دانلود کتاب مسیرهای همدلی – نمایی از موسیقی درمانی

Curiosity is oxygen for empathy. Without it, empathy struggles to ignite and battles to endure. Ironically, we can lose our sense of curiosity towards empathy itself. The study of empathy has been turbulent in fields such as philosophy, aesthetics, psychology, and neuroscience because of remarkable and ongoing disagreement about the concept’s definition (Van Baaren et al., 2009). While empathy is a core pillar of music therapy, we, however, have left it almost entirely unquestioned. As a field, we have not actively taken part with curiosity in debates about what the concept means, how we make meaning with it, and the implications of those meanings.
Many descriptions of empathy revolve around sharing in and under-standing another person’s emotions. One separate person gains access to the emotional world of another. An entire worldview holds up this idea. It is individualistic and affirms the possibility of access to other people’s “inner world.” Can we really see inside another, though? And are we discrete, separate selves? Is that your worldview? Even if it is, would you be happy stating that it’s the only valid worldview? If our answer to either of these questions is “no,” then what happens to the concept of empathy? Do we abandon it, or do we invite it to expand? Empathy may look, sound, and behave differently in diverse contexts. Music therapy itself is a diverse field. Some have argued that music therapy should be so sensitive to the context that it resists “one-size-fits-all-anywhere” (Ansdell, 2003, p. 31) approaches. If this is the case, we would need to acknowledge a pluriversality (Mbembe, 2015) of practices, concepts, theories, and research methods. As empathy is a central component of our work (Bruscia, 2001), our understanding of the concept needs to be flexible enough so that it is fit for purpose within music therapy’s advance as a responsive practice. When we notice that we play in a pluriverse, new possibilities open up for all of us. As Robin Dunford (2017) argued in Towards a decolonial global ethics, a certain value, way of living, policy, or practice is compatible with a pluriverse “if it allows other worlds to survive and thrive, and incompatible if it inevitably involves the destruction of other life-worlds” (p. 390). By defi-nition, empathy invites us to acknowledge that there are other ways of being in the world (Clohesy, 2013).
Empathy has different meanings for different clients (Bachelor, 1988). Who are our thinking tools for? Our satisfaction or our clients’ best inter-ests? Our task is to stand behind our clients, look over their shoulders and ask them what they see. We may feel passionately invested in our orien-tation of choice but caring for the client always supersedes how much we care about our frameworks. My goal in this book is not to present an argument for the “rightness” of one view of empathy. The ideas in these pages are thinking tools that we can use flexibly.