Register
If you haven’t already, register to start contributing news and events, and to search the Member Directory. Registration is free, but only open to current members of the American Studies Association.
Group Members
The following people are members of this group:
The following people are administrators of this group:
Member Tools
We're sorry. You are not yet a member of the International Committee.
Register or login to join this group.
MAIN | Reports | Contact | Contact Members
International Committee
Report from the International Committee 1997
Eric J. Sandeen, Chair, reported on behalf of the International Committee: Victor Greene, Ramon Gutierrez, Maureen Montgomery, Gonul Pultar, Edward Simmen, and Allan Winkler.
At the April 1997 meeting Victor Greene was designated Chair of a subcommittee to formulate recommendations for the IC concerning the distribution of instructional material abroad. Greene’s solicitation of resource needs, directed to select American Studies practitioners in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe, produced thirteen responses. The subcommittee’s recommendations to the IC will serve as the basis for discussion during the fall 1997 Committee meeting in Washington. This discussion will be divided into two parts. 1) There is demonstrable need for curriculum materials abroad—respondents from China, Bangladesh, and Belarus testified to the paucity of materials. However, the administration of any project becomes complicated on a variety of levels: How are recipients to be selected? Could a project of this sort be supported by voluntary contributions from ASA members? Such a project should be considered as a scholarly or pedagogical exchange among colleagues. In that case, where would materials received by ASA be deposited? 2) As the spring floods in Eastern Europe sadly indicate, the Committee could also respond to true emergency situations abroad. This would not necessitate an administrative structure so much as a series of procedures that could be implemented in the case of an emergency. Greene’s work will help the Committee determine how best to serve its international constituency, keeping in mind the opportunities and limitations of the work of a scholarly organization.
Also at the April meeting Ramon Gutierrez was delegated to prepare a report on the joint project between the Japanese Association of American Studies and the American Studies Association. His report has been submitted under separate cover. Sandeen and Gutierrez will participate in a discussion of the JAAS-ASA project at the Washington meeting.
The Committee has been in contact with the U. S. Information Agency (USIA) during this period of great change within USIA. The future configuration of American Studies support within the Agency is uncertain and merits close monitoring. Perhaps some of the programs that offer short term assistance of American specialists in projects outside the United States will continue—the American Studies branch may even take over some of the functions of the recently de-funded International Faculty of the Salzburg Seminar. It is more certain that foreign scholars will be supported in their efforts to get to the States, but it is clear that attending the ASA conference will not be sufficient reason to garner USIA/USIS support. Bernard Mergen’s meeting of international scholars—to be held following the 1997 ASA convention—is one example of what American scholars and institutions can do to satisfy USIA guidelines and give foreign colleagues a more enriching time in the United States. The IC will discuss its role in this.
One USIA matter appears to have been settled: the Handbook for the Study of the United States may appear in hard copy as a series of pamphlets and will reside, in part, on the USIS Web site, but will not be published as a book by USIA. The IC had explored the prospect of including part of the Handbook on the Crossroads Web site. While this will not happen, the more general question of how Crossroads will support an international community is still open.
It is apparent that the Crossroads project offers many ways in which the IC can serve its constituency. It is equally evident that areas of the world still do not have access to the Internet or are not as accustomed to using this electronic medium as many American academics. Thus arises once again the enduring conversation about the means of international communication. The dynamics of this conversation are powerful—Eric Sandeen conducted World Wide Web workshops in Estonia, where there is a national effort to put every classroom on line—and have implications for the articulation between domestic and international communities in American Studies, because Crossroads itself will change over the next year as its initial funding cycle concludes.
The IC continues to look closely at the international exchange of scholars. Most generally, it will continue to turn its attention to the Fulbright program, in which, once again, USIA has proposed changes. More specifically, the IC helped one American historian from Cuba receive the requisite paperwork and the necessary funds through USIA to attend the Washington ASA meeting.
Recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on “The Japan-United States Dialogues Across the Pacific Project”
Ramon Gutierrez (Chair) reported for Gary Okihiro and Richard Yarborough.
