|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WHETHER a fad or an important new educational concept, international studies has recently moved into the limelight of the American educational scene. Unfortunately, few literary scholars seem to be aware of this development and its potential significance for their discipline. This is doubly regrettable because their participation in the development of international studies as a curricular entity may be as important for a meaningful conceptualization of that field as it is for the preservation of literature as a major component of contemporary higher education. Yet if literary studies are to participate in international studies, the battle—and a battle it will be—must be fought by the literary scholar, and it must be fought now, while international studies is still evolving.
The problem has several dimensions. For one thing, considerable confusion exists within the international studies field as to its proper composition and scope, even its definition. Also, though many definitions of international studies pay lip service to the importance of the study of culture, the latter often remains conspicuously absent from program requirements or, if included, may be taught as part of social science courses. Finally, many literary scholars are so preoccupied with fortifying disciplinary boundaries or with exploring theoretical concerns that they do not recognize the opportunity offered by the international studies curriculum for both liberation from disciplinary constraints and a demonstration of disciplinary achievements.
What exactly does the term international studies refer to? Surprisingly, the most recent edition of the Social Science Encyclopedia (1985) has no entry for international studies, nor does the International Encyclopedia of Education (1985). Some older works do include the term, but without much unanimity with regard to its meaning. The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education (1977) merely refers the reader to Area Studies; Higher Education; Exchange, International: Campus International Offices. The International Dictionary of Education (1980) defines international studies, somewhat tersely, as “multidisciplinary studies including politics, economics, law, etc., on an international level.” More informative is the Concise Dictionary of Education (1982). It describes international studies as “an interdisciplinary field of study dealing with such subjects as the government, culture, history, and economics of foreign countries, foreign policy, international law, and international relations.” Finally, a recent book on the subject defines international studies, even more broadly and somewhat ambiguously, as “American programs and degrees in history, political science, economics, anthropology, sociology, language and literature, and other humanities” that pursue “greater knowledge and wider understanding of the world beyond their national borders and those of culturally akin Western Europe” (McCoughey ix; my emphasis).
In a 1971 conference on International Studies: Present Status and Future Prospects, the field of international studies is seen, from a different and, in my view, more appropriate perspective, as comprising international relations, foreign area and cross-cultural comparative studies (Riggs vii). Despite this auspicious blueprint, James Rosenau, director of the Institute of Transnational Studies at the University of Southern California, spoke in 1973 of the “intellectual perplexity” of students who found themselves confronted by “not a discipline, but rather a conglomerate of foci, preoccupations, skills, and disciplines” (20, 23).
If considered in historical perspective, international studies has, it appears, been around for some time and a wide range of contexts. According to McCoughey, the first international studies PhD was awarded—in German—at Yale in 1861 (30); according to Rosenau, the first international studies degree was awarded at the University of Pennsylvania in 1928 (23). Also in 1928, the League of Nations created an International Studies Conference to coordinate different national institutions devoted to the scientific study of international relations and to organize annual conferences on special topics. 1 The International Studies Conference existed until 1965. An International Studies Association—a professional organization that emphasizes international relations—has existed in this country since 1957, and a Concilium on International and Area Studies was established at Yale in 1961.
In 1978, with President Carter's appointment of a Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies, international studies entered a new phase. The commission's report, written with input from prominent educators and academic administrators and based on nationwide public hearings, urged that greater attention and governmental support be given to foreign language and international studies education.
Though initially the report uses the term international studies rather loosely, as synonymous with international understanding, international skills, and international competence (i, ii, 1–4), eventually the main goals of international studies are defined as “better comprehension of our place and our potential in the world” and “greater insight into foreign societies and international issues” including cultural issues (2, 10, 38). In scope, the field is to include international and comparative perspectives in the study of all subjects, with the possible exception of some so-called pure sciences and the joint study and integration of areas and issues (72–73). The report recommends that attention be given to the curricular development of international studies. The deliberations in this paper are largely based on the report's conception of international studies as comparative studies founded on knowledge of our culture and that of another culture or region and as global studies of international issues.
