1
Benedict E. DeDomincis, “Globalization versus Americanization: The Case of the
American University in Bulgaria”1
Types of Imperial Control.2
Covert Overt
Direct Indirect
Imperialism
Colonialism
Formal
Nonformal
Imperialism
Colonialism
Covert Overt
Direct Indirect
The method by which the external imperial power attempts to control another
community will affect drastically its subsequent political development. One idealtypical form of colonial rule is direct, formal rule. The imperial power appoints a
governor or high commissioner with troops from the metropole. This form of
imperial control is probably the least detrimental to a community’s subsequent
political development. This kind of colonial experience unifies the native political
elite of different ethnies in the community in the course of resistance to this imperial
control.
Indirect, formal rule is another kind of imperial control. Local, traditional
ruling elites rule in the area with the "advice" of the imperial power in the form of the
formal presence of advisors, as well as security arrangements, etc. Pathological
stereotypical legacies or indirect forms of imperial intervention are more likely to
include majority identification of a collaborating minority as having a predisposition
to treason. Not surprisingly, the minority will have a greater predisposition to fear the
nationalism of the majority, making them more sympathetic to external intervention.
1
The views which this synopsis contains are the author’s and do not express the
policy or position of any group or constituency at the American University in
Bulgaria (AUBG).
2
From Richard W. Cottam: Foreign Policy Motivation: A General Theory and a Case
Study (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1977), p. 28.
2
Indirect, informal control is maintained without the overt presence of
imperial personnel, although the imperial power continues to exercise the dominant
form of control over the local ruling aristocratic elite. It exists today, for example,
among the Sheikhdoms of the Arabian peninsula, with the British and particularly the
US playing the informal-indirect imperial role. Informal rule means that the imperial
power does not admit that it rules the country; it has only an embassy and it works
through the local bureaucracy.
In the informal direct ideal-typical case, the people of the imperial power
actually become the ruling class. Historical cases include the Normans conquering
England and the Arabs conquering the Egyptians. In the contemporary world, these
cases are rare.
Neocolonialism is informal control. Following decolonization after the
Second World War, the Western intelligentsia does not like to admit that this control.
Today’s prevailing formal ideological principles of democratic self-determination do
not permit it. In colonialism using formal means of control, the local actors do know
who their enemies are. Yet, as noted, in direct forms of control, the colonial invader
appoints a governor. In indirect, it rules through a puppet government.
Bulgaria’s History of Imperial Control
Direct
Indirect
Formal
1) Ancient
Macedonians/Greeks
2) Romans
6) Ottomans (14th –19th cent.)
5) Byzantine Greeks
7) Russians (1878-88)
Informal
3) Slavs (5th-6th century)
4) Proto-Bulgarians (7th
century)
8) Soviets (1944-1989)
The history of imperialism should be looked at in terms of the temperament
and the forms of control. Partly through shaping images of self and other during this
critical process of group political awakening, the legacies of these imperial
experiences affect the process of national value formation and expression, which
includes both the prevailing community basis for nationalism as well as the prevailing
ideology which associates with it.
Application of images to stereotypical prevailing view ideal types in international
relations: View of Object of Challenge3
Resultant, "ideal
Perceived
Perceived
Perceived Threat/
Opportunity from the Cultural Distance of the Capability Distance of the typical" Stereotype
of the target
target in relation to self
target in relation to self
target
"Diabolical Enemy"
Similar
Similar
Threat
"Bully"
Superior
Similar
Threat
"Barbarian"
Superior
Inferior
Threat
"Colonial"
Superior
Superior
Threat
"Degenerate"
Similar
Similar
Opportunity
"Proxy Degenerate"
Inferior
Similar
Opportunity
"Imperial"
Inferior
Inferior
Opportunity
3
Richard W. Cottam, The Return of Politics to International Strategy (unpublished
manuscript), p. 184.
3
Political Images and Social-Identity Strategies4
Social-Identity Patterns of in-group behavior which result from holding
In-group’s image held
the group image of the policy target
regarding a policy target
out-group; creativity, competition when possible
Enemy
out-group; creativity, indirect competition
Barbarian
out-group; mobility, creativity, competition when relationship is unstable
Imperial
Out-group; maintain status quo
Colonial
Out-group; competition
Degenerate
Out-group; competition, destroy
Rogue
Ingroup; mobility, creativity
Ally
Transition Bulgaria and the American University in Bulgaria (AUBG)
The prevailing view of AUBG is that it is a representative of the US’ political
commitment to Bulgaria and to Southeast Europe. AUBG has received around $60
million of financial support from the United States Agency of International
Development from 1991 to the present. Today, the US is a source of perceived
opportunity to overcome poverty and any lingering threat of Russian revanchism. On
the AUBG micro-organizational level, however, polarization over the academic
market pay differential between Western and SE European regional faculty generates
a perception of threat as well as opportunity. Regional faculty salaries at AUBG are
typically three, four, or five times what these faculty members would receive at
Bulgarian institutions. Also, affiliation with AUBG provides status outside of AUBG
in the Bulgarian and regional context as well as providing access to additional
external material resources, i.e. grants and fellowships, even western jobs. Still, their
relevant comparison set appears to be the expatriate Western faculty. Bulgarian
faculty concentrate in the physical, mathematical and computer science disciplines.
