|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONSISTENT with its interdisciplinary history, the Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics (MLL) at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) initiated an MA in intercultural communication in 1985.1 This program represents an alternative to traditional master’s programs in foreign languages, which have tended to focus on language and literature; it is an unusual combination of a traditional avenue of study, foreign languages, and a new one, intercultural communication. In 1998 MLL joined with the Departments of Africana Studies, Education, English, Sociology, and Anthropology to establish a PhD in language, literacy, and culture (LLC); subsequently they were joined by the Department of American Studies and the women’s studies program. The unusual characteristics of this new program, an alternative to traditional EdDs and PhDs in education, are the extent of its interdisciplinarity and, consequently, its strong and multifaceted emphasis on the complexities of cultural analysis. Several graduates of the MA in intercultural communication are currently students in the doctoral program in language, literacy, and culture. One of the present authors is a student in that program and is also a teaching assistant in Spanish. The other is a professor of Spanish who has directed the master’s and doctoral programs. In this article we trace the particular role to be played by faculty members and students of a language department focused on intercultural communication. We focus on the ways in which the meanings and functions of cultures are examined in both programs, with special emphasis on the appropriateness of their curricula in the conditions of globalization. For our purposes, globalization is described as a process that began in the sixteenth century but that accelerated qualitatively after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s:
Globalization has been characterized by a dramatic increase in the dynamics of time-space compression, an unprecedented variety of consumer goods, a further shrinking of the public welfare state in national economies, a diminished role of the state in the international economy, and a polarization of rich and poor people within countries and poor and rich nations in the world economic system. It has also been characterized by a unipolar political universe dominated by the United States. (Sinnigen 24)
That is, under current conditions, globalization is characterized on the one hand by an unprecedented cultural diversity and, on the other, by a dramatic increase in social polarization. We particularly analyze the theoretical aspects of the MA program, and we discuss the doctoral program in language, literacy, and culture.
The MA in intercultural communication at UMBC makes explicit what is implicit in all foreign language instruction, namely that the study of foreign languages and cultures has always been intercultural by nature, since such study necessarily involves the comparison of the native and target languages and cultures.2 All students and faculty members in the program work in at least two languages (native and L2) and are involved in analyzing issues of linguistic and cultural comparison. Unlike other programs in intercultural communication (typically housed in schools or departments of business and communication and with minimal language requirements), in the program at UMBC students experience the difficulties and embarrassments of communicating across linguistic as well as cultural barriers. Since students from the four concentrations are together in the four core courses taught in English, those classrooms are sites for investigating cultural comparisons, such as politeness principles, meanings of literacy, and nationalisms, what Elizabeth Welles called an “interdisciplinary intercultural laboratory” (24). The study of such issues provides material for understanding cultural differences and the bases for cultural communicative mishaps as well as differing world views. For example, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean students, whose concentration is in United States culture, foreground the differences between oriental and Western cultures, the importance of Confucianism, and experiences of colonialism and imperialism that are quite distinct from those of African, Latin American, European, and North American students.
The four concentrations in the program are Francophone studies, Germanic studies, Hispanic studies, and United States culture for nonnative speakers of English. Of the thirty-five students currently enrolled, thirteen are international. They come from Cameroon, People’s Republic of China, India, Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, and Spain.
The area of study, intercultural communication, is defined as those ways in which social structuring, social assumptions, and language use—nonverbal as well as verbal—bear on communication among members of different cultures. In the four core courses the meanings and functions of culture are studied from psychoanalytic, anthropological, and ideological perspectives. Thus the MA in intercultural communication is a self-reflexive program in which the study of a target language and culture is simultaneously subjected to the scrutiny of diverse perspectives through which the meaning of that study is analyzed. Faculty members who teach the core courses include specialists in sociolinguistics, ethnography, cultural studies, film studies, bilingual education, literature, and semiotics. Those courses are intercultural pragmatics, the ethnography of communication, the political economy of culture, and intercultural-cross-cultural communication.
