Cold War Relic or Global Research Factor: Area Studies and the Emergence of Global
Research
Marek Sroka
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
The Post-Second World War Development of Area Studies
Contemporary area studies and the world regions that they have taken as objects of research are
largely a post-Second World War phenomenon. Prior to the Second World War internationallyoriented studies in US colleges and universities rarely went beyond European history.1 There is,
however, some history of regionally based studies that occurred before the Second World War
and employed some interdisciplinary procedures. For example, the University of Texas had one
of the first “area programs to be organized at any American university,” as its 1915 bulletin lists
courses “for the study of Latin America.”2 After the First World War, Columbia College started
a contemporary civilization course which, although focusing only on Western civilization,
represented a new approach “demanding the interrelationship of several disciplines to a given
world region.”3 In the late 1920s the Carnegie Institution of Washington studied Maya culture by
employing specialists from different disciplines such as archaeology, biology, ethnology, history,
geography, and other fields.4 In the late 1930s the Tarascan ethnic group of Mexico became the
subject of interdisciplinary study, which reflected a growing research interest in Latin America.5
Consequently, Latin American training centers were created and the American Council of
Learned Societies, National Research Council, and Social Science Research Council set up a
Joint Committee on Latin American Studies.6 There were also some scholars with a special
interest in “non-Western” areas such as South Asia and the Middle East who started to
2
experiment with graduate programs, especially at the University of Pennsylvania, Yale and
Princeton, combining different disciplines to make the study of particular areas “as
comprehensive as the treatment accorded to Western civilization.”7 The outbreak of the Second
World War underscored a sudden need to study other world areas and resulted in the
establishment of area training programs conducted under military auspices and located at
American universities. These programs in turn served as “crude models” for postwar area
studies in American universities.8
The Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP) was established in 1943 and eventually
was installed in 227 universities and colleges.9 Part of the program that included foreign area
and language study (abbreviated as ASTP-FAL) was installed in 55 institutions, and this
particular curriculum had its highest enrollment of 13,185 in December 1943.10 Foreign area and
language programs were developed to train enlisted servicemen for “the two great theaters of
operation, Europe and the Far East.”11 Those programs, however, were of short duration and
usually ran for several months.12 They often did not have enough resources as aids in teaching of
area studies, including “the inadequacy of existing language libraries for socio-economic details
of daily life at regional and local levels.”13
Following the war, efforts to improve area research were made by various universities
resulting in the emphasis on research rather than mass training.14 In the decade of the 1950’s, a
more or less general pattern of development began to appear. This involved the development of
“new techniques for integrating the specialized knowledge from many fields” and the creation of
Integrated Area Programs.15 In 1951, Wendell C. Bennett prepared his survey of Area Studies in
American Universities for the Social Science Research Council, in which he was able to identify
seven characteristics of integrated programs, i.e., “the criteria for separating programs from mere
3
agglomerations of courses.”16 His seven criteria of integrated programs included the following
attributes: “official university recognition and support of the program; adequate library resources
for both teaching and research on the area; competent instruction in the principal languages of
the area; offerings in at least five pertinent subjects in addition to language instructions; some
specific mechanisms for integrating the area studies; an area research program;” and “emphasis
on the contemporary aspects of the area.”17 Probably the most decisive characteristic of the
emerging area study programs was their non-Western subject matter as they became almost
exclusively associated with non-Western civilizations. Bennett found 29 programs (that met his
criteria) in operation at nineteen institutions.18 The leading areas included Far East (eight
programs), Latin America (six programs), and Russia (five programs), with Latin America
claiming the largest number of faculty specialists (142 area specialists), and Russia and Far East
claiming the largest number of graduate students, with 246 and 205 students respectively.19 This
was more than double the number of similar area programs identified by Robert B. Hall in
1947.20
The outstanding development of the fifties and sixties was the considerable increase in
the number of programs. There were two main factors affecting the growth of area study
programs, namely the expansion of the Cold War, which had a great impact on the development
of Russian and East European studies, and the passage by the Congress of the “National Defense
Education Act of 1958” (NDEA) (P.L. 85-864).21
National Defense Education Act of 1958 and the Rapid Growth of Area Programs
The national need for greater linguistic competence was recognized by the Congress in the
“National Defense Education Act of 1958” (NDEA) (P.L. 85-864), which was enacted to
4
“strengthen the national defense and to encourage and assist in the expansion and improvement
of educational programs to meet critical national needs.”22 Title VI of the NDEA provided for
the establishment of “language and area centers” for instruction in critical languages, coupled
with instruction in “other fields needed to provide a full understanding of the areas, regions, or
countries” in which those languages are commonly used.23 Possible “other fields” included
history, political science, linguistics, economics, sociology, geography, and anthropology.24 The
matching funds authorized by the 1958 legislation greatly contributed to the impressive growth
of language and area studies programs.
