Composing Care: The Aesthetics and Politics of Music Therapy in the Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines the care work of music therapists in North American hospitals. Based on sixteen months of fieldwork conducted between 2019 and 2020 in Canada and the United States, this ethnography investigates the clinical aesthetics of music therapy, or how music therapy is sensed and made sense of in the clinic. I show how, through its foundation in Western art music traditions, the profession of music therapy is depoliticized—grounded in the values of universality, rationality, and objectivity—and aligned with biomedicine. It is through an association with biomedical knowledge systems that, I argue, music therapy is made into a health profession. I found that music therapists struggle to have their work taken seriously as they care for patients on the margins of hospital systems. Music therapists are in pursuit of what I call clinical recognition—being seen and valued from a biomedical perspective. As they strive to be recognized as indispensable to biomedical care, I show how music therapists attempt to ameliorate biomedical care structures from within. They cultivate sensitivities to sensory experience, especially to sound, that inform their movement through hospitals and guide their interactions with patients and staff. By intervening in what I describe as the clinical sensorium—the dominant structuring of sensory modes of attention that shape what is sensible in the clinic—music therapists disrupt the stultifying anaesthetic, or numbing, qualities of the clinic by reconfiguring clinical attunements, composing atmospheres of care, and structuring feelings in their extra/ordinary care practices. These care practices, I argue, are grounded in reciprocity; through musical gift exchange, music therapists foster affective connections and attachments for hospital patients that reimagine care in ways that remain partially tethered to yet exceed biomedical logics. Mobilized for and against biopolitical care regimes that attempt to delineate, capture, and govern life and death, I argue the care practices of music therapists reimagine the sensory-affective possibilities of living and dying in the clinic.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".