Following the commission's report, international studies—in part with government or foundation funding, in part without it—took off like a bolt of lightning. International studies was instituted as a multidisciplinary component on the elementary school level and through designation of special “magnet” schools. Academic and unaffiliated centers were established. In 1980 the National Council on Foreign Languages and International Studies was created to advance the work of the presidential commission; in 1981 the Joint National Committee for Languages, which represents the major language associations in this country, established an action group, the Council for Languages and Other International Studies—incidentally, the only instance I know of where languages are officially designated as “international studies.” In 1984, the Social Science Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies appointed a Joint Advisory Committee in International Studies ( Items 45). 2
Recently, a new flurry of activities has developed around international studies. Congress voted changes in Title VI of the Higher Education Act, authorizing the US Department of Education to award grants directed toward the institution and/or operation of comprehensive language and area studies centers that “will also carry out research and training in international studies” and toward the establishment of programs “designed to strengthen and improve undergraduate instruction in international studies and foreign languages.” In addition, Congress directed the Department of Education to conduct a study “on the feasibility of establishing a National Endowment for International Studies” (“JNCL/CLOIS” 5). The American Council on Education has authorized Richard D. Lambert, professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, to prepare a report that would “outline the state of undergraduate international education at America's colleges and universities,” assess “the contribution of undergraduate international and foreign language programs to America's international competitiveness,” and recommend actions to be taken by educational institutions, by the federal government, and by private funding sources for improving programs “to increase America's ability to deal with the rest of the world” ( Higher Education 3 ). At the same time, notes, reports, articles, and even books are continuing to explore what international studies is or is not, should or should not be (see Draper, Lambert, McCoughey, McDonnell, Navari, Reinert).
Lately, the thrust of international studies has shifted to academic programs at colleges and universities. The 1984 edition of Peterson's Guide to Graduate Programs in the Humanities and Social Sciences lists only 13 universities with graduate departments or programs in international studies; the 1985 edition lists 15. In contrast, the Global Guide to International Education (Hoopes), which incorporates undergraduate education, lists 103 international studies programs, divisions, schools, councils, concilia, centers, institutes, and offices. Of these, approximately 66 appear to grant degrees in international studies—not to mention many additional, implicitly international listings under area studies, comparative studies, international programs, international education, and so on. The meteoric rise of academic international studies may be best exemplified by the fact that Stanford University's BA degree in international studies, which was restored to the curriculum in 1974, is now the seventh largest major in the School of Humanities and Sciences, ranking just below political science and English (“New Interdisciplinary Center” 9).
To the extent that the Global Guide's descriptions of academic international studies programs give us a hold on actual practice, the field still appears far from unified. Most frequently, the term seems either to be synonymous with “international relations” or to indicate foreign area studies. Now and then, it also refers to sociology or anthropology. It is impossible to tell to what extent—if at all—it denotes genuinely inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary programs that focus on foreign, comparative, and global studies viewed from sociopolitical and cultural perspectives.
In this diversity, a few common factors emerge, but they are not reassuring to the humanist. First, despite a stated interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary dimension, most international studies programs seem to be administered by political science departments or social science divisions. Second, despite frequent references to foreign languages, few international studies programs contain more than a one-to-two-year language requirement, if that (only 10 of the 103 listed in the Global Guide seem to have such a requirement). Equally few (the Global Guide lists 15, with some overlap) stress “cultural” or “humanistic” studies as such. None require American cultural studies, even when comparative studies are emphasized. Finally, those with a comparative studies component may address sociopolitical perspectives such as comparative government, comparative political institutions, or comparative economic systems, but they ignore comparative literary studies entirely.
