 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
  | |
 | |
 | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Follow-Up Report on the Workshop:
American Studies in the Middle East "America in the Middle East / The Middle East in America" The Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for American Studies and Research American University of Beirut
This workshop brought together scholars of American studies--and representatives of American studies programs--from the Middle East and North Africa, along with scholars from Europe and North America, to discuss what American studies can be in the Middle Eastern context. It combined brainstorming, critical analysis, and planning. Participants examined common issues, concerns, and prospects and considered future collaboration, coordination and interaction within the region and beyond. The workshop, co-chaired by Marj Henningsen and Patrick McGreevy, proceeded in two phases. During the first phase, each participant chose one of four subgroups focusing on different aspects of the session theme. In these discussions, participants generated and evaluated ideas, using large sheets of newsprint paper to list ideas and summarize conclusions. Each subgroup reported their conclusions during the second phase and the entire group then participated in generating and evaluating additional ideas, and assessing areas of agreement. This document is an attempt to summarize the discussions that took place during both phases of the workshop. Subgroup 1. Identifying problems, concerns, limitations, and possible solutions The questions. What are the most pressing impediments facing American studies scholars and programs in the Middle East? Access to books and other teaching and research materials? Faculty expertise and training? Isolation (alienation?) from the object of study? Employment prospects for students? What are possible solutions to these problems? In what way might collaboration—within the region and beyond—help address them? Issues discussed. Problems and impediments differ significantly among countries and institutions. For some, the availability of books and other materials written in English is paramount, particularly material suitable for introductory courses. In other places, centralized government control over curriculum is the most pressing roadblock. Language issues are crucial in some institutions; students may have difficulty reaching a level of competency in English sufficient to deal with complex interdisciplinary topics. Like American studies programs all over the world, there is the problem of an interdisciplinary program in discipline-bound institution. The tendency to focus on disciplines and content within disciplines often prevents the kind of cross-discipline engagement that is needed. Often, there is a lack of understanding of what American studies has been and might be. A host of issues related to program initiation and growth confront many institutions in the Middle East. Employment for those trained in American studies is another important concern. Finally, there are often entrenched preconceptions about “America” which present a challenge to the project of attending to complexity. Increased collaboration both within and beyond the region and across departments within an institution might address many of these problems, particularly resource constraints and issues related to program initiation and growth. Because of the unfamiliarity of interdisciplinary approaches, some suggested that there needs to be as much focus on process as on content within courses as well as when writing program curricula. Interdisciplinary faculty seminars provide one way of overcoming traditional disciplinary barriers and developing faculty expertise and interest. Subgroup 2. Issues of academic independence and political contexts The Questions. What are the main pressures affecting the academic freedom of American studies scholars and programs in the Middle East? To what extent do these pressures come from the cultural context, the state, donors, or U.S. public diplomacy initiatives? How do we balance the need for resources with academic integrity? How do programs define their missions? Do pressures affect the process of defining missions and/or their implementation? Issues Discussed. Participants identified many kinds of pressures on American studies programs. All agreed that placement within the academic institution is crucial, especially with regard to maintaining an interdisciplinary focus. There was a divergence of experience regarding pressures from beyond the university. Some programs found it essential to maintain clear independence from the U.S. government and its embassy in order to overcome the suspicion that an American studies program was somehow part of a public diplomacy effort to create support for U.S. policies. In other contexts, scholars found it crucial to work closely with their local U.S. embassy; program viability in some cases depended on the resources embassies provide, particularly through the Fulbright Program. The divergent experiences suggest the importance of particular individuals who have powerful positions within embassies and universities. There was a great deal of discussion about the Fulbright Program; some participants had served on review panels and suggested that it was possible through such participation to help guarantee that the process was not politically biased. Another kind of external influence can come from collaborations and exchanges with overseas universities; however, since such connections are academic in nature, they usually provide more flexibility. Donors may also pressure American studies programs to move in certain directions, particularly if they must be asked for frequent contributions. Another potential problem is that even if there is no explicit pressure, faculty involved in American studies programs may self-censor their activities to preclude problems. The worry is that external pressure may affect research and teaching in terms of choice of topics or approach. There was considerable agreement that programs must remain critical, that they must attend to complexity and avoid simple binary schemes that demonize rather than seek to understand. Subgroup 3. Prospects for distinctive contributions The questions. Are there unique advantages—with regard to research and teaching—of viewing America from our unique vantage points? Are certain things more visible? Despite our problems and