Intercultural Pragmatics
Intercultural pragmatics focuses on the major role cultural context plays in understanding utterances and all communicative behavior. A branch of semiotics, pragmatics investigates how receivers come to understand “invisible” meanings that go beyond the literal words and signs by using inference. Inference, or the receiver’s use of additional knowledge to understand implied messages, depends crucially on physical and social context and on each participant’s “cultural unconscious” (Hall 41-55), or “cognitive environment,” in psychological terms. Edward T. Hall, whose Beyond Culture is used extensively in the course, points to situation, activity, one’s status in the social system, past experience, and culture as the contextual features that contribute to pragmatic meaning (87). For Hall, an anthropologist, culture is “deep” culture, or the hidden patterns that “govern behavior and perception” (43). Because such habitual dispositions3 are acquired by enculturation, there is a tendency to think that they are innate and to condemn as deviant patterns that are not one’s own. To counter this tendency, which results in intercultural intolerance and misunderstandings, Hall calls for ways of rendering the cultural unconscious increasingly conscious.4
The Ethnography of Communication
In this course, the role of culture in the patterning of communicative behavior of groups is examined (as opposed to the focus on the individual in intercultural pragmatics). Ethnography of communication is concerned with the creation and negotiation of meaning as they stem from the cultural unconscious. On the one hand, the course looks at the patterns of communicative behaviors within particular cultural contexts and studies the elements necessary for successful communication. On the other hand, it looks at culture and the speech community’s beliefs, values, and needs as the framework from which the patterns of communicative behaviors are to be explained and understood.5
The Political Economy of Culture
This course focuses on concepts and functions of culture primarily from an ideological perspective, and culture is linked to economic, political, and social power structures. The first reading for the course, Immanuel Wallerstein’s “Culture as the Ideological Battleground of the Modern World-System,” establishes the basis for subsequent readings and discussions. Wallerstein defines culture in terms of two uses: “Let us thus designate as culture (usage I) the set of characteristics which distinguish one group from another, and as culture (usage II) some set of phenomena which are different from (and ‘higher’ than) some other set of phenomena within any one group” (33). That is, culture as difference, culture as hierarchy, and culture as a site of fierce competition. While culture as difference is a widespread popular concept (e.g., the differences between the French and the Vietnamese cultures), culture as hierarchy is not so intuitive. Thus, for example, in studying distinct characteristics of any national target culture, it is also necessary to analyze the dynamics of gender, social class, and race and ethnicity, as well as centralisms and regionalisms. Comparisons of these hierarchies by students and instructors regarding their own national cultures and those of the cultures they study are lively and insightful and lead to a questioning of what might previously have been considered “natural” practices and beliefs. What, for example, does it mean to be a “cultured” person, in Senegal, India, Mexico, or the United States, and how are the assumptions behind that word cultured related to social hierarchies? Wallerstein’s insistence on the role of culture in a world system also allows for consideration of difference and hierarchy on a world scale. For example, if the evolving global culture is finance driven, high-tech, in English, and modeled on the American way of life, what is happening to local, regional, and national languages and cultures, and how will issues of social class, race and ethnicity, and gender affect the hierarchies of the globalizing culture?6
Intercultural, Cross-Cultural Communication
This course is mainly practical and is intended to prepare students as intercultural trainers. The first several weeks of the semester are dedicated to an examination of the concept of culture and the various ways of studying culture. To further explore interculturality, students read Larry Samovar and Richard Porter’s Intercultural Communication, a book that has as one of its goals an increase in students’ understanding of the principles of intercultural communication. Key to the course is an analysis of prospective sources of intercultural misunderstandings and an introduction of the concept of culture shock. Having set the framework, derived from concepts from the three theoretical core courses, techniques that may be applied in intercultural situations or intercultural training are introduced. Students are required to develop their own role-plays, cultural encounters, and critical incidents, all of which are exercises to increase cultural awareness. Taking full advantage of the diversity of the student body, the students are given a first-hand experience of negotiating difference with a survival simulation exercise. For this exercise, groups of students have to create a new culture by developing standards for a variety of issues such as family structure, sexuality, religion, decorum and discipline, health and hygiene, dress and personal appearance, language, punishment, work and play, holidays and celebrations, pets and animals, and education.
Courses in the target language and culture are based in social science, film studies, cultural studies, literature, and linguistics. For example, in a given year courses in Spanish may include Cervantes, Latinos in the United States (with a special focus on the Baltimore-Washington area), and twentieth-century Mexico.