According to Leon Panetta, international studies ought to “promote our understanding of the languages, cultures and political and economic systems of other nations.” Within this framework, the most important areas of study would be, in alphabetical order, culture, economics, history, politics, and perhaps sociology. The cultural sphere would encompass the arts, cultural history, languages and literatures, philosophy, and perhaps religion. Of these, languages and literatures are the most basic but probably also the most exacting subjects since their study requires a high level of competency in a foreign language. The extra effort they call for may explain, at least partially, why they are included in so few international studies programs, usually only in those dealing with regional or area studies. It may also explain why a merely rudimentary knowledge of a foreign language is often accepted as adequate.
The arts, philosophy, and religion have not fared much better, even though they do not require special linguistic training and though their frequent impact on social or political attitudes should be obvious. In many international studies programs history—and not necessarily cultural history—is the sole representative of the humanities. It seems that history, with its self-awarded dual credentials as one of the humanities and as a social science, causes a minimum of discomfort to the social scientist.
Why should there be discomfort? Ironically, a well-meant gesture has probably aggravated a situation that it set out to correct. In 1966 the federal government established the National Endowment for the Humanities to “support the development and testing of imaginative approaches to humanities education” and “strengthen the role of the humanities in the life of a particular academic community” (United States 1). NEH became a generous supplier of reports, newsletters, and statistical surveys, of departmental or inter-departmental grants, of individual research and study grants, of translation projects, faculty workshops, and conferences. Foremost, at least initially, was the endowment's emphasis on interdisciplinary studies, meant to reintegrate the long-neglected humanities into the mainstream of American education and life. This effort would narrow the proverbial gulf between the humanities on the one hand and the many disciplines in the sciences and social sciences on the other.
The clarion call was heard—or was it the tinkling of coins?—by social scientists and humanists alike. Many literary comparatists accepted the challenge and strove to narrow the gap by investigating literature's historical, political, sociological, and psychological dimensions. Courses on literature and society, literature and politics, literature and law, literature and medicine, and so on became staples of comparative literature curricula, and these topics began to figure prominently on ACLA and MLA convention programs.
Ideally, comparative studies with a cross-disciplinary focus would be undertaken by comparatists with the appropriate versatility or by teams consisting of comparatists, social scientists, and scientists. In practice, a comparatist who desires to add an international dimension to a course can only rarely draw on such training. As a result, courses that combine literary with historical, political, sociological, anthropological, economic, or various scientific dimensions may still reflect only literary methodology and espouse predominantly literary values. 3 It is, then, hardly surprising to find social scientists and scientists responding negatively to what they consider inroads into their discipline by the humanist who claims to use an “area,” an “international,” or an “interdisciplinary” approach.
Social scientists have, in their turn, begun to provide their courses with a “humanistic perspective,” by incorporating literary texts or samples from other arts and artistic media, especially film. Sometimes these courses use literary works as case studies, viewing them as examples of “socialization” and “politization” processes, without paying much attention to their aesthetic qualities. This practice has, in its turn, not been viewed kindly by humanists. And so it is that even today we have cause to talk about the gap between the two cultures, although the side formerly occupied by the scientist is now typically held by social scientists.
The ideal practitioner would of course be a teacher-scholar at home in two or more disciplines, with training in both humanistic and scientific methodology. But since these are hard to come by, the best alternative would be a team composed of both humanists and social scientists who would work side by side on projects and topics of joint interest, each employing his or her own referential and evaluative frame. As each became more familiar with the other's concerns, method, and terminology, their insights could lead to mutual stimulation and enrichment, cross-fertilization and synthesis. Such joint projects could be undertaken at conferences, in faculty seminars and workshops, at research centers, and in the classroom. 4 An international studies curriculum would provide an excellent frame for such collaboration.
The need for incorporating language and literature in an international studies curriculum should be apparent to every language instructor. Not as obvious may be the fact that this issue concerns the literary comparatist as well. Like international studies, comparative literature has long been plagued by an identity crisis, by what one might call the curse of insufficient definition. We are all familiar with the extensive bibliography on such topics as the concept and function of comparative literature, its various crises, the relation of English and comparative literature to literary theory and criticism, the place of comparative literature at American universities, the relations between comparative literature departments and those of English and foreign languages, and so forth.
