Resituating American Studies in a Critical Internationalism
This essay argues for a concerted effort throughout the American studies 1 scholarly community to embrace actively a paradigm of critical internationalism as we move into the next century. While we support the many current initiatives in this direction by the leadership of the American Studies Association and the Organization of American Historians, we urge our colleagues throughout the United States to make this paradigmatic shift a priority. Drawing on the work of Benjamin Lee and others, we define critical internationalism as more than internationalization. By critical internationalism we mean a conceptual orientation that resituates the United States in a global context on a number of terrains simultaneously: in terms of the scholarship that gets read, written, and cited and, most importantly, in the ways scholars conceive of new directions for formulating research.
Over the past two decades a powerful body of work investigating concepts of social difference in relation to representation and social power has developed in the United States and spread well beyond the academy. 2 We ourselves have participated in the dialogue, contributed to its scholarship, and engaged in debates within it. 3 In American studies scholarship, these developments have emerged most strongly in areas denoted as "cultural studies" and "multiculturalism." We are [End Page 475] convinced that there have been and continue to be significant gains from this work focusing on difference, multiculturalism, and transnational flows of people, products, capital, and ideas. 4 And yet we increasingly note that critiques, alternatives, and experiments seeking to unsettle the links between the production of humanities knowledge and existing hierarchies of power have not gone as far as we believe is both warranted and possible. 5
There is a tendency in these critiques to limit discussion of cultural diversity and multiculturalism to issues affecting populations living within the United States. Moreover, the continued noncomparative orientation of work on the United States produced within and through the vast majority of humanities disciplines in this country promotes a consistent emphasis on things deemed American (histories, discussions, institutions, people, and agendas) and a continued lower level of interest in things non-American (histories, discussions, institutions, people, and agendas), except as they directly or indirectly affect life in the contemporary United States. So, for example, while expanded acknowledgment of the intertwined histories of Latin America and the United States has begun, it is usually limited to analyses of the migration of people from Latin America to the United States, the historical contests over the U.S. border, the theorization of cultural borderlands, and the development of a Hispanic population in the United States. Rarely are Mexican, Venezuelan, Chilean, or Uruguayan scholars acknowledged to have something to say about U.S. history or contemporary U.S. culture except with regard to these issues, and then only in terms of internally generated U.S. paradigms of cultural difference.
Although it is important that contemporary U.S. debates about cultural diversity produce an expansion of courses, textbooks, and museum representations of, by, and about minoritized U.S. populations, it had been our hope that these debates about cultural diversity would also produce a parallel expansion in courses, textbooks, museum representations, interinstitutional exchanges, foreign language fluency, and international (not necessarily U.S.-controlled) dialogues about the many other societies, cultures, and issues elsewhere in the world, including the perspectives of foreign scholars on the humanities in the United States.
The current inward orientation affects both analytic presumptions [End Page 476] and topics chosen for research. A recent article on cultural studies scholarship and multicultural discourses helps to articulate some of the characteristics of current models of scholarship and their consequential limitations, especially the widespread implicit assumption that the perspectives and terms of debate generated in the United States make perfect sense and are, therefore, exportable and meaningful everywhere. In their piece entitled "Critical Multiculturalism," the Chicago Cultural Studies Group argues that in order to work toward a more democratic culture, the projects of cultural studies and multiculturalism require "a more international model of cultural studies and . . . renewed attention to the institutional environments" in which such work is done. 6 Thus far, they note, this internationalization has meant exporting cultural studies paradigms developed in Europe and the United States to other nations. More recent efforts to create meaningful dialogue among scholars from different nations, each talking about the practices of cultural studies in their own country (such as the December 1994 "Internationalizing Cultural Studies" conference, in which we both participated in Honolulu), are beginning to counter this tendency. However, such efforts have not yet taken on enough of the limitations we are trying to address.
We would argue that true internationalization must accord non-U.S. scholars full engagement in the production of scholarship focusing on the United States, and not recognize only their knowledge about the cultures and intellectual arenas of their home regions. As anthropologists know from decades of struggling with their role as representers of Others, studying others when we do not authorize them to study us reveals and maintains a fundamental imbalance of power.
