1985
was a productive year for Hungarian scholars interested in American Studies:
the European Association of American Studies organized its biennial
conference in a communist country for the first time in its history; and the
first university program in American Studies was launched in the fall. The
time was different from the worst period of communist dictatorship even
though hardly anyone had thought the end was not too far away. The
importance of the EAAS conference was both political and scholarly, in
comparison the significance of the starting of the AS program was very
modest.
The rationale of the AS
program in Szeged had to be articulated in the face of the ideological
position (in the process of gradual disintegration, yet entrenched in the
official world of the academe) that considered the US as the leader and
prime specimen of disintegrating capitalism and imperialism; the priorities
set by (socialist/communist version of) Lukácsian esthetics and the academic
preference for “learned culture.” The latter was manifested in the general
attitudes of departments of modern philology and in the definition of
American Studies by Professor László Országh (Debrecen) in 1972,
American
Studies concerns itself with the culture of the USA, examines the formation
of this culture, describes and analyzes the contemporary situation of this
culture, taking in view the interrelationship of various fields of American
cultural life.
The definition then
specifically restricted its concern to classic American literature, the
“linguistics” of American English and the historiography of the USA. On this
ground individual (unrelated) courses on American literature etc. were
offered within English programs.
The articulation of the
underlying assumptions of the new (coherent) AS program was considerably
facilitated by a joint research project, The Reception of American
Literature in Hungary, sponsored by ACLS-HAS,
1983-1988, the theoretical framework of
which was informed by reception esthetics and reader-response theories.
Considering as mistaken both the attitude that claimed that our study of
American culture should be imitative of American American Studies on account
of its “authenticity” and the attitude that claimed we might have a better
understanding of American culture on account of our “objectivity” (and
ideological convictions), I claimed
Our job in
American Studies is not the identification with the Americans, but rather to
investigate, to reconstruct the ways they read, understand, interpret
their literature and culture, to examine the interpretive strategies of that
community, to find out what meanings the Americans make of their own
literature/culture, and see those ways of understanding and those meanings
in their historicity.
The other, “obvious” (and
related) decision was to conceive the program as cultural studies: it
necessitated the expansion of the scope of what might pass for “culture” and
also opened the way for differing methodologies (differing that is from what
the “official,” “traditional” identification of culture allowed.)
Higher education in Hungary
has been under radical reconstruction ever since 1989, the beginning of the third republic.
One very important change has been the expansion of higher education in at
least two dimensions: the state gave up its monopoly of establishing
institutions of HE—new institutions were established (religious
denominations, private investment, local-regional interests, international
initiatives). The other dimension concerns the number of those participating
in higher education; until the late
80’s Hungarian higher education students had represented
about 15% of their age group, since then
this proportion has considerably changed, partly due to the new
institutions, partly to new formats in HE, and to the greatest extent, due
to the changed government-level admission policy (regulated financially
through a quota system).
These changes facilitated a
third—perhaps the most radical change: as part of the preparations to join
the EU, Hungary entered the Bologna process—a process that intends to
enhance the efficiency and competitiveness of European higher education. In
the past months, the academic community have been active in shaping the
future, various levels of academic administration, various bodies, from
nationwide to department-wide have been engaged in articulating differing
concepts and conceptions about the transformation of the traditional
“parallel” system (parallel because it knows no continuity and mobility
between the two levels of HE, university and college). The process has been
channeled in a more or less rigid framework the “rules” of which are
articulated in the new law on higher education.
The larger slot which
contains American Studies is “Modern philology,” the smaller one is “Anglistik.”
In the first rounds of negotiations, a traditional concept dominated the
table, namely that the BA program should be British/English language and
literature, giving a “neutral” introduction to the “discipline” covering
British English language, linguistics, literature, and allowing bits of
information about literatures or cultures in English. This concept considers
American Studies as a form of specialization the proper level for which
should be the MA (and PhD) level only.
