|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EVER since there has been a discussion about the "public" or a "public sphere," commentators have concerned themselves with the legitimacy of public opinion or the viability of public debate. In the writings of de Tocqueville and Nietzsche, Dewey and Habermas, the insistence on the role of the public is regularly coupled with a fear of its degradation. Shall we think of the public as the assembly of rational men and women, rational simply by virtue of their humanity, who come together to debate topics with open minds and a sense of fair play? Or is the public merely a terrain, perhaps a particularly degraded terrain, of marketing and manipulation, where deceit is the watchword? In the rationalist model we consider it a virtue to bring matters "out into the public," so that decisions won't be made "behind closed doors," in rooms that are proverbially smoke-filled. The light of day and public opinion are expected to banish such carcinogenic miasma. In contrast, the pessimistic account harbors no such high expectations of the public, regarded instead as corrupt and easily swayed. The best public strategy, consequently, would not be the best argument but the best public relations firm.
We have heard these debates in scholarly circles with regard to the notion of the public sphere, and, particularly during 1998 and 1999, these debates were played out in the national political arena: Does public opinion count? What is the relation of public opinion polls to the public debate in Congress? Does the public have a memory? What role in the process do backroom deals play, outside the public eye?
Interestingly, the very title of the session sponsored by the ADFL, Shaping Public Opinion: (Re)(in)forming Public Perceptions of Foreign Language Programs, repeats our anxieties about publicness in its play with parentheses and prefixes. We might read "Reforming Public Perceptions," conjuring up a headily optimistic campaign of reform, of making the wrong world right, of battling against adversity in the name of a progressive truth. Yet our contemporary sensibility makes us a tad uncomfortable with this sort of engagement, and the re in reform disappears into the limbo of a parenthetical enclosure. So instead we can read "Informing Public Perceptions," a more professional tone, less in-your-face, more educational (our business after all), as if the dispersion of a value-free set of data alone would change our circumstances: Oh, if only the public knew the truth, if only it had access to the correct information, it would of necessity agree with our conclusions, fundamentally incontrovertible. Do the parentheses around the in in informing suggest some heretical doubt that information may not be enough and that the truth alone might not suffice to set us free? If so, we would move on to "Forming Public Perceptions," the position of last resort, the concession that we must shape, mold, lead, and seize the public mind, the issue no longer being the quality of the case we make but the force and packaging with which we bring it forward. We have a great book here, but the public isn't responding well, so we choose to get it a better cover, since it is by its cover that the book will be judged.
Fretting over the substance of public life is nothing new, and this essay is not the place to try to illuminate its theoretical dimension. But we should, we must, recall that we are indeed fretting about the public perception of foreign language departments because of issues that are hardly merely theoretical. On the contrary, across the country, in institutions ranging from community colleges to research universities, and in Spanish programs, with their record numbers, as well as in the less commonly taught languages, there is a sense of isolation and inadequate support, from the administration as much as from the larger public; indeed, there is evidence of hostility and challenges to the project as a whole. Do Americans really need to learn foreign languages? Do foreign languages have to be taught in universities? If we can move them to language centers, why not outsource them altogether--if we really need them at all.
It is of course crucial to recall that such voices are not the only ones we hear. There remains considerable support for second language acquisition, inside and outside the university. It is, however, not useful to deny that the legitimacy of the project faces vocal challenges. To the extent that second language acquisition was historically linked to a liberal arts education, the increasing shift toward a culture of preprofessional concerns cuts into our programs. If the aggregate foreign language enrollment has remained somewhat stable recently, one might certainly wish that all the talk of globalization and the international economy would have led to increased enrollments. It is here presumably that the illusion of the global adequacy of English plays a deleterious role, but we should not ignore the fact that if we make preprofessional preparation our primary argument, we may be undermining ourselves, since--heresy!--in the international business world English may well suffice.
There are furthermore the sorts of criticisms that concede the importance of foreign language learning but complain about the quality of the output of American programs. This is indeed one criticism I believe we have to take seriously: American-educated professionals appear rarely able to engage their foreign-educated counterparts in the foreign language at a level appropriate for professional purposes. This is a complex matter, having to do with different national cultures--but we should not always hide behind that excuse--and with differently structured and articulated curricula. If we could begin to graduate a larger percentage of American college students with advanced second-language skills (and not just ACTFL Intermediate-High), a significant piece of our "public perception" problem would disappear.
In the meantime, the perception problem remains, we should address it, and no venue is more important than the one within the university itself, the campus public. In what follows I offer no silver bullet; there is no single formula that will put an end to all our problems. In fact, what follows may make matters worse, since it points to a new set of duties for faculty members, especially senior faculty members and department chairs. If the core of our work involves mounting programs of the highest quality we can, our work also has to include packaging these programs, defending and promoting them--making sure our books have the best possible covers.