Recommendations:
1. The relationship between JAAS and ASA under the terms of the “Japan-United States Dialogues Across the Pacific: Curriculum, Program, and Faculty Development for an International American Studies” program, has been too one sided. ASA delegates visit Japan, present their work, interact with Japanese scholars at a whole range of levels (lunch discussions, formal lectures, sightseeing, etc.), but there the relationship really ends without formal reciprocation. ASA delegates repeatedly noted how important their new professional relations were and vowed to maintain these relationships, but there has been little effort to formalize any of this to guarantee that relationships are sustained and constantly renewed. ASA delegates have much appreciated the hospitality they received in Japan, the guides and facilitators who have always been nearby to help with any need, and the extensive gifting, feasting and hosting that accompanied every day of their visits. The yearly ASA response has been haphazard and quite anemic in comparison—usually no more than an invitation to the International Reception at the ASA convention.
If a fourth three-year renewal of this grant is undertaken, serious thought should be given to establishing a true international exchange and dialogue between members of JAAS and ASA. The budget request should thus not only include the resources for ASA delegates to visit Japan, but also for a JAAS delegation to attend the ASA Annual Meeting. Just as the ASA delegates are hosted and given various opportunities to present their work in Japan, ASA should reciprocate in kind. Indeed, it should become a requirement that every member of the ASA delegation to Japan be responsible for guiding and hosting a member of JAAS at the ASA Annual Meeting, presenting on the program with that JAAS member, and finding ways to sustain a long-term exchange.
The ASA delegates repeatedly expressed a high discomfort level with the formality of presentations, the rigidity of structures, the hierarchical nature of exchanges in Japan, and requested less formality, more congeniality. However, the ASA delegates perhaps misunderstood the nature of Japanese professional culture and want to change something well established and suited to Japan. ASA members would most likely not be too kindly disposed to Japanese scholars arriving at ASA meetings demanding more formality, a greater sensitivity to protocol, and clear and established lines of respect for hierarchy and rank. The Committee therefore found no basis for requesting changes in the format of visits arranged by the JAAS. Quite to the contrary, ASA should meet their needs and requests, adapting fully to their venues and professional protocols.
2. JAAS members are well prepared for the arrival of the ASA delegation and usually have read most of their written work. The reverse is not true. ASA members know very little about their Japanese hosts. Requesting resumes and publications well in advance of the scholarly exchange can easily solve this ignorance.
Some formal exchange of information would be highly desirable to deepen ASA appreciation for Japanese American Studies scholarship. Every ASA delegate to Japan marveled at how much they learned and how distinct Japanese perspectives on the U.S. really were. Such marvel should be available to all ASA members, particularly those who cannot afford to visit Japan. Perhaps more systematic use of Crossroads or the establishment of a Web page on the Internet specifically for JAAS-ASA exchanges would be one possibility to explore.
3. Our President has led the ASA delegation to Japan every year, and our President has, in consultation with the President of JAAS, defined the theme that American scholars will address. Over the years both the ASA and JAAS have expressed some discomfort with this arrangement and there has been some disappointment about the coordination of the theme and the line-up of speakers. In the future, true to the spirit of the relationship that ASA is trying to create with JAAS, a more sustained dialogue should occur about what Japanese hosts would like to learn about, and who the ASA is prepared to send to meet their needs.
4. The ASA President chooses the ASA delegation for the Japan exchange. How exactly this occurs is not entirely clear. Some years non-members of ASA have joined the delegation. The explicit agreement is that ASA senior scholars will compose the delegation, but neither has that always been true. Because senior scholars are not always doing the most innovative American Studies scholarship, perhaps it is time to encourage a renegotiation of the exchange terms so that the ASA delegation mirrors the diversity of ASA perspectives, methods, emergent themes, and membership cohorts.
5. Culture shock is an important part of foreign travel and little should be done to make ASA delegates in Japan feel as if they are right at home. Having every aspect of their visit orchestrated as if on an exotic safari negates the potential for a truly important international learning experience. Perhaps members of past delegations will want to suggest helpful travel books to ease orientation, but little reform of the program on this front seems appropriate or necessary.
In sum, the members of this review Committee are very enthusiastic about the history and results of the “Japan-United States Dialogues Across the Pacific” project. If funding can be secured for another three-year period, the project should be renewed. There are no compelling reasons not to take this course of action. American Studies has witnessed a profound internationalization over the last two decades and relationships such as the one that has been nurtured with JAAS are extremely important to the Association’s intellectual vibrancy. We hope similar exchange relations can be created in other parts of the globe. The program has been a productive and enriching experience for all participants in the past. The Committee fully anticipates that with minor adjustments in coordination and with greater formal reciprocity of exchange, the relationship between the JAAS and ASA will continue to grow and prosper.
The Council approved the recommendation of the International Committee for renewal of this program for another three years.
Quick Links
American Quarterly [official journal site]
American Quarterly [editorial site]