This argument is new by no
means. In the accreditation of the Szeged American Studies a decade ago, the
legitimacy of the program was questioned on two grounds,
1. that you should study American culture once you have a
proper background of British/English language and literature and 2. since American history is relatively short, a mere
200 years’ worth, there is not sufficient material to fill
in a full-scale, independent American Studies program. In other words, a
good familiarity with Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Wordsworth, and the
rest, the basic acquaintance with the events of British history, the command
of a denaturalized English can only enable you to study the culture of the
USA. This assumption roots deeply in Hungarian (Continental European) HE
traditions. First of all, the traditional objective of university education
in the liberal arts is teacher training (with some foundations in research),
which partly explains the language-literature orientation and the “extensive
totality” ideal of the traditional programs. Only partly: the notion rests
in the 19th century Arnoldian
(well, yes, classic German) concept of culture, with language and literature
in an exceptional role—they are the realization of the essence, the “spirit”
of the ethnically conceived nation state. The collective designation,
“modern philology” is a reminder of all this: the modernity is there only to
distinguish it from classical philology.
Surveying college and
university “English” curricula in Hungary today (yesterday), one finds that
this argument informs the majority: independent American Studies programs
are offered by the U of Szeged and ELTE (Eger offers college level American
Studies program) and even in these programs, thanks to the national degree
requirements, you find reminders of the notion of “universal English.” At
the same time, you will also discover that US-related courses abound in all
English programs, offered either as essential parts of “cultures in English”
or as graduate studies programs. The degree requirements refer to the needs
of (secondary) education, the central objective of the program is, after
all, teacher training, and even if the program is non-teacher training, the
normative pattern with its expectations is shaped by teacher training.
As a matter of fact, this
normative pattern persists in the new model program. The BA program is not a
direct/explicit teacher training program itself, it has a teacher training
track option (the other options are: school leaving with BA, MA-track), yet
the arguments supporting the new model spell out the aggressive presence of
the teacher training ideal, which informs the selection of areas, the
proportion of the various fields of study. It results in a contradictory
proposition; the practical orientation of the basic BA degree is paid lip
service but it remains only “icing on the cake.”
["Icing on the cake" - image: courtesy of György Novák]
No, that is not quite
correct. The culinary metaphor in English covers up the actual situation;
the Hungarian version is far more revealing. Hab a tortán, we would say in
Hungarian, whipped cream on the cake. While the English metaphor refers to
the icing: a hard surface to dress up the cake, an extra layer that gives or
at least maintains the (ideal) shape or contours of the cake and in that
sense it is an essential part of the cake. The Hungarian metaphor refers to
the shapeless cloud that sits on top of the cake, that is not an
essential/organic part of the cake whether form- or taste-wise.
["Whipped cream on the cakes" - images: courtesy of György
Novák]
The
objective that “Employability of graduates should be ensured already after
the first cycle” is not part of this deal. The proposed model for this
reason seeks to offer specialization (geared for this “employability”) in an
external component, which actually ought to be a minor (a version of another
degree program.)
If I want to be cynical, I
should commend this Hungarian model. (I must add “Hungarian,” because other
European models, as the German model follow a different pattern.) The praise
is due since this model has already moved towards the post-nationalist model
of American Studies, it has certainly decentered the “essentialist”
American. But cynicism does not help us. The “universal English” within the
presumed teacher training model appears as neutral since it contains or
rather, can contain all versions of English, national, gendered, racialized
etc. Through its catholicity this English appears as natural and
transparent, and as a consequence, it prevents the recognition and the
posing of basic questions, prevents them from entering the discourse of
scholarship. They cannot be thematized;
the colonial and the
postcolonial, the national, transnational, post-national, or globalized
positions do not become exposed; they do not form a framework within which
the issue of English (and American Studies) could be negotiated.
American Studies as an
“independent” program (BA to MA/PhD) may perform the thematization of this
current issue by virtue of its difference. Yet the chance of devising the
American Studies BA program has not eliminated all the inherent problems.
American Studies appears in
the listing as a version of (universal, traditional) Anglistik. The
consequences are that a./ American Studies must remain in the
well-trodden space of language-literature based teacher training; the shape
of the program must emulate the English/British language and literature
program and b./ the set of assumptions which could be simplified as
Euro-centric and colonialist retains its “esemplastic” power. It is in the
vital interest of an American Studies program in Hungary today that it
expose the untenability of these assumptions.