We also know that, despite ample debate over the past decades, there is little unanimity as to the nature and proper domain of comparative literature. ACLA's 1976 Report on Standards speaks of “conflicting conceptions of [comparative literature's] scope and role” (Greene 48). Robert J. Clements cites not one but five definitions of comparative literature (4–6). Four are of interest here. Marius-François Guyard sees comparative literature as the “history of international literary relations.” Jan Brandt Corstius describes it as “viewing objects of literary research - texts, genres, movements, criticism - in their international perspectives.” A. Owen Aldridge sees comparative literature as both “the broadening of perspectives to one work” and “the study of any literary phenomenon from the perspective of more than one national literature or in conjunction with another intellectual discipline or even several.” Henry Remak defines comparative literature as “the comparison of one literature with another or others, and the comparison of literature with other spheres of human experience,” such as “the (fine) arts, philosophy, history, the social sciences, the sciences, religion, etc.” Clements himself considers the future of comparative literature to lie in “World Literature, … the logical third step of Comparative Literature, … the Krönung … and utmost demonstration of comparatism.” World literature, he suggests, would focus on “the mythic, generic, and other homogeneities inexplicably occurring over two millennia on our five continents.” It would primarily concern itself with finding those common denominators—in terms of theme, form and movement—that “may best bring differing literatures into juxtaposition” (28–31).
Aldridge and Remak stress the comparative dimension of comparative literature as its essential nature and see as the ultimate goal comparison that will transcend literary studies and move toward other disciplines and spheres of knowledge. Guyard's and Corstius's use of the term international anticipates Clements's emphasis on the global dimension of comparative literature. From both perspectives, comparative literature can contribute to the cluster of disciplines that calls itself international studies.
Let me give a few examples of studies that, though undertaken within the context of international studies, would benefit from the participation of the literary comparatist.
An investigation into the causes and effects of censorship or, to reverse the coin, of political propaganda could be as important from the writer's and reader's viewpoints as it is from that of the policymaker or sociologist. Literature as a mirror or instrument of political or social criticism or as an indicator of social change can point to influences and reactions that are not scientifically predictable, and it can focus on nuclei of friction that may not be discernible in a quantitative approach. A study of autobiography as a political weapon would do well also to focus on the role of structural and stylistic devices. Here names like Hitler or Djilas come to mind, questions such as the effects of a deliberate emphasis on “immediacy” and “personal sincerity,” the impact of rhythmic repetition or an evocative style, the admiration an author may contrive to gain by a display of intellectual or artistic sophistication and then convert into confidence in the author's leadership.
Finally, the comparatist's perspective on war fiction can prove highly illuminating to sociological studies of war: for example, the representation in English, French, German, and American war novels of generals, their mentalities and relationships to the troups (Spicehandler); the problem of desertion—motivation, purpose and effectiveness of punishment, to be viewed from psychological, sociological, historical, geographic, and artistic perspectives, from close proximity or in retrospect (Cobley); the phenomenon of Wellington House, with its recruitment of eminent men of letters as propaganda writers during World War I and the political, psychological, and aesthetic consequences thereof (Firchow).
In all these instances the humanistic approach can complement that of the social scientist, and often the contribution of the literary comparatist is especially illuminating.
Intercultural communication has recently become a popular subject. It is usually taught by political scientists who have traveled or lived abroad, who are competent speakers of the language, and who have studied various manifestations of cultural singularities. But unless they can also assess the impact of the country's literary and philosophical heritage, they may misinterpret the signs and symbols they encounter or overlook the correspondence of these cultural signals to idiosyncrasies in their own culture. Moreover, concepts such as “national characteristics” and “stereotypes” are always close at hand. Whether or not the former are justifiable, the latter have a pernicious way of intruding into the perceptions of an outsider, that is, those of the student of a foreign culture. Literature is, unquestionably, a main source for the creation of stereotypes. The literary comparatist, attuned to the necessity for “double vision,” is better able to recognize and isolate such stereotypes than is the single-literature specialist or the political scientist.