MA theses written and successfully defended in recent years have covered topics such as homosexuality in the Third Reich (Noonan), readers’ response and interaction in the textual analysis classroom (Goicoechea), and American remakes of French comedies (Warden). A clear example of the intersection of concepts taken from the core courses and work in the Hispanic studies concentration is Pilar Rau’s “Art, Artifact, Artesania: Andean Peasant Culture in the Global market and Art-Culture System.” A student of Peruvian descent with a dual undergraduate major in art and in modern languages and linguistics, Rau studied the production and marketing of decorated gourds by families in Cochas Chico, a Peruvian highland peasant community. With respect to the intercultural interpersonal relations, Rau drew from intercultural pragmatics; for the ethnographic analysis, she drew from the ethnography of communication; for the analysis of the relations among the global, the national, and the local, she drew on the political economy of culture as well as on a Spanish course on globalism and gender relations in Latin America.
Through courses and seminars, internships, and research, this interdisciplinary PhD program allows students to investigate ways in which social structure, social and cultural assumptions, and language use affect interactions among members of different social and cultural groups. The program deals with the education system understood broadly as encompassing informal as well as formal education and the role of institutions other than schools (e.g., the media, churches, the health system) in the processes of education. Students, including graduates of the MA in intercultural communication, are professionals who will take their research and their research knowledge and skills to their fields and the communities in which they work by making contributions at the policy level. The program has been strikingly popular and has drawn between thirty and forty applicants each year. Between eight and ten are accepted, including full-time and part-time students. Many of them are international students, including several Fulbright scholars. The doctoral program in language, literacy, and culture is distinctive, among other reasons, because it is not housed in a department or school of education and because faculty members from departments like modern languages and linguistics participate fully in program planning and in teaching core and concentration courses.7 The particular contributions of MLL faculty members are the emphasis they place on the complexities of cultural analysis and their insistence on the international character of the issues being studied.
At the doctoral level, several dissertations are currently being written by graduates of the Master’s program in intercultural communication.8 Adriana Medina’s is an example of such efforts. I (Medina) developed an interest in interculturality as I worked with the concepts presented in the four MA core classes. I applied to the LLC program because I wanted to broaden my understanding of how culture relates to economic, political, and social power, concepts introduced in MA core classes, particularly in the political economy of culture and intercultural pragmatics courses. As my work in the LLC program progressed, I started examining ways other than training in which I could apply the techniques learned in the intercultural communication class. For my doctoral program, I did an internship as the resident director of the Maryland in Mexico study-abroad program and decided to make study abroad the focus of my dissertation research. Through a national survey, I will gather information about why college students study abroad and why they choose to study in certain countries and not others. I will look for patterns in the data: possible variables may include where students live; their beliefs about Hispanic cultures; their gender, race, and socioeconomic status; and their university programs. With this information, I hope to map existing trends in study abroad that in turn may speak about students’ prejudices and political, economic, and cultural knowledge.
The title refers to three challenges presented by the theoretical interdisciplinarity of the two programs, by the pressures and opportunities of globalization, and by the increasing imposition of a business model in institutions of higher education.
Theory in the Syllabus
The study of concepts and functions of culture in the MA core courses involves extensive theoretical readings drawn from various disciplines. Some students are resistant to the length and the density of these readings; others love it. United States students who have studied exclusively in United States universities in programs that did not include social science or linguistic components tend to be the most resistant and need to come to understand, patiently, how these theoretical concepts relate to the study of their target language and culture. Furthermore, many of the readings are distinctly outside the United States political and academic mainstream, and they elicit some ideological resistance. In most cases dialogues among students and faculty members lead to enough reduction of the resistance so that students complete the degree successfully; few students leave the program for reasons of incompatibility.
Globalization and Interculturality
The class struggle of our era is between those who profit from globalization and those who face increasing job insecurity, pressure on wages, a deteriorating environment, and the necessity of migration. Although the working classes in core countries and regions such as Japan, western Europe, Canada, and the United States are parts of this extensive second group, the vast majority are in economically underdeveloped countries—might we say the majority world? Overall, the majority are people of color and women.
