faculty.ku.edu/813/813powerts.html
DeLanda, M. (2006). A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity.
Continuum.
Deleuze, G. (1986). Cinema 1: The movement-image. University of Minnesota Press.
Deleuze, G. (1988). Foucault. Althone.
Deleuze, G. (1994). Difference and Repetition. Columbia University Press.
Deleuze, G. (2005). Francis Bacon: Logic and sensation. University of Minnesota Press.
Deleuze, G. (2008, February). Theory of multiplicities in Bergson. Lecture made publicly available.
http://deleuzelectures.blogspot.com/2007/02/theory-of-multiplicities-in-bergson.html
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. University of Minnesota Press.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy? Verso.
Deleuze, G., & Parnet, C. (2002). Dialogues II. (H. Tomlinson & B. Habberjam, Trans.). Columbia
University Press.
DeNora, T. (2000). Music in everyday life. Cambridge University Press.
Dos Santos, A. (2018). Empathy and aggression in group music therapy with adolescents: Comparing the
affordances of two paradigms [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], University of Pretoria.
Dos Santos, A. (2019). The usefulness of aggression as explored by becoming-teenagers in group
music therapy. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 29(2), 150–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08098131.2019.1649712
Dos Santos, A., & Wagner, C. (2018). Musical elicitation methods: Insights from a study with
becoming-adolescents referred to group music therapy for aggression. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918797427
Duerksen, G. L. (1977). Some similarities between music education and music therapy. Journal of
Music Therapy, 4(3), 95–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/4.3.95
Garred, R. (2006). Music as therapy: A dialogical perspective. Barcelona.
Gaston, E. T. (1968). Music in Therapy. MacMillan Company.
Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hougton Mifflin Harcourt.
Gilbertson, S. (2015). In visible hands: The matter and making of music therapy. Journal of Music
Therapy, 52(4), 487–514. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/thv014
Gilliam, C. (2014). The spectre of immanence: Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Foucault, and Deleuze
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation], University of London https://www.academia.edu/12393278/
The_Spectre_of_Immanence_Sartre_Merleau-Ponty_Foucault_and_Deleuze
Hanson Abromeit, D. (2015). A conceptual methodology to define the therapeutic function of music.
Music Therapy Perspectives, 33(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/mtp/miu061
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Harvard University Press.
Holmes, D., & Gastaldo, D. (2004). Rhizomatic thought in nursing: An alternative path for the
development of the discipline. Nursing Philosophy, 5(3), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-
769X.2004.00184.x
Hunt, A. M. (2015). Boundaries and potentials of traditional and alternative neuroscience research
methods in music therapy research. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 342. https://doi.org/10.
3389/fnhum.2015.00342
Husserl, E. (2003). Philosophy of arithmetic. Logical and psychological investigations. Springer.
Isern, B. (1964). Music in special education. Journal of Music Therapy, 1(4), 139–142. https://doi.org/
10.1093/jmt/1.4.139
Jellison, J. (1983). Functional value as criterion for selection and prioritization of nonmusic and music
educational objectives in music therapy. Music Therapy Perspectives, 1(2), 17–22. https://doi.org/
10.1093/mtp/1.2.17
Kebede, M. (2019). Bergson’s philosophy of self-overcoming: Thinking without negativity or time as
striving. Palgrave Macmillan.
Kenny, C. (1996). The mythic artery. Ridgeview Publishing.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. Oxford University Press.
 NORDIC JOURNAL OF MUSIC THERAPY 21

Lee, C. A. (2003). The architecture of aesthetic music therapy. Barcelona.

Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Duke University Press.
Matney, B. (2007). Tataku: The use of percussion in music therapy. Sarsen.
Matney, B. (2019). A knowledge framework for the philosophical underpinnings of research:
Implications for music therapy. Journal of Music Therapy, 56(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/
jmt/thy018
Mereni, A.-E. (1996). ‘Kinesis und kartharsis’ The African traditional concept of sound/motion or
music: Its application in, and implications for, music therapy. British Journal of Music Therapy, 10
(1), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/135945759601000103
Michel, D. (1953). Directing a music therapy department. Bulletin of the National Association of Music
Therapy, 5(2), 7–8, 10.
Miyake, H. (2010). Rhizomatic networking leading to co-musicking processes: A case study of a boy
with adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD). International CARLS Series of Advanced Study of Logic and
Sensibility, 4, 357–362. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/145740874.pdf
Müller, M., & Schurr, C. (2016). Assemblage thinking and actor-network theory: Conjunctions,
disjunctions, cross-fertilisations. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 41(3),
217–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12117
Nesbitt, N., & Hulse, B. (2010). Sounding the virtual: Gilles Deleuze and the theory and philosophy of
music. Routledge.
Nettl, B. (2005). The study of ethnomusicology: Thirty-one issues and concepts. University of Illinois
Press.
O’Sullivan, S. (2006). Art encounters Deleuze and Guattari: Thought beyond representation. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Patel, A. (2008). Music, language, and the brain. Oxford University Press.
Pavlicevic, M., & Ansdell, G. (2004). Community music therapy. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Robb, S. (2012). Gratitude for a complex profession: The importance of theory-based research in
music therapy. Journal of Music Therapy, 49(1), 2–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/49.1.2
Roffe, J. (2010). Multiplicity. In A. Parr (Ed.), The Deleuze dictionary (Revised ed., pp. 182–183).
Edinburgh University Press.
Ruud, E. (1988). Music therapy: Health profession or cultural movement? Music Therapy, 7(1), 34–37.
https://doi.org/10.1093/mt/7.1.34
Ruud, E. (2020). Toward a sociology of music therapy: Musicking as a cultural immunogen. Barcelona
Publishers.
Small, C. (1998). Musicking. Wesleyan University Press.
Smith, J. (2012). Becoming-music: A description of an improvisation music therapy outreach
approach. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 3(2 & 3), 272–283. https://
doi.org/10.18357/ijcyfs32-3201210870
Stige, B. (2002). Culture-centered music therapy. Barcelona.
Szekeley, M. (2010). Schizo zen, or subjectivity and the schizoid musician. Rhizomes: Cultural Studies
in Emerging Knowledge, 20. http://rhizomes.net/issue20/szekely.html
Taylor, D. (1999). Biomedical foundations of music as therapy. MMB Music.
Thaut, M. H. (2000). A scientific model of music in therapy and medicine. IMR Press.
Thaut, M. H. (2005). Rhythm, music and the brain: Scientific foundations and clinical applications.
Routledge.
Thaut, M. H. (2014). Handbook of neurologic music therapy. Oxford University Press.
Tomaino, C. (2015). Music therapy and the brain. In B. L. Wheeler (Ed.), Music therapy handbook (pp.
40–50). New York: Guilford Press.
Turino, T. (1993). Moving away from silence: Music of the Peruvian altiplano and the experience of
urban migration. University of Chicago Press.