1.
The shape of the American Studies program conceived as cultural
studies problematizes the equal share of language and literature in several
ways. First of all, it functions as a critique of the notion of (national)
culture which puts language and literature in a central position on
essentialist and humanist assumptions, thereby establishing a system of
values which canonizes, hierarchizes cultural phenomena, events (or
systems), and which, by creating its canon, identifies what is worth
studying and knowing. Through its selections it commits acts of exclusion.
In other, very simple words, it eliminates huge chunks (areas) of (the
totality) of culture from the curriculum before they can be perceived at
all.
2.
This approach to American Studies reveals that the use of the
category of Anglistik within which American Studies is a version, is an
acceptance of imperial and colonialist attitudes, which conceive of American
(US) culture as a spin-off of the late British empire, an appendix to
Europe.
3.
American studies as cultural studies through its awareness of the
political, also critiques the objectivity claim of “purist” scholarship.
All this warns us of a
significant yet frequently denied or (at least) muted aspect of our
profession in Hungary and I presume in all the other ex-Communist countries.
If mentioned at all, it may appear as professional “responsibility.” I would
rather use “accountability” here: responsibility implies more an innate
sense of moral propriety, whereas accountability serves as a reminder of our
basic relationship to students as our immediate customers. (No, I do not
identify this relationship as a mere form of business transaction, but this
aspect is undeniably there.) The preservation of the older, traditional
concept of culture as the foundation of Anglistik and American Studies
within it ignores the interests of American Studies students, BA, teacher
training- or MA-track oriented alike: by our preserving an “archaic” version
of American Studies, they get excluded from the ongoing dialogue of
international American Studies, its discourse remains incomprehensible to
them.
At this juncture it is
necessary that we enter this international dialogue, with its claims and
demands for “new paradigms of research.” What strategies do we have to
engage in the debate? It involves an essential decision since the options of
Hungarian American Studies depend on it, and in a perhaps less immediate
way, it may determine the shape of American Studies programs in Hungary, BA
to PhD level.
The founding of the
International American Studies Association in
2000, its first convention in Leiden, the launching of
Comparative American Studies are all signs that the request of American
American Studies has been observed: we have critical internationalism
informing it, and trans- and post-nationalism permeates its discourse, its
most important lessons concern globalization and the imperial role of the US
within it, subversion of the exceptionalist, essentialist (nationalist)
positions of the US and American AS. And as a very characteristic, very
opportune judgment we can read “the USA is too important to the world for
American Studies to be left in the hands of American Studies specialists.”
Notwithstanding all this,
the situation is far more colorful. The happy condition of international
American Studies is somewhat darkened by the undeniable effects of the
American export of American Studies. Richard Horwitz
paints an extremely worrisome picture, referring among others, to the
cooperation of various “IA” organizations in the export—the CIA, the USIA
are specified as culprits. Horwitz’s narrative is instructive: American
Studies is another imperial(ist) commodity in a globalized economy,
compromising both ends. But his evidence, in fact, compromises his account.
He gives away the secret how back in the bad old
80’s the EAAS organized its conference in Budapest under
almost direct orders of the “IA’s”. True, his evidence is very soft: it is
based on an anecdote. But even so, he reveals the badly strong limitations
of his understanding of the situation. Here, several of us still remember
the event—and to [at least, some of] us the meaning and the significance is
totally different: what he ignores in his account is the historical and
political circumstances.
His other reference is to
the passive reception of “American Studies” all over the world from the
visiting scholars in the Fulbright program (another IA), by which American
Studies itself is complicit in the imperial-spirited globalization. His
narrative again contains its own subversion: first, he blithely identifies
American American Studies as (the only possible and therefore “natural” form
of) the American Studies, by which he becomes guilty of nationalism,
essentialism, and—needless to say--imperial mode of thinking. Then, he
believes the exotic foreigners digest what “comes naturally” from the “big
white chief,” and perform whatever they have just received. All this coming
from a Fulbrighter--so hotly critical of imperial, globalizing American
presence. Reception/understanding is not a passive act. Hosts to
Fulbrighters, we also construct our meanings, and perhaps it is not saying
too much that in the global age, a Fulbrighter’s visit is not the first
contact even with American Studies. Then, again, if we accept his account of
the export model, it is a marvel how the exported (model of) AS does not
remain in place unchanged. As a matter of fact, this is a bit unjust to
Horwitz: he is not unique in assuming American American Studies as the
natural (transparent) condition of American Studies.