In this situation the roles of the nation-state and of national cultures are changing rapidly. Although we do not accept that there is no alternative (Margaret Thatcher’s TINA) to corporate dominated economic globalization, and we do not accept that national governments are helpless in the face of the power of capital, we do recognize that, as a function of the increasingly free movement of capital and goods, in the current period the role of the nation-state is diminishing and that certain centrifugal forces are evident at the national level. Since we are teachers of Spanish, we refer to cases in the Spanish-speaking world. One example is the large influx of emigrants from Latin America to the United States that is modifying the social structures, cultures (both of Wallerstein’s usages), and national and individual identities in home and host countries. People coming from countries as divergent as Argentina and Mexico all become Hispanic for the census and media in the United States, the remittances of family members working in the north are crucial to the existence of families and towns in Mexico and Central America, and the often transient emigrants-immigrants develop hybrid individual identities. The study of English is booming in Latin America, the study of Spanish is booming in the United States, and the “border” has become an important and shifting object of study and metaphor for intellectuals in Mexico and the United States. In a second example, the centrifugal nationalistic and regional forces in Spain have led to serious questioning of the possibility of teaching “Spanish” history since many Basque and Catalan intellectuals reject the Castilian-centric version of history founded in the history of the Spanish national state. A final example is the Zapatista movement in Mexico. Based primarily in indigenous communities in the state of Chiapas, the Zapatistas have combined the traditional cultures and demands of their communities with a certain militaristic chic, poetically progressive language, and extensive use of the Internet and international solidarity movements. As such, they constitute the first postmodern guerrilla movement or army. The influx of Latino immigrants in the United States, the decentering of the representation of history in Spain, and the Zapatista movement are some of the issues we study in the Hispanic studies concentration of the MA in intercultural communication.
In La globalización imaginada (“Imagined Globalization”) the Argentine Mexican philosopher-anthropologist Nestor García Canclini analyzes the relations between globalization and interculturality, and he maintains that globalization is modifying the meaning of culture. He points out that from the 1960s to the 1980s sociosemiotic, anthropological, sociological, and other studies were establishing culture as “the processes of production, circulation, and consumption of meanings in social life,” a concept that was intended for each individual society (61-62; Sinnigen’s trans.). In the 1990s, however, scholars begin to push for a reconceptualization of culture in the direction of interculturality, such that the study of culture would necessarily be intercultural, that is, a relational study of culture. The premises of the MA in intercultural communication have been in keeping with García Canclini’s proposition that the study of culture is necessarily intercultural. The MA program has led to a shift in the Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics so that the “national” cultures of France, Germany, and Spain have been decentered in the curriculum and, increasingly, in the faculty members’ research.
In contrast to the perspectives represented by García Canclini and by the MA in intercultural communication is the mainstream position of the conservative economist Tyler Cowen, which he presents in his book In Praise of Commercial Culture. Ignoring the social polarization and the concentration of capital and power in the modern world system, Cowen suggests an optimistic view in which the market economy is favorable for the production and consumption of art, which he treats as synonymous with culture. Cowen explains, “I use the terms culture and art interchangeably to cover man-made artifacts or performances that move us and expand our awareness of the world and of ourselves. I have in mind painting, sculpture, music, film, architecture, photography, theater, literature, and dance” (5). For Cowen culture is an unproblematic term, and culture is reduced to cultural commodities. We agree that in the current period there is an increase in the flow of cultural goods that may be beneficial to many consumers and producers. We reject, however, the reduction of analysis of cultural complexities to this one-sided account proposed by Cowen and so common in mainstream discourse. Instead, in the courses in the MA in intercultural communication and in the doctoral program in language, literacy, and culture, the meanings of culture are questioned and students are encouraged to develop a framework from which to look at culture as the context in which other systems (communication, economics, politics, pedagogy, law) are embedded and to examine critically what Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron call the “cultural arbitrary” (15–16), the imposition by groups in power of their own culture as normative.