Area studies programs were experiencing a steady growth even before the enactment of
the NDEA as reflected in the 1956 and 1959 Area Study Programs in American Universities
reports prepared by the Department of State Office of Intelligence Research and Bureau of
Intelligence and Research respectively.25 In the five years since Wendell C. Bennett published
his survey of area studies in American universities, the number of formal area programs offered
in American universities increased from 29 to 81.26 The leading areas included Far East
(eighteen programs), Latin America (sixteen programs), and Russia (thirteen programs), and
were concentrated in 40 institutions.27 There were eight institutions, including Columbia
University and University of Minnesota that had more than three area programs; 23 institutions
had only one area program; five institutions had two area programs (e.g., University of Hawaii),
and four institutions had three area programs.28 The 1956 report was perhaps the first general
inventory of area study programs that reflected the Cold War division of Europe into Western
and Eastern Europe and the evolving East European studies. Both areas received the same
attention, with six area study programs devoted to Eastern Europe and six area programs
concerned with Western Europe.29 The 1959 report compiled and published by the External
5
Research Division of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research in the Department of State
described 96 programs of graduate study of “foreign areas.”30 That represented a slight increase
in area study programs since the publication of the 1956 report. The 1959 report found that most
area programs were composed of social science and language and literature courses. Among the
social sciences, history was the discipline with most course offerings in area study programs;
anthropology was significant for programs on Africa, the Near East, Asia, and Latin America. 31
The report stressed once again the significance of specialized library collections of non-English
materials for an effective area program. The report mentioned the enactment of the “National
Defense Education Act of 1958” (NDEA) (P.L. 85-864) and anticipated the establishment of
language and area centers for instruction in critical languages and the related areas.
The rapid growth of area and language programs continued through the 1960s. By 1962
there were 136 distinct programs offering degrees for foreign language and area studies. Federal
support made under Title VI of the “National Defense Education Act of 1958” (NDEA) (P.L. 85864) greatly contributed to that expansion.32 The changed title of the 1962 directory (from Area
Study Programs in American Universities into Language and Area Study Programs in American
Universities) emphasized the significance of foreign language training in area study programs.
The leading areas included Asia (42 programs, including NDEA Language and Area Centers in
Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indonesian, Javanese, and Thai established at the University of
Hawaii in 1960), Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (34 programs, including newly established
Center for Russian Language and Area Studies at the University of Illinois), and Latin America
(29 programs, including Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Illinois).33 The
1964 report entitled, Language and Area Study Programs in American Universities, identified
153 programs in one or another of the following areas: Africa, Asia General, East Asia, South
6
and Southeast Asia, Latin America, Near East, Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and Western
Europe.34 There were more programs for Asia than for any other geographic area; including
Chinese and Japanese that remained the most frequently taught Asian languages. The Asian
programs were divided into three groups: Asia General, East Asia, and South and Southeast
Asia.35 The directory listed major foundation grants awarded to language and area centers in the
years 1957 to 1964. In many cases the major foundations such as the Ford and Rockefeller
Foundations and the Carnegie Corporation of New York were instrumental in the expansion of
language and area studies and continued to provide sizeable funds for language training and area
research dealing with non-Western cultures.
In the course of the 1970s, funding for area studies programs, and particularly for Soviet
area studies, declined. For example, the Ford Foundation’s allocation for Soviet area studies
decreased from $47 million in 1966 to slightly more than $2 million in 1979.36 By the end of the
1970s, Russian and East European studies accounted for “a smaller share of the academic
international studies than at any time since the 1930s.”37 While Russian and East European
studies declined, Latin American, Middle Eastern, and African studies registered relative gains. 38
Yet, the most dramatic change to Soviet and East European studies occurred in December 1991
when this field of scholarly inquiry disappeared along with the Soviet Union as a national entity
and several successor states, including Russia, emerged from the Soviet empire. Another factor
affecting area studies scholarship was the emergence of global and transnational studies.