American Studies is not
American property. In Hungary we have a special understanding of American
culture, in the same way, as the Poles have their own special understanding
of it. The specialty of the understanding is not the product of an
essentialist position: rather it is the outcome of an interaction (series of
interactions) of various actors—the US is one among them. Hungary and Poland
have their particular understanding/interpretation of “America”--in it the (ex)Soviet
Union is undoubtedly a significant factor. In the same way, as Turkey has
its own interpretation of American culture, yet even if the chief actors
(the US, SU) are identical, their interaction is performed in a different
way. This is one of the reasons why I cannot accept “international American
Studies”—the US (all of us, non-Americans)—THEM relationship does not unite
anyone. (Amy Kaplan’s remark to Djelal Kadir’s’s position is appropriate: it
is an essentialist assumption which does not annihilate the
other--American—essentialism.)
If I accept American Studies
as cultural studies, the historical, the political do not allow for a
neutral practicing of American Studies outside the US, the web of relations
do not let us free. For this reason, the critical examination of American
practices of American Studies is a necessary part of our American Studies
project (and AS program)—in the same way, as the critical examination of our
practices of American Studies should be a part of American American Studies.
But as Horwitz’s IA’s or Fulbrighters are unable to impose their imperial
“visions” (practices, actually) on us as passive consumers, it is equally
naive to expect American practitioners of American Studies to appropriate
our positions, our “visions,” and in that sense, critical internationalism
has strong limitations.
And this applies to claims
to trans-, post-national modes of American Studies. Hungary may serve as a
good example here: on joining the EU, we have become part of a transnational
and post-nationalist (by JC Rowe’s definition of the term) entity. But then,
as current and recent events (the referendum concerning the status of ethnic
Hungarian minorities living outside Hungary last December) indicate
Hungary/Hungarians view the national as an urgency, with strong
simplification, we might say it is precisely the trans-/post-nationalist
condition that lends the urgency to the national. What further complicates
the situation is that the EU is not simply post-nationalist: it is also a
player in the world of globalization. This is a reminder that it is truly
imperial to believe/assume that the US is the sole globalizing power—as
several American and comparative Americanists claim. Globalization certainly
has not pushed us into the post-nationalist world: we make sense of it from
within our local positions, the critique of post-nationalist, transnational
accounts are essential moments in the process.
The demise of the
exceptionalist, essentialist narrative of “America” is one of the major jobs
of today’s American Studies practices, be them American or otherwise.
Strangely enough this project proceeds practically speaking under no
critical scrutiny—the Alan Wolfe-kind of response
to it does not pass as either critical or scrutiny. One can identify two
very important possible factors in this omission. The roots of one are to be
found in a typical “new” Americanist attitude, though that attitude is far
from new. The need of debunking the “errand in the wilderness”, the
“manifest destiny” exceptionalist-nationalist narrative emerges as a central
mission for American Studies; the exceptionalist position being conferred to
Americanists. (American) practitioners of American Studies appear as the
conscience of their community/society, eagerly forgetting about the
discarded exceptionalism/essentialism and forging a totalizing project to
end all totalizing projects. Even stranger when comparative Americanists
urge their American colleagues to assume this role.
The other factor also
reveals a similar blindness to exceptionalism. When talking about recent
events (contemporary globalization) or when talking about the beginnings of
Colonial America, we get narratives of the empire imposing itself on
everyone else almost unchecked. But then (British) America did not begin in
a solitary act of colonial expansion--it started out contested by and
contesting other colonial powers, a fact we occasionally are reminded of.