Education in Globalization
Economic changes and prescriptions have immediate repercussions in the transformation of education. In recent years educational institutions have been implementing policies and developing programs to support the current direction of the economy; that is, they are working their way toward accommodating the demands and formulas of neoliberal economic policies (Slaughter; Currie; E. Berman).9 Governments require from universities the implementation of changes that would allow national economies to find their niche in the global market and to respond to the exigencies of international financial agencies such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization. For example, the World Bank’s reports on higher education influence university policies by suggesting reforms and lines of action, and in neocolonial countries these reports often “encourage these policies [. . .] through the imposition of structural adjustment principles that push them toward greater privatization of higher education” (Currie 7). In countries like Mexico such prescriptions go against traditions of (virtually) free public higher education, traditions that have been intended to incorporate students from nonelite families in the pursuit of higher education (although they have often failed to realize their intended goals). In 1999 the administration of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNA), following a World Bank recommendation, attempted to impose a substantial increase in the existing nominal tuition. One response to this attempt was a prolonged, contentious student strike that closed the campus from April 1999 until February 2001. In this instance, a national government, in its efforts to follow the neoliberal guidelines of an international financial institution, met the resistance of a well-organized strike committee that saw itself as a defender of national traditions, even though many students, faculty members, and staff did not agree with it. Ultimately, although it ended the strike by force, the government yielded to the students’ most important demands, including rescinding the tuition increase. Although the strike—its causes, conduct, and resolution—is still the subject of heated debates, it is an instance in which the imposition of neoliberal economic formulas led to a major disruption for at least two years of the most important institution of higher education in Mexico.
At the same time universities have been institutionalizing practices, borrowed from the market: namely, implementation of ideas and language from accountants and auditors; competition for funds; performance standardization indicators; commercialization of research; privatization of universities; “internationalization” of higher education; commodification of scholarship; longer work hours; and labor flexibility (Currie). Rather than encouraging the ideals of critical thinking and independent research, universities are cooperating with corporate and government “policies that encourage [. . .] commercial research and development and business/vocational curricula, emphasizing the value of higher education for national economic activity, and displaying a preference for market and market-like activity on the part of faculty and institutions” (Slaughter 46). All those involved in higher education, including faculty members, are increasingly involved in the economics and politics of the business university as business decisions continually impinge on the ideal of faculty autonomy.
In such an atmosphere there is an increasing emphasis on developing science and “technoscience,” the union of science and technology, over other disciplines. This increasing emphasis has taken a toll on the humanities and foreign language departments, which find themselves struggling for the necessary resources to offer adequate programs. At the same time there is institutional pressure on foreign language departments to provide appropriate training to allow students to become successful workers in the global economy. The current boom in Spanish is clearly a response to market conditions, as is the typical administrative response of meeting this demand by hiring more part-time instructors. The MA in intercultural communication and the doctoral program in language, literacy, and culture are responses to this difficult climate for foreign language departments and the humanities in general in universities within the United States. They are programs intended to provide students with knowledge and skills that are valuable in the current situation at the same time as they constitute sites for engaging students and faculty members’ critical dialogue regarding the dynamics of globalization.
When the MA in intercultural communication was established in 1985, some of the features that would come to characterize globalization and neoliberal economic policies were already in place, for example, the Mexican debt crisis in 1982 and the subsequent structural adjustment program imposed by international banks and agencies, the use of computers and other components of the time-space compression of postmodernity (Harvey), the shrinking public welfare state, and the cultural heterogeneity of postmodernism. Convinced that these phenomena augured an increase in the importance of intercultural issues, the faculty of the Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics decided to establish this unusual program. Since 1985 the number of intercultural programs has increased. Nevertheless, according to Peterson’s guide to graduate programs, the UMBC Masters is the only such program housed in a language department. Although in 1985 faculty members probably would not have come to García Canclini’s conclusion that the study of culture is necessarily intercultural, we have followed that direction, and interdisciplinary interculturality now permeates the entire MLL curriculum, including its participation in the new doctoral program. As such these programs represent innovative interdisciplinary avenues for situating a modern language department in the evolving world system at the beginning of the twenty-first century.
1UMBC admitted its first students in 1966 and currently has approximately 10,000 undergraduate and 1,600 graduate students. Its mission has always concentrated on science and technology, and the majority of graduate programs are in those areas.
2Terms such as interlingual also make this point. See, for example, the studies by Heidi Byrnes and Claire Kramsch in this issue. See also the essays in Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective: Approaches through Drama and Ethnography (Byram and Fleming). Interculturality is the model that has been developed at UMBC for engaging the relation between theory and teaching presented by Russell Berman. In Berman’s 1994 study he refers to four approaches: language-based theory, cultural studies, postcolonial theory, and posthermeneutic theory. The curriculum of the MA in intercultural communication draws from those approaches, but it does not fit within any of Berman’s definitions.