limitations, does this create distinctive prospects? What are these possibilities? How can we develop them? Issues discussed. Who you are matters as much as where you are. Many scholars and teachers of American studies in the Middle East and North Africa are U.S. citizens who have spent most of their lives in North America. Others are natives of the region, but may have spent considerable time in the U.S. Although we are all in the Middle East now, we are differently situated and our vantages provide distinct opportunities and difficulties. Edward Said suggested that the exile is contrapuntally conscious of at least two places, an awareness that can “diminish orthodox judgment.” Yet the ubiquitous presence of America in the Middle East means that natives of the region, and particularly those with a scholarly interest in American studies, are also aware of at least two places. Being outside of the U.S. doesn’t give us clear vision, but perhaps we are more likely to notice certain things than those inside. There are certain areas of U.S. culture that are of great interest here: the place of Arab, Turkish, and Iranian Americans to be sure but also that of African and Native Americans. Another strong interest is the history of U.S. interactions with Latin America. W.E.B. Dubois spoke about what was visible from the vantage of disadvantage. The sort of double vision many scholars of American studies in the Middle East possess means that they experience a constant juxtaposition—between America and the Middle East, wealth and poverty, global power and nearby violence, the fractures of modernity and attempts to reconstitute purity. Many participants suggested that this consciousness makes every new transmutation of American exceptionalism very transparent. It also makes it clear that America can only be understood via an attention to global issues of power and culture. They also agreed that collaboration among Middle Eastern American studies scholars was one way to further develop distinctive perspectives on American studies. U.S. citizens in the Middle East are often expected to represent America synecdochically, as if their insider status provided instant authenticity. An interesting question is to what extent have U.S. citizens presented themselves this way, and to what extent is this a demand from students and others? This is particularly problematic for whites who often have been presented as “true Americans” vis-à-vis non-whites. Although U.S. public diplomacy efforts attempt to present a multicultural image of the country today, white men have historically dominated the political, economic and cultural spheres to which people in the Middle East have been exposed. It is any surprise, then, that young Arab students will pronounce that “Americans are racist”? Clearly, such students are not thinking about African-Americans, Asian-Americans or Arab-Americans. At such moments, some students will mention the modes of racism and demonization that pervade there own society. Hence, teaching American studies in the Middle East—like teaching Middle East Studies in the U.S.—always involves a reflexive examination of the local context that can be pedagogically fruitful. Subgroup 4. Strategies for collaboration The Questions. How might Middle Eastern scholars of American studies maintain contact with each other and with colleagues outside the region? How might they increase collaboration both within the region and beyond? What resources might be available to meet this goal? Should we consider the establishment of a Middle East American Studies Association? What should be our relationship to other American studies associations? Issues discussed. There is currently very little collaboration or even connection among American Studies programs and scholars in the region. Individual programs and institutions have developed overseas links, particularly with U.S. institutions. The University of Jordan has a strong connection with the Fulbright Program which also initiates connections with the Fulbright Scholars’ home institutions; they also have an exchange program with UNC. The Lebanese Emigration Research Center at Notre Dame University (Louaise, Lebanon) maintains a large database on Arab-Americans; this encourages exchanges on related issues; the center also has a regional chapter in the U.S. Al-Quds University (Palestine) has an M.A. program in American studies that takes advantage of connections with the Fulbright Program and the Arab-American Center in Dearborn, Michigan. The American Studies Association (based in the U.S.) has a program to link U.S. programs with overseas counterparts, but has very modest funds to support it. American Studies scholars from several Middle Eastern universities have participated in the International American Studies Association which is very eager to create interaction among scholars outside the U.S. Interest in American studies is growing in the Middle East. There are relatively new programs in Qatar, Bahrain, Iran, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt and Lebanon. Perhaps the field of American studies is growing faster here than anywhere else. What can be done by way of collaboration and coordination within the region? Participants offered several suggestions: exchanges and visits of faculty (and perhaps students); video conferencing; coordinating tours of visiting scholars so that many institutions can benefit. Given the growth of American studies in the Middle East, and the difficulty of recruiting U.S. scholars to teach here, a Ph.D. program might eventually be possible, perhaps in coordination with a U.S. institution. On a more mundane level, the participants agreed to create a common email list to allow this conversation to continue. This document can be one point of departure. CASAR is tentatively planning a second conference for December 2007. Finally, we discussed the idea of forming a Middle East American Studies Association. Most agreed this was premature. One reason is that we couldn’t agree on how to respond should Israelis scholars or Israeli programs wish to affiliate. Transcriptions from Conference Worksheets Subgroup 1 Identifying problems, concerns, limitations, and possible solutions Problems & Aspects:
Major Problems:
Solutions:
Subgroup 2 Issues of academic independence and political contexts
Subgroup 3 Prospects for distinctive contributions
Subgroup 4 Strategies for collaboration Jordan:
Notre Dame University
Al-Quds
Collaboration
|
||