These other colonial powers are European nations/empires--but then if you
look properly around in 16th and 17th century Europe, the
TransAtlantic arena and further, you must realize the aggressively expanding
Islam is also among the rival imperial forces. (Earlier, I mentioned the
Poles and the Hungarians: both could offer narratives of this imperial,
colonizing process.) Without taking the Ottoman empire into consideration,
we cannot discuss the “making of America,” the globalizing “trafique” of
George Alsop
in the attempt to get rid of the exceptionalism of the American empire. In
the same vein, introducing post-nationalist globalization, we frequently
have the aggressive expansion of the US as a sole globalizing power.
Comparative American Studies
offers a representative collection of the kind, again it is amazing (and
somewhat dismaying) to read colonizers condemning another colonizer/imperial
power. One should say again that this truly is the making of an essentialist
and exceptionalist narrative--empires exist only contesting and contested,
erasing the contestation and the contestants as contestants (presenting them
as victims only) produces a false binary opposition of “us and them,” good
guys and bad guys, the Manichean struggle of the good and the evil.
American Studies in Hungary
should produce Hungarian interpretations of “America,” of American culture,
not restricted to nationalist, essentialist, exceptionalist narratives. Also
it must be informed by American practices and “international practices” of
American Studies, in a critical manner, trying to avoid the danger of
exceptionalism, essentialism, being aware of its relational position. I do
not think that we can formulate prognostications about, say, the future of
American Studies in Hungary--I would refrain from such speculation: it is
only the conditions of today that we can be familiar with, and the games of
tomorrow will not be played by the rules of yesterday. For this reason I do
not think we could foresee what American Studies the future Americanists in
the EU will practice, how they would recast our nationalist, transnational
and post-nationalist narratives. At this moment, however, our job in Hungary
is to design an American Studies program in accord with the framework of the
Bologna process--itself a project to contest American globalization; an AS
program that is designed by the rules of today and not by the outmoded
assumptions of yesterday.
Works cited
-
Alsop, George. A Character of
the Province of Maryland. (1666).
Freeport: Books for Libraries Press, 1972.
-
Dirlik, Arif. „American Studies in
the time of Empire.”
Comparative American Studies.
2:3 (2004). 287–302.
-
Horwitz , Richard P. "The Politics
of International American Studies." Exporting America: Essays on American
Studies Abroad. ed. Richard P. Horwitz. New York: Garland, 1993. 377-418.
-
Kaplan, Amy. “The tenacious grasp
of American Exceptionalism. A response to Djelal Kadir, ‘Defending America
against its devotees.’” Comparative American Studies. 2:2 (2004)
153–159.
-
Országh, László. Bevezetés az
amerikanisztikába. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó, 1972.
-
Rozsnyai, Bálint. “High
Culture, Popular Culture, and the Teaching of American Studies in Hungary.”
High and Low in American Culture, ed. Ch. Kretzoi, Budapest: ELTE, 1986. 197‑204.
-
Torres, Sonia. “US
Americans and ‘Us’ Americans: South American perspectives on Comparative
American Studies.” Comparative American Studies. 1:1
(2003). 9-17.
-
Wolfe, Alan. The Difference Between
Criticism And Hatred. Anti-American Studies. The New Republic,
February 10, 2002.
Notes
Sonia Torres’ s essay adds an interesting perspective here. “US
Americans and ‘Us’ Americans: South American perspectives on
Comparative American Studies.”
Comparative
American Studies. 1:1 (2003).
9-17.
Dirlik,
Arif. „American Studies in the time of Empire.”
Comparative American Studies.
2:3 (2004)., 288.
Horwitz , Richard P. "The Politics of International American
Studies." Exporting America: Essays on American Studies Abroad.
ed. Richard P. Horwitz. New York: Garland, 1993. 377-418.
Kaplan, Amy. “The
tenacious grasp of American Exceptionalism. A response to Djelal
Kadir, ‘Defending America against its devotees.’”
Comparative
American Studies.
2:2 (2004) 153–159.
Wolfe,
Alan. The Difference Between Criticism And Hatred. Anti-American
Studies. The New Republic, February
10,
2002.
|