Benjamin Lee, in his 1995 article in Public Culture, calls for a "critical internationalism." He identifies a need for "sites within the academy which can continuously 'decenter' our preconceptions both of ourselves and of others." These sites would not simply seek to "internationalize" the university by adding foreigners and information about foreign countries as do area studies programs, they would also "create the conditions for a critical interface between domestic and international perspectives." 7 It is precisely this critical interface in discussions of the United States as the United States that has been historically lacking. [End Page 477]
Current Modes of Inclusion
Ron Robin, professor of history at Haifa University in Israel, underlines this lack when he notes that international scholars working on the United States "are virtually unknown outside of their home countries. [And that] with few exceptions, most scholars of the American past would be hard pressed to name more than one book on American history written by an international scholar." 8 In the fields of the humanities, such as literature, history, and more recently, cultural studies of the United States, only U.S. scholars have been presumed able to speak with authority and understanding about U.S. culture.
When foreign scholars and their works are included in U.S. debates and citational practices, it is usually in one of two ways. The theoretical works of a few highly influential scholars, such as Pierre Bourdieu, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida from France, or of selected theorists from Anglophone postcolonies, such as Stuart Hall, Paul Gilroy, Homi Bhabha, and Gayatri Spivak, have been adopted by U.S. humanities scholars, particularly in literature. Their writings, however, often focus on cultural formations in the region of their family origin or on their particular postcolonial status of hybridity. 9 Rarely does their work concentrate directly on the United States The few exceptions in contemporary debates are foreign scholars who have migrated to the United States and are then often resituated in academic discourse as members of, or representatives for, U.S. minority populations. 10 Thus, Latin American scholars are assumed to be Hispanic and Africans to participate in African American discourse communities. South Asian scholars may be perceived by U.S. academics not as Indians or Pakistanis, but as writers positioned as people of color, a conceptual formulation derived from U.S. social divisions, not South Asian ones. 11
An examination of American studies research, citation practices, and curricula in this country dramatically reveals the absence of foreign scholars' perspectives. For example, a recent special issue of the American Quarterly was devoted to debates on multiculturalism, "its history, its meaning, its practice." Almost without exception, the arguments theorized these developments as if they developed in hermetically sealed contexts. Only one author, Gary Gerstle in his article "The Limits of American Universalism," tries to situate these shifts in a wider context of what he terms a 1960s legacy of worldwide revolts "against the nation-state and the accompanying search for [End Page 478] particularist identities," eruptions affecting not only the United States but (then) Yugoslavia, the Middle East, and Europe. 12 Even so, he only cites U.S. scholars. And the move to internationalism remains bounded by a tendency to look outward from the United States, seeing similarities to our own situation rather than exploring the possibilities that analyses of the United States generated by quite different contexts might reveal fundamentally different readings of our contemporary cultural formations.
It is this limitation that should be actively addressed by both individual scholars and institutions (at the departmental level, through colloquia, and through coordinated national and international initiatives), so as to make the internationalization of U.S. studies a top priority for American studies scholars and to build internationalist perspectives into the "doing" of American studies. We hope that the long-range consequences will include not only the production of significant new works of scholarship, but also, the development of new paradigms for thinking about the United States, through the shared critical dialogue of national and international perspectives, and the establishment of networks of national and international scholars devoted to a continuing internationalization of U.S. studies.
A number of significant moves in the last five to eight years have prepared the groundwork for this initiative and attest to its timeliness. For example, the Organization of American Historians (OAH) has instituted several changes in its premiere journal, the Journal of American History (JAH). They established an extensive Board of International Contributing Editors from more than forty countries and are expanding it to include even more representation. The JAH has also begun to review books about the United States written in languages other than English, although these books are still a tiny fraction of what gets reviewed. And because so little foreign scholarship on the United States gets read here, they are initiating a translation program for articles that will appear in the JAH, as well as a prize to be awarded for outstanding scholarship in a language other than English.