The End of the Cold War and the Emergence of Global and International Studies
There seems to be the definitional imprecision of international studies. Some scholars such as
Robert A. McCaughey define “international studies” as the serious inquiry by Americans into
7
non-American world, which includes the following components: Eastern Europe and Russia;
South Asia; the Middle East (including North Africa); Africa; Latin America; and “Other.”39
According to McCaughey, area studies are part of international studies to the extent they seek to
acquire knowledge about one of these areas as “an end in itself.”40 International studies can also
serve a more comparative, or multi-area purpose as the framework for demographic studies or
international relations.41 Neil L. Waters in his Beyond the Area Studies Wars argues for a
broader definition of international studies that is not limited to international relations, which is a
subdivision of political science and explores formal relations between nation-states.42 He defines
international studies as programs of scholarly inquiry that “deliberately incorporate transregional and even global phenomena and theories into what would otherwise be area studies
programs.”43 Although Waters does not use the term global studies, his definition of
international studies describes the very nature of global studies (as promoted at various college
campuses) that study phenomena that have trans-regional and global effects and resist
geographical limitations and entail the connections and comparisons between regional entities.
Some believe that one of the most serious shortcomings of area studies in the age of
globalization is their inability to tackle the ongoing congruence of various economic, political,
and even social systems.44 In other words, are area studies still relevant and up to the task of
describing and analyzing our global environment if their focus seem to be on “the residual and
presumably diminishing specificities or unique dynamics of particular localities?”45 Is the world
that they have been describing for decades rapidly fading away?
There is no doubt that the end of the Cold War has called into question Cold War
geographical and political boundaries and the European Union expansion of has changed the
changed the concept of Eastern Europe. Yet at the very moment when Cold War borders are
8
disappearing, many Central and Eastern European “small nations” have expressed a great need
for their own ethnic and distinct regional identity.46 The world seems to be in the grip of
centripetal forces of global integration and centrifugal forces of ethnical fragmentation.47
Finally, there are new powerful players on the “post-American” world stage, which
Fareed Zakaria characterized as “the rise of the rest.”48 These new developments present
challenges for both area and global (international) studies. The increasingly global economic,
political, and social environment makes the need for more culturally and historically
contextualized knowledge of particular nations and regional entities even more essential to
understand the complex interaction of global and local economic, political, and cultural forces.
There is no real knowledge of the connections between regional entities without
knowledge of particular places and that is why are studies still have the future.
Future of Area Studies
The development of global studies has been hailed by some as the end of area studies. A closer
look at some undergraduate and graduate global studies seminars reveal their focus on global
phenomena that cut horizontally across regional demarcations and dependence on English
language resources in their syllabi. For example, the University of Illinois College of Liberal
Arts and Sciences’ Global Studies program offered various undergraduate seminars that had
global scope and included, among others, the following topics: “Understanding Global Water
Issues,” “Oil Dependence,” and “Nuclear Weapons Proliferation.”49 Yet, by limiting their
research to mostly global issues and excluding vernacular or regional scholarship produced in
individual countries (that represents non-US perspective), global studies run the risk of being
characterized as fundamentally US- or Euro-centric.50
9
Recent successful applications for Title VI funding at Indiana University and the
University of Illinois have proven the continuing viability of area studies and their ability to meet
new challenges of the global world.51 For example, the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign (UI) and the University of Chicago (UC) Consortium for Latin American Studies,
which combines “the instructional and research capabilities and the interdisciplinary synergies of
two major universities,” has successfully positioned itself as one of the national leaders of Latin
American studies.52 Interdisciplinarity is the heart of Latin American studies at UI and UC and
both schools offer high quality language instructional programs, including instruction in less
commonly taught languages of Latin America such as Quechua, Aymara, and Yucatec Maya.53
New thematic initiatives, recently proposed by the UI and UC Consortium, aim at
enriching the area studies curriculum through interdisciplinary and inter-professional
collaborations.54 One of the initiatives, “Worldly Region: Latin America in Global Perspective,”
“will examine, in cooperation with other Title VI NRC (National Resource Centers) Latin
America’s longstanding and emerging connections to other regions of the world.”55 Activities
will include a 2-year curriculum development initiative on comparative sovereignty in the
Americas, programs on comparative mass violence and trauma, and introduction of significant
Brazilian content into new and existing courses.56 This is just one example of how area studies
programs, in this case Latin American studies, evolve and expand their focus in reaction to and
anticipation of global issues.