To present our programs most effectively to the campus public, we have to remember the very first public, the public through whose collaborative efforts our programs are developed and delivered: the department faculty. It is here that a public discussion should take place with the goal of reaching some basic unanimity--provisional perhaps, since goals can change, but certainly a shared project that everyone can buy into and that everyone can support. Some may choose to call this a mission statement, but whatever the label or whatever the document, the program requires coherent faculty support. This in turn implies--in the real world--that the shared program not only set real goals all can share but also leave the crucial room for individual differences and a division of labor. Pushing a too sectarian or divisive program will do a department no good.
In my own department we have, through a series of discussions, largely come together over the shared project of involving regular tenured or tenure-line faculty members in the early years of German learning, especially second- and first-year instruction. This move departs from previous patterns in the department and from what takes place in many research universities. There are still differences--less important differences--for example, over how we would want to map literary history, divide periods, and so forth. I mention this to demonstrate that what is crucial is having an important core program definition, which will be the basis of the message a department can broadcast, and this is compatible with some degree of diversity of opinion on other details.
Our message--faculty involvement in all stages of undergraduate education--is linked to another point that is the real crux of the matter: insisting that every class in the department, even (or especially) first-year language, be redefined in a way to make it as intellectually exhilarating as any class on campus. German at Stanford involves the integration of culture and language, which I have discussed elsewhere and will not belabor here. My point is this: Your department has to come together around a clear message, and the substance of that message has to be your specific strategy to achieve excellence in undergraduate education. The notion of a specific strategy entails defining what a department is doing to distinguish its curriculum and teaching. Pounding our desks about some innate importance of foreign languages does not get us very far; that same case can be made for many other subjects, and perhaps more convincingly. Foreign language programs must underscore the special achievement of the programs themselves, not the abstract value of the topic.
Once the departmental message is in place, it must be brought to the second public: the students in the classes. Every syllabus and every introduction to a course should make clear how that particular course participates in the larger departmental mission. This point is not only about curricular articulation; it is about making that articulation clear to the students so they can understand--and perhaps convey to other students--the special achievements that are the core of the foreign language program. This basic premise implies in turn that individual faculty members teaching individual courses have to cooperate in the substantive coordination of the curriculum, and this then suggests some degree of modification of their independence. We will not be able to promote foreign language programs unless individual faculty members see themselves as part of their respective teams rather than as fully isolated scholars. In the long run, this perception may be the most difficult piece of academic culture to influence.
Once departmental coherence has been achieved (the first public) and translated into a well-articulated curriculum, the coordination of which is made clear to students in the classrooms (the second public sphere), the authentic work is over, and what remains is effectively broadcasting: to alumni, to other faculty members, to university support staff, and to the administration. How you choose to do so will depend on resources and institutional cultures. A newsletter could be important, but it requires time and energy. Some amount of broadcasting can be folded into other university projects: promoting departmental faculty members for teaching awards, for example. Of course, the departmental message can and must be distributed through the informal conversations that make up an important part of university life.
These reflections commenced with some thoughts on models of the public sphere, as rational debate on the one hand or as manipulated opinion on the other. For our purposes, the truth is somewhere in the middle. We--representing departments or programs--do have to formulate clear messages and stay committed to them; in this sense, we are indeed promoting or marketing. The very fact of foreign language programs should not perpetually be up for debate (no matter how rational) in all contexts. We cannot always be solely in a defensive posture. However, it is not just any, arbitrary message that we want to disseminate. On the contrary, the message has to emerge from the genuine spirit and achievements of the department. It's not snake oil that we're selling but rather the fundamental mission and the aspirations for the future in the pursuit of our academic goals.
Hence the importance of the departmental message, as it is formulated within the department, realized in the curriculum, explained to students, and disseminated through the university; and from this program four indispensable points follow.
1. In the light of a shared departmental project, in which all members do or should participate, it is crucial to refrain from criticizing other members of the department to outsiders, at least with regard to department-related work. Internecine battles are the bane of foreign language programs and should be regarded as unprofessional behavior. Wash the linen in the department but not in the university public. It doesn't matter who is right; all that matters is who is discreet.
2. Many of us will probably agree that different language programs have different traditions and involve heterogeneous intellectual agendas. Nevertheless, outsiders regard all foreign language programs as fundamentally identical, no matter if we are separated into distinct departments or units. Because the public around us does not make these fine distinctions, it is important that foreign language faculty members refrain from criticizing one another, even if they are from different departments. It does no one any good if one program attacks another. In the end, only the negative message will stick, and it will harm everyone.
3. Foreign language programs are internally differentiated, including instruction at various levels and a range of concentrations from language to culture and literature. It is not uncommon to have different personnel working in these different areas. Here too the same principle holds: refrain from criticism in public and resolve differences within the internal department debate. For primarily language faculty members to attack literature faculty members or vice versa in front of an external public is to attack the program as a whole and needs to be condemned as unprofessional.
4. The mission of the department, formulated in the core message, is an academic goal. Every articulation of the public message must underscore intellectual validity and academic achievement. When we address the campus public, we cannot forget that we are operating within a college or university and that the same academic ideals used to define higher education in general have to define our programs' goals as well.
© 2000 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