3Similar concepts such as Pierre Bourdieu’s “habitus” (Bourdieu and Passeron 31) and Charles Sanders Peirce’s unconscious “habit of mind” (qtd. in Moorjani 6) are also developed in the course.
4Intercultural encounters in which communication goes awry (and these could be between people enculturated into different genderlects or regional or ethnic or class dialects as well as between people from distant cultures) are the privileged ways of becoming aware of the multiplicity of cultural patterns that govern behavior. Throughout the course, students who come from many different cultural and national backgrounds share the experience of having their own consciousness raised through misunderstandings. This valuable aspect of the course is extended by a number of texts probing various cultural and gender scripts and status-power symmetries and asymmetries (Condé; Tannen; Mamet; and Foucault). For their research papers, students are asked to examine a topic related to their research interest from a pragmatic point of view and to apply the pragmatic principles (the cooperative, relevance, and politeness principles) to intercultural situations. Over the years, many students have explored the importance of pragmatics for the teaching of a second language and culture and examined classroom expectations, politeness rituals, and genderlects in different cultural communities; they have probed the pragmatics of translation, including the translation of humor and jokes, sitcoms, films, and novels; and they have taken a pragmatic approach to study-abroad counseling, distance education, and the analysis of social movements and the media.
5In order to communicate, speakers need to have shared knowledge to expedite the negotiation of meaning. This shared knowledge can be categorized as linguistic knowledge (verbal and nonverbal), interaction skills, and cultural knowledge (Saville-Troike 24). In Ethnography of Communication, it is emphasized that the knowledge needed to communicate in a speech community entails not only the rules for communication and interaction but also the cultural rules and knowledge that are the basis for the context and the content of communicative events and interaction processes. By studying culture, the symbolic organization of the world in writing and speaking is explained. The readings for the class intend to impart an ability to describe and understand communicative behavior in specific cultural settings and to open the discussion about how languages and cultures are acquired and reproduced. Some speech communities and cultures that have been studied over the years are embedded in the following readings: Javanese (Javanese Shadow Plays, Javanese Selves [Keeler]); Papua New Guinean (Language Shift and Cultural Reproduction [Kulick]); the United States (Ways with Words [Heath]), and, more recently, Canadian (Impossible Nation [Conlogue]), Mayan (The Life of Our Language [Garzon et al.]) and the United States-Mexican border (Crossing Borders, Reinforcing Borders [Vila]).
6In a similar vein the work of Pierre Bourdieu is used to examine ways in which cultures and institutions, in particular the educational system, reproduce social inequalities. Likewise, Frantz Fanon and Cornel West, bell hooks and other contemporary African American writers are used to study the polarities of colonialism and exclusionary institutionalized racism in the United States; Virginia Woolf and contemporary feminists provide ways to analyze gender inequalities and unequal access to cultural institutions; Anthony D. Smith establishes a framework to examine the asymmetries of the relations among ethnies and nations, and Noam Chomsky (“Democracy” and Year) and Nestor García Canclini provide an overview of the history of the polarizations of the capitalist West and their most recent manifestations in globalization. In each case alternatives presented by what Wallerstein terms antisystemic movements are considered.
7When one searches the Peterson’s guide of graduate programs using language, literacy, and culture, entries appear (“Grad Channel”). Of these, five doctoral programs share the title Language, Literacy, and Culture. They are located at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst; University of California, Berkeley; Stanford University; Ohio State University; and UMBC. We wish to thank Sandra Zellhofer, a BA and MA graduate of UMBC, for this information about doctoral programs.
8These include: Isabel Moreno López, “Re-thinking the Language Classroom: Cultural Assumptions and Social Boundaries in the Spanish Classroom—An Ethnographic Study”; Sandra López Rocha, “The Process of Intercultural Adaptation of a Group of Egyptian Teachers in the United States: Issues of Culture Shock and Adaptation”; Codou Diaw, “The Political Economy of Girls’ and Women’s Education in Senegal: International Imperatives, National Realities.”
9Neoliberal economic policies are understood here as involving a free movement of capital and goods; reduction in the costs of social programs, including education; economic deregulation; labor “flexibility”; and privatization.
Berman, Edward H. “The Entrepreneurial University: Macro and Micro Perspectives from the United States.” Currie and Newson 213–33.