The American Studies Association in the United States (ASA) has also made significant efforts in recent years, and such efforts are gaining momentum and visibility in the field. For example, the newsletter, "Connections: American History and Culture in an International Perspective," jointly published with the OAH, is in its second year, providing an important link between scholars with shared interests [End Page 479] here and abroad. And ASA president Paul Lauter recently devoted one-third of his essay, "Call for (At Least a Little) American Studies Chauvinism," in the June 1995 American Studies Association Newsletter to urging internationalization. 13 His essay was paired with a report from Rob Kroes, president of the European Association for American Studies, which details current projects of that organization. Each of these initiatives heightens the call for internationalization from the ASA leadership.
One of ASA's primary initiatives has been to bring international perspectives into dialogue with domestic ones at conferences. Annual conferences now regularly include panels focusing on work by foreign scholars. Whereas a decade ago these were poorly attended by U.S. academics, now they are among the most lively at the meetings. Still, they remain a tiny part of the overall program (in 1994 of a total of 750 participants listed in the program, 35 were affiliated with institutions outside the United States). Moreover, most foreign scholars are grouped together on panels specifically designated "international" rather than having them participate in more integral ways in the intellectual exchange, although this is changing. In 1994, less than five were included on panels not specifically sponsored by the Committee on International American Studies or on panels with titles like "Teaching American Studies Abroad."
Since 1988, the ASA has instituted exchanges of leading scholars with the American Studies Association of Japan and with some associations in Europe. We note with excitement that the exchange with Japan is being extended with funding from the Japan-United States Friendship Commission for 1993-1996. A new format for collaborative research on "Images and Symbols of America" will bring together American studies specialists from the two countries for dialogue and critique during special sessions of the Japan Association for American Studies meetings, rather than relying on the usual format of individual paper presentations. These initiatives foster the type of collaborative intellectual exchange needed to move beyond a bilateral format. Thus far, owing in part to their cost, the programs have affected only a relatively few scholars and have not created sustained dialogue. What is still needed is a full engagement of scholars with various international perspectives throughout the field of American studies.
These deficiencies are supported surveying of the program descriptions of twenty-five leading American studies programs, as listed in the [End Page 480] 1995 ASA directory of programs in the United States. 14 Of these, only one includes an international orientation: the result of a new initiative to internationalize all aspects of education at that university. If these leading American studies programs are indicative of trends among the more than three hundred programs in this country, the lack of an international thrust is all the more troubling and paradoxical, given the current globalization of economic, cultural, and informational flows and the amount of cultural studies scholarship devoted to charting them. 15
The Paradox of the Area Studies Crisis
U.S. area studies and American studies programs in this country and abroad have intertwined, yet rarely acknowledged, developmental histories. These programs expanded rapidly following World War II, during a period of intense U.S. concern with the Soviet Union and its influence around the world. Those area studies programs that we now know as Asian studies, African studies, Latin American studies, or Eastern European studies are, in their present forms, legacies of the Cold War period. With the changing international situation, they are currently the focus of considerable debate in print and at national meetings of area studies faculty and administrators, most recently in October 1994 at a meeting of the directors of National Resource Centers in Washington, D.C. 16
The current debate focuses on the question of whom these programs serve and whether the activities and objectives remain justifiable. In arguing against area studies programs, some seek to cut what they perceive to be wasteful and unnecessary training and research because it concentrates on people, cultures, histories, and places outside the United States that they no longer consider important. Others seek to cut area studies programs because they believe the programs carve the world up (geographically and culturally) on the basis of U.S. political interests. These divisions, they claim, are plausible but far from necessary or natural.
Those who argue for the maintenance--even for the expansion--of area studies programs, posit opposite rationales. Some claim a vital post-cold war U.S. security need to develop experts on diverse regions of the world who can become immediate resources in times of crisis. Others claim a vital U.S. educational and social need to foster a greater [End Page 481] knowledge of other societies and histories than what is generated outside of area studies programs. They argue that area studies programs must take the lead in internationalizing the orientation of Americans since they constitute the leading site of interdisciplinary in-depth knowledge of non-U.S. societies.