Another example of new area studies programs includes two innovative programmatic
initiatives, in global informatics and global law, underwritten by the University of Illinois
Russian, East European, and Eurasian Center and other Title VI NRC Centers as well as
Graduate School of Library and Information Science (GSLIS) and College of Law. The
10
initiatives will provide for “specialized courses taught by visiting experts that will build unique
curricular options for grad and professional school students, and draw the latter into the study of
the region [italics mine].”57 The global informatics project will “integrate the University’s
strengths as a world leader in internet technology research into area studies [italics mine]”.58
Informatics professionals will “teach two courses/semester on the new media, the politics and
culture of the internet, “hacktivism,” cyber warfare, and mobile telephony in the formation,
dissemination, and manipulation of public opinion in Russia/Eurasia, Iran/Middle East, and the
China/Pacific region, with two modules on Central/South America”.59
In conclusion, area studies have demonstrated their interdisciplinary nature rooted in rich
vernacular resources that allow them to present the non-Western perspective, which is critical to
the understanding of different regions and cultures. This can help to inform the research of
global and transnational phenomena as experienced at the level of regional entities. Many new
area studies programs that emphasize collaboration with other Title VI National Resource
Centers and more global and comparative perspective bode well for the future of area studies in
the increasingly global environment. This may allow international studies to develop a new and
exciting synergy between the study of local and regional issues and the inquiry into global and
transnational phenomena.
1
David Szanton, ed., The Politics of Knowledge: Area Studies and the Disciplines (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 2004) 5-6.
2
Joseph Axelrod and Donald N. Bigelow, Resources for Language and Area Studies: A Report on an
Inventory of the Language and Area Centers Supported by the National Defense Education Act of 1958
(Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1962) 3.
3
Ibid.
11
4
Julian H. Steward, Area Research: Theory and Practice (New York: Social Science Research Council,
1950) xi. Published as Social Science Research Council Bulletin 63 (1950). Available at Hathi Trust
Digital Library at: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.32106000788114 (accessed March 8, 2011)
5
Ibid.
6
Ibid., xii.
7
Non-Western Studies in the Liberal Arts College: A Report of the Commission on International
Understanding (Washington D.C.: Association of American Colleges, 1964) 27. Available at Hathi Trust
Digital Library at: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015002978495 (accessed March 8, 2011)
8
Ibid.
9
William Nelson Fenton, Area Studies in American Universities (Washington, D.C.: American Council
on Education, 1947) v.
10
Fenton, Area Studies in American Universities, vi.
11
Far East included Japanese-occupied territory. See, Fenton, Area Studies in American Universities, 1.
12
Fenton, Area Studies in American Universities, 37.
13
Fenton, Area Studies in American Universities, 72. The access to the university library was sometimes
restricted by army officers who intervened to prevent trainees from using the library at night “on the
pretext that “going to the library” meant to drinking places.”
14
Wendell C. Bennett, Area Studies in American Universities (New York: Social Science Research
Council, 1951) 6.
15
Ibid., 7.
16
Non-Western Studies in the Liberal Arts College, 30.
17
Ibid.
18
Bennett, Area Studies in American Universities, 10. Four programs dealt with Europe, with emphasis on
Western Europe.
19
Ibid., 11, 13. Far East would now be referred to as East Asia.
20
Robert B. Hall, Area Studies (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1947)
21
From the New York State Education Department. The National Defense Education Act of 1958
(NDEA) (P.L. 85-864). Internet. Available from http://nysl.nysed.gov/Archimages/91326.PDF (accessed
on March 15, 2011)
12
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.
25
Area Study Programs in American Universities (Washington, D.C.: Department of State, 1956)
Area Study Programs in American Universities (Washington, D.C.: Department of State, 1959)
26
Area Study Programs in American Universities (Washington, D.C.: Department of State, 1959) ix.
27
Ibid., ix, x. Far East would now be referred to as East Asia.