A broader issue is at stake as well: international studies conducted at American universities tend to draw on the political and social structure of the United States as the point of departure for comparative studies, at times even for global studies. Despite the inherent pitfalls of this approach—that is, making value judgments favoring one's own culture—it makes sense in view of the purpose of such studies. (See the definition of international studies cited earlier from the presidential commission's report.) Foreign literatures, in contrast, tend to be approached as self-contained entities, especially when taught by experts in that literature. However, the study of a foreign literature in isolation can, in the cross-disciplinary context of international studies, easily amount to the substitution of one chauvinism for another, or lead to comparisons again tinged by ethnocentrism and, unless the basis in American cultural studies is solid, by simplification. The comparatist who is at home in both cultures and has the appropriate training in the comparative method is usually quickest to recognize valid and appropriate juxtapositions and to differentiate between the peripheral and essentials.
Here a practical benefit of the literary comparatist's contribution comes into play. Just as a course in comparative political or economic institutions may offer an efficient means of learning about two or more political or economic systems, a course in comparative literature can steer the student toward valid shortcuts by selecting from the various literary traditions significant works that reflect their respective cultures and relate to one another. In the process, students likewise learn what constitutes the comparative method and truly comparative perspectives and how to apply these to the study of other cultures to be undertaken later.
In emphasizing literature's global dimension, Clements states that “courses in Comparative Literature … are one of the few ongoing media for international understanding, a potential for cultural exchange” (280). Comparative literature can indeed contribute significantly to globally oriented international studies. A study of literary works from diverse cultures–which would aim at the identification of commonalities of form, themes and ideas, of social conventions and personal attitudes—can provide the internationalist with valuable insights into universal thought and behavior patterns. Art speaks a universal language long before politics does. To be sure, of all the arts the verbal arts do so most indirectly. Once verbal language is deciphered, however, a culture's ideas and values can be more easily and accurately conceptualized than they could be through the other arts. By approaching literature globally, by pointing to significant correspondences among the literatures of different countries, the literary comparatist can make a unique contribution to international understanding.
In 1979, at the low point of foreign language enrollments in this country, A. Bartlett Giamatti attacked humanities departments for their sectarianism and called for the institution of new administrative patterns (12). We can never be sure, but perhaps if English, foreign language, and comparative literature departments had shown a united front to their administrations at that time, they would have better understood the threats to their budgets and programs. Comparative literature may once again be facing crossroads. It can choose to toy with literature in narcissistic retreat, it can abstract literature into intangible theoretical constructs, or it can contribute its share to the badly needed increase in literacy, that is, in widely shared cultural knowledge. To quote Rose L. Hayden, the executive director of the National Council on Foreign Languages and International Studies:
As the world's interrelatedness continues to make itself felt in the daily lives of the average American, educators will be pressured increasingly to respond to the challenge of preparing our citizens to cope with life as an interconnected and unstable global system. This need for dynamic educational change does not lurk in the misty reaches of the future. That fat-off world of the future is with us now. (3)
I hope it is clear that I do not advocate transforming the literary comparatist into a social scientist or “internationalist.” On the contrary, I believe that only by offering our expertise as comparatists and by demonstrating our stringent professionalism can we make a valuable contribution to international studies. And if comparative literature's current emphasis on literary theory is balanced by its participation in a practical and well-calibrated international studies curriculum, it may have arrived at a comprehensive definition of its nature and mission as an academic discipline.
The author is Professor of Comparative Humanities and German Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies and Visiting Professor of German at Amherst College. This article is adapted from papers presented at the MLA convention, 27–30 December 1985, in Chicago, and at the ACLA triennial meeting, 19–22 March 1986, in Ann Arbor.
1 These topics include: Collective Security (Paris 1934 and London 1935), Peaceful Change (Madrid 1936, Paris 1937), University Teaching of International Relations (Prague 1938), and The Reconstruction of World Trade (Bergen 1939).
2 However, in the Social Science Research Council's Annual Report 1985–1986, it is called the Advisory Committee on International Programs.
3 At a panel discussion on Comparative Literature and International Studies, held during the 1985 MLA convention, a number of literary scholars admitted that they would be uneasy about having to teach courses with an “international dimension” if they did not consider themselves qualified to do so.
4 See the Symposium on Comparative Literature and International Studies, held annually at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, or the Annual Workshops in International Studies sponsored by FACDIS (the consortium for Faculty and Course Development in International Studies) in West Virginia.
Clements, Robert J. Comparative Literature as Academic Discipline: A Statement of Principles, Praxis, Standards. New York: MLA, 1978.
Cobbey, Evelyn. “The First World War and the Refusal to Fight.” Trahan 242–58.
“Current Activities at the Council.” Items (SSRC newsletter) 38.2/3 (1984): 45–51.
Draper, Jamie B. “State Initiatives and Activities in Foreign Languages and International Studies.” JNCL Newsletter 16 (1984): 42–49.
Firchow, Peter. “Wellington House and the Strange Death of a Liberal Professor.” Trahan 151–68.
Giamatti, A. Bartlett. “On Behalf of the Humanities.” ADFL Bulletin 10.4 (1979): 10–12. [Show Article]
Greene, Thomas, et al. “A Report on Standards.” ACLA Newsletter 9.2 (1977): 41–50.
Hayden, Rose L. “A Beginning: Building Global Competence.” State Education Leader 2.4 (1983): 1–3.
Higher Education and National Affairs. ACE Newsletter 15 Dec. 1986.
Hoopes, David S., ed. Global Guide to International Education. New York: Facts on File, 1984.
“JNCL/CLOIS Update.” AATSEEL Newsletter 30.3 (1986): 5–6.
Lambert, Richard D. “International Studies: An Overview and Agenda.” Annals. Philadelphia: AAPSS, 1980. 151–64.
McCoughey, Robert A. International Studies and Academic Enterprise. New York: Columbia UP, 1984.
McDonnell, Lorraine M., with Sue Berryman and Douglas Scott. Federal Support for lnternational Studies: The Role of NDEA Title VI . Santa Monica: Rand Corp., 1981.
Navari, Joseph V. “We Must Guarantee Quality in International Studies.“ Chronicle of Higher Education 29 June 1981: 19.
“New Interdisciplinary Center: International Studies Institute Being Planned.” Stanford Observer Jan. 1986: 1, 9.
Panetta, Leon. Letter to the author. 9 April 1984.
Peterson's Guide to Graduate Prograno in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Princeton: Peterson's Guides, 1984, 1985.
President's Commission on Foreign Languages and International Studies. Strength through Wisdom: A Report to the President from the President's Commission on Foreign Languages and International Studies. Washington: GPO, 1979.
Reinert, Harry. “Caveat Emptor: The Report of the President's Commission.” Modern Language Journal 65.3 (1981): 248–53.
Riggs, Frank W, ed. International Studies: Present Status and Future Prospects. Monograph 12. Philadelphia: AAPSS, 1971.
Rosenau, James. International Studies and the Social Sciences: Problems, Priorities and Prospects in the US. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1973.
Spicehandler, Daniel. “The Anatomy of a General: A Study of Commanders in Some World War II Novels.” Trahan 122–35.
Trahan, Elizabeth W., ed. Literature and War: Reflections and Refractions. Proceedings of the 1984 Monterey Symposium on Comparative Literature and International Studies. Monterey: Monterey Institute of International Studies, 1985.
United States. National Endowment for the Humanities. Division of Education Programs. Selected Project Descriptions. Washington: GPO, 1977.
© 1988 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