Berman, Russell. “Global Thinking, Local Teaching: Departments, Curricula, and Culture.” ADFL Bulletin 26.1 (1994): 7–11. [Show Article]
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean-Claude Passeron. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. Trans. Richard Nice. London: Sage, 1977.
Byram, Michael, and Michael Fleming, eds. Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective: Approaches through Drama and Ethnography. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998.
Chomsky, Noam. “Market Democracy in a Neoliberal Order: Doctrines and Reality.” Zmagazine: A Political Monthly. 25 Aug. 2000 http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/zarticle.cfm?Url=articles/chomskysept.97.htm.
———. Year 501. Boston: South End, 1992.
Condé, Maryse. Crossing the Mangrove. Trans. Richard Philcox. New York: Anchor, 1995.
Conlogue, Ray. Impossible Nation: The Longing for Homeland in Canada and Quebec. Toronto: Mercury, 1996.
Cowen, Tyler. In Praise of Commercial Culture. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1998.
Currie, Jan. Introduction. Currie and Newson 1–13.
Currie, Jan, and Janice Newson, eds. Universities and Globalization. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1998.
Fanon, Frantz. Wretched of the Earth. Trans. Constance Farrington. New York: Grove, 1963.
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. Trans. Robert Hurley. Vol. 1. New York: Vintage, 1980.
García Canclini, Nestor. La globalización imaginada. Buenos Aires: Paidós, 1999.
Garzon, Susan, et al. The Life of Our Language: Kaqchikel Maya Maintenance, Shift, and Revitalization. Austin: U of Texas P, 1998.
Goicoechea, Maria. “A Study of Readers’ Response and Interaction in the Textual Analysis Classroom.” MA thesis UMBC, 1999.
“The Grad Channel.” Petersons.com. 8 Aug. 2001 http://iiswinprd01.petersons.com/GradChannel/ProgramVC.asp?inunid=138212&sponsor=.
Hall, Edward T. Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor, 1989.
Harvey, David. The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989.
Heath, Shirley Brice. Ways with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983.
hooks, bell. “Postmodern Blackness.” A Postmodern Reader. Ed. Joseph Natoli and Linda Hutcheon. New York: State U of New York P, 1993. 510–18.
Keeler, Ward. Javanese Shadow Plays, Javanese Selves. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1987.
Kulick, Don. Language Shift and Cultural Reproduction. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992.
Mamet, David. Oleana. New York: Vintage, 1993.
Moorjani, Angela. Beyond Fetishism and Other Excursions in Psychopragmatics. New York: St. Martin’s; London: Macmillan, 2000.
Noonan, Daniel. “Homosexuality in the Third Reich: The Intersection of Nazi Race and Gender Politics.” MA thesis UMBC, 2000.
Rau, Pilar. “Art, Artifact, Artesania: Andean Peasant Culture in the Global Market and Art-Culture System.” MA thesis UMBC, 2001.
Samovar, Larry A., and Richard E. Porter. Intercultural Communication: A Reader. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2000.
Saville-Troike, Muriel. The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989.
Sinnigen, John H. “Foreign Language Education, Intercultural Communication, and the Conditions of Globalization.” ADFL Bulletin 31.3 (2000): 21–26. [Show Article]
Slaughter, Sheila. “National Higher Education Policies in a Global Economy.” Currie and Newson 45–70.
Smith, Anthony D. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. London: Blackwell, 1998.
Tannen, Deborah. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballantine, 1990.
Vila, Pablo. Crossing Borders, Reinforcing Borders: Social Categories, Metaphors, and Narrative Identities on the U.S.-Mexico Frontier. Austin: U of Texas P, 2000.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. “Culture as the Ideological Battleground of the Modern World-System.” Global Culture. Ed. Mike Featherstone. London: Sage, 1990. 31–55.
Warden, Karen. “Adapting Film across Culture: Four French Farces and Their American Remakes.” MA thesis UMBC, 1997.
Welles, Elizabeth. “From the Editor.” ADFL Bulletin 31.3 (2000): 1–3. [Show Article]
West, Cornel. “Black Culture and Postmodernism.” A Postmodern Reader. Ed. Joseph Natoli and Linda Hutcheon. New York: State U of New York P, 1993. 392–97.
Woolf, Virginia. A Room of One’s Own. New York: Harcourt, 1929.
© 2002 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