28
Ibid., x.
29
The concept of Eastern Europe was not very well defined. For example, Columbia University included
Greek as one of the languages taught through its Program on East Central Europe, but it did not consider
Finland as part of Eastern Europe. Indiana University included Finland and Greece as areas to be studied
at its Institute of East European Studies, and University of Texas included Austria in its Eastern European
studies. Ibid., 4, 6.
30
Area Study Programs in American Universities (Washington, D.C.: Department of State, 1959)
31
Ibid., 5.
32
Language and Area Study Programs in American Universities (Washington, D.C.: Department of State,
1962) xi.
33
Language and Area Study Programs in American Universities (Washington, D.C.: Department of State,
1962); the programs included both language and area studies.
34
Language and Area Study Programs in American Universities (Washington, D.C.: Department of State,
1964) ix.
35
Ibid.
Victoria E. Bonnell and George W. Breslauer, “Soviet and Post-Soviet Area Studies,” in David
Szantond, ed., The Politics of Knowledge: Area Studies and the Disciplines (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2004) 217-261.
36
37
Robert A. McCaughey, International Studies and Academic Enterprise (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1984) 249.
38
Ibid., 250.
39
McCaughey, International Studies and Academic Enterprise, xii.
13
40
Ibid.
41
Ibid.
42
Neil L. Waters, ed., Beyond the Area Studies War (Hanover: Middlebury College Press, 2000) 2.
43
Ibid.
See four “critiques of area studies” and their rebuttal by David Szanton in Szanton, The Politics of
Knowledge: Area Studies and the Disciplines, 19-26.
44
45
Ibid.
For example, see Ellen Comisso and Brad Gutierrez, “Eastern Europe or Central Europe? Exploring a
Distinct Regional Identity,” in Szanton, The Politics of Knowledge: Area Studies and the Disciplines,
262-313.
46
47
See, Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992)
48
Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World (New York: W.W. Norton, 2008). According to Zakaria, in
the post-American (non-Western) world “the rise of the rest” includes China, India, and Brazil.
“Global Studies Foundation Seminar-Call for Proposals” at: http://cgs.illinois.edu/news/glbl-296global-studies-foundation-seminar-call-proposals (accessed on March 19, 2011) See also the syllabus of
the global studies foundation seminar about world cultural assets I taught in 2009 at:
http://www.library.illinois.edu/people/bios/msroka/GLBL296.html (accessed on March 19, 2011)
49
50
Paradoxically, the same accusation has been made against area study programs. In the words of H.D.
Harootunian and Masao Miyoshi area studies “succeeded in reinforcing this imperial-colonial relationship
by maintaining that Euro-America was the privileged site of production, in every sense of the world,
while the outside was simply the space for “development” which originated elsewhere.” See, H.D.
Harootunian and Masao Miyoshi, “Introduction: The “Afterlife” of Area Studies,” in Masao Miyoshi and
H.D. Harootunian, eds., Learning Places: The Afterlives of Area Studies (Durham: Duke University Press,
2002) 7.
51
Ten international programs at Indiana University will receive about $17.6 million, over four years, from
the U.S Department of Education through its competitive Title VI program. See the announcement at:
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/15123.html (accessed on March 19, 2011).
Six centers at the University of Illinois dealing with international areas and issues have received $14.7
million in Title VI grants. See the announcement at:
http://www.news.illinois.edu/news/10/1006titleIVgrants.html (accessed on March 19, 2011).
“UI-UC Consortium for Latin American Studies [Title VI 2010 Narrative],” I am grateful to Andrew
Orta, Director of the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies at the University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign, for sharing this document with me.
52
14
53
“UI-UC Consortium for Latin American Studies [Title VI 2010 Narrative],” B-17
54
“UI-UC Consortium for Latin American Studies [Title VI 2010 Narrative],” B-36
55
“UI-UC Consortium for Latin American Studies [Title VI 2010 Narrative],” B-37
56
Ibid.
“The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Russian, East European and Eurasian Center [Title VI
2010 Narrative],” 32. I am grateful to Alisha Kirchoff, Associate Director of the Russian, East European
and Eurasian Center at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, for sharing this document with me.
57
“The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Russian, East European and Eurasian Center [Title VI
2010 Narrative],” 32
58
59
Ibid.