Receiving their formal education during the Communist era, these faculty typically
have a prestigious national reputation. Moreover, their skills are highly valued in
today’s transition Bulgaria. Recent news reports highlight the IT sector as a focus of
foreign direct investment.5 The justification for paying expatriate faculty a salary
comparable to the US market is to attract and keep such faculty at AUBG. Of course,
this pay differential will equal out over time as the Bulgarian economy grows at a
rapid pace. In the mean time, a well-developed faculty evaluation system is essential
in order to differentiate among the faculty individually, partly in order to avoid this
difficult differentiation between “us” and “them,” i.e. “we Bulgarian faculty” versus
“the Americans” (anybody coming from the Western market). The threat is not to
economic interests, but rather, to individual national identity dignity interests. The
inadvertent, implicit statement that the local faculty have second class status by
earning a fraction of an American expatriate’s salary is an evident if unintended one.
4
Martha L. and Richard W. Cottam, Nationalism and Politics: The Political Behavior
of Nation States (2001, Lynne Reinner Publishers), p. 100.
5
Kerin Hope, Raphael Minder and Theodor Troev, “Crime a black mark for thriving
Bulgaria,” Financial Times, 26 April 2005, at www.ft.com on 7 May 2005. This
article notes the importance of Soviet-era generated expertise in IT in Bulgaria in
attracting much of today’s foreign direct investment there; the old Communist Europe
regional economic orchestration regime, the Council for Mutual Economic
Assistance, designated Bulgaria as the center of the block’s computer industry.
4
Meanwhile “Writing Across the Curriculum” (WAC) no longer receives support from
all AUBG academic disciplines, partly because native fluency in English is viewed as
an illegitimate justification for this national market pay differential.
To help overcome these stereotyping tendencies, the AUBG faculty evaluation
procedure needs to provide opportunities for social creativity in comparison. Its
development began in earnest in 1997 with the adoption of a Total Quality
Management approach at the time within the entire AUBG institution. The crisis
which generated the institutional push to overhaul the evaluation procedure was a
radical disjuncture between the student course evaluations and actual faculty member
performance in the classroom and overall. The focus was on “continuous
improvement” through the requirement of an annual goal-setting letter.
From a positive perspective, it allowed the individual faculty member to have
her or his own opportunities to explain what she or he was doing and to justify it
convincingly. Feedback from the Provost ensured that the Faculty Evaluation Team
would ideally highlight the unique contributions of an individual faculty member to
the Mission of the institution, focusing specifically on teaching. The result ideally
would be greater creative dynamism throughout the institution. Of course, Total
Quality Management approaches require that the commitment to this approach be
institution-wide. It also requires good faith on the part of all parties participating. In
the worst case scenario, goal-setting letters can become means by which to penalize;
failures at creative initiatives can become a source of political weakness. Faculty
members who viewed the Administration as targeting them viewed the feedback from
the Administration as a means by which to que the Faculty Evaluation Team (FET) to
respond negatively towards a particular faculty member. The Admininstration could
choose to put in a faculty member’s evaluation dossier any item it wished, including
the goal-setting letters and feedback, should the faculty member under evaluation
himself choose not to include this material. Among the problems: a number of
regional faculty refused to submit a goal-setting letter. The reasons include
discomfort with their proficiency in English. Conflict with the administration over
the expectation to be at AUBG at least 4 full working days per week also has been an
ongoing issue. Some of the American expatriate faculty felt that the administration
was using the goal setting letter to bias the Faculty Evaluation Team against the
faculty member undergoing evaluation. It also required a significant amount of time
and effort from the Chief Academic Officer of the institution to review and comment
on the goal-setting letters.
In the course of institutional administrative change at AUBG, AUBG has
evidently decided not to continue with the TQM approach. At the behest of interim
administrators, AUBG chose not to continue with the goal-setting letter requirement
in terms of formative evaluation. The Faculty Assembly chose to remove the goalsetting letter requirement in November 2003, and the AUBG Board of Trustees
agreed to remove it from the AUBG Faculty Handbook in May 2004. The
justification for doing so was evidently that it instigated greater conflict between
faculty and administration. The administration would consequently make its
personnel decisions on its own terms while the role of the FET would decline. One of
the consequences of this decision is that Faculty oversight of faculty development has
deteriorated. The Faculty Evaluation Team has less information with which to make
its judgments. Given that evaluation now occurs once every three or five years for
permanent faculty, critical institutional feedback for development in terms of faculty
development has declined. Partly as a consequence, the latent nationalist resentments
between American and Bulgarian faculty have become more intense. Administrative
5
consideration of faculty along national lines has become more pronounced as in-group
formation has strengthened among the Bulgarian faculty. As a consequence, the
latent tension between expatriate and local regional faculty has become more intense.
In sum, for the TQM approach with formative and summative evaluation to
succeed, goodwill must characterize the relationship among the different units of the
institution. The ongoing administrative turmoil at AUBG has made generating such
an institutional atmosphere difficult.