What is particularly striking about the debate is the almost total absence of discussion of American studies programs. These, too, began to flourish during the cold war period both at home and abroad. More than three hundred programs exist today in the United States, and many more in other parts of the world, especially Europe and Japan, but also including China, Taiwan, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and several Latin American countries.
In the U.S., area studies programs continue to be conceptualized and managed as academic programs that study "Others," that is, non-Americans. By definition, then, and by implication, American studies programs stand outside the scope of "area studies." American studies programs rarely, if ever, conceptualize themselves as area studies programs, for they are about "the Self," however diverse, and not about "the Other." Institutional and intellectual exchange between area studies and American studies programs is very rare. This typological construction of insiders and outsiders has yielded the internally focused dialogue described at the beginning of this essay. It has also led to a devaluation of the scholarship about the United States produced abroad.
Indeed, extensive networks of foreign humanities and social science scholars study the United States. The American Studies Network in Europe, for example, is compiling a directory of 2,500 to 3,000 scholars in that region. 17 By way of comparison, the current membership of the U.S. American Studies Association is approximately 4,500. 18 The amount of activity abroad is also reflected in the numerous American studies journals published around the world, including in Poland, Japan, India, South Africa, Taiwan, Canada, Thailand, Norway, Germany, Austria, Ghana, and Spain.
These scholars, journals, and networks, however, are not usually regarded within the United States as sites of major scholarly research or writing about this country. Large numbers of their faculty and students receive training in the United States and export U.S.-produced American studies scholarship to their home countries and institutions, as documented in Exporting America: Essays on American Studies [End Page 482] Abroad. 19 The common unspoken assumption among U.S. scholars has been that this scholarship is dependent and derivative, "a pale reflection of the genuine article," as historian Robert Walker has reported. 20
Rarely is foreign scholarship on the United States actually read here, especially but not exclusively if written in languages other than English. 21 And, when American scholars read it, rarely do they cite it, include it in core courses, or reference it in theoretical debates. Historian Pedro Castillo terms this situation "intellectual provincialism." 22 Periodically, but always exceptionally, a northwestern European scholar "makes" it, the most recent example being Jean Baudrillard's America. 23 However, his renown as a European high theorist of postmodernism is what authorizes his work on the United States.
Although these historical legacies indicate how difficult it might be to change the situation, two aspects favor the reconfiguration we propose. First, the current reconceptualization of area studies programs and reevaluation of their purposes, goals, constituencies, and structures provide a salubrious context for a similar reevaluation of paradigms for thinking about the United States. If all knowledge is situated, that is, produced "from somewhere" as poststructuralists have argued, 24 we must move beyond a monocular vision to one refracted by numerous simultaneous perspectives. We must conceive of the United States as complexly situated in a global context and of American studies as a body of scholarship on an "area" defined in dynamic relation to other "areas."
Secondly, U.S. American studies programs have historically been allied with ethnic studies and women's studies programs. Together, these programs have been among the leaders in bringing to the forefront discussions of national social inequality and stratification. They are logically situated to address the extension of intellectual diversity to include international perspectives. It is time to create mechanisms, dialogues, spaces, and processes through which the looking glass gets turned around and those accustomed to being studied in area studies programs (East and South Asians, Africans, Latin Americans, Middle Easterners, even Eastern and Western Europeans) gain opportunities to study those who are accustomed to studying, representing, and characterizing them. Such an expansion will result in what Linda K. Kerber, historian and past-president of the ASA, calls an "authentically cosmopolitan intellectual culture." It will promote "multiply-dimensioned analyses which simply could not happen before." 25 [End Page 483]
The potential of such a reversal has not been developed. The few exceptions can be found to support our argument. The canonization of Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America and Gunnar Myrdal's An American Dilemma are the exceptions that prove the rule. Side by side with their canonization is a systematic valorizing of U.S. scholars and their insights on the United States. 26
Generating New Paradigms for Research
This call is not just for an internationalization of views, a way of giving voice to foreign scholars who rarely get read or heard by U.S. humanities specialists, but for the activation of institutional and intellectual grounds for the generation of a new kind of scholarship about the United States.
It is important to note the limits of current foreign humanities scholarship on the United States. Most of it now falls into three categories: immigrant topics, U.S. influence, or comparative analogies. The first body of work investigates immigration from the home community to the United States and the historical influence or contemporary lives of such populations. This kind of work is especially popular in Europe. In Spain, for example, scholarship often concerns Spanish colonial possessions in what is now the United States, or the contemporary Spanish speaking population in the United States. 27 Scholars also investigate the effects of U.S. foreign policy or U.S. commodities on their home country. For example, the fall 1991 issue of the Tamkang Journal of American Studies in Taipei, Taiwan, featured articles on "China and the Far East in the Vision of William H. Seward" and "The U.S. Role in the Post-World War II Struggle Between the Nationalists and the Communists."
Currently, a great deal of foreign scholarship on the U.S. focuses on drawing analogies between the foreign scholar's country and that of the U.S., yielding papers such as "The Comparative Discourse between the American West and the Argentine Pampas," presented by Hugo Gaggioti at the 1994 U.S. ASA conference. At an institutional level, work done abroad often means retaining frameworks of U.S. criticism. For example, in 1994 the American Studies Association of southern Africa issued a call for symposium papers with "a comparative and interdisciplinary focus on a wide variety of American and southern African [End Page 484] experiences," including "accommodating diversity," "multiculturalism," and "political correctness."
The introduction of a comparatist perspective in American studies scholarship is much needed, but even that does not go far enough. Such analogies often assume and reproduce the paradigms of U.S. scholarship, while sketching similarities and differences. That is, they adopt the terms of debate generated in U.S. scholarship about the United States and apply them elsewhere, to another country. This is an important step in denaturalizing U.S. cultural and social formations and revealing their historical specificity, but it does not simultaneously reveal how the terms of intellectual investigation and the generation of topics for debate are also an American product of American history.
We urge the development of a different kind of international scholarship on the United States, one that truly decenters U.S. scholarship while challenging it with new formulations, new questions, and new critiques. We suspect that such scholarship could fundamentally alter the framing of humanities research by reframing the questions considered important. One way to foster this development is through the critical international dialogues discussed throughout this essay. Another is to include in the dialogues scholars already trained in American studies, as well as those working in other areas of the humanities. For example, a scholar specializing in the rise of secularism in India might formulate a research project on secularism in the United States, despite the fact that religion is rarely regarded as a cutting edge topic in the United States today, where concepts of race, gender, and multiculturalism set the tone. Such a formulation would, we suspect, reveal the widespread ways in which U.S. concepts of the nation are embedded with assumptions of Christianity, despite the celebration of the separation of church and state.
In U.S. public discourse, the primacy of such separation, and its hailing as something that sets the United States apart from such nations as Iran and India, makes it difficult to start from a different presumption--that is, that Christianity and the state intertwine in complex ways in the United States. These entanglements far exceed, yet give power to, a very few "issues," such as prayer in the schools and abortion, that are acknowledged to have something to do with religion. Although the research project would be at least implicitly or explicitly comparative, it would not duplicate research agendas in the United States by [End Page 485] comparing the separation of church and state in India and the United States. Rather, it would challenge the very formulation of the conceptual terms of such research.
Similarly challenging reformulations of research regarding race, sexuality, democracy, regionalism, class, color, language, nationalism, concepts of public and private, money, aging, provincialism, the arts, sports, individualism, violence, technology, embodiment, and historicity are needed. Yet unimagined formulations of research agendas are also, in part, the goal.
As scholars, we need to clear a space for these reformulations and provide the sustained critical dialogue necessary for them to flourish, both in our own work and at our home institutions. The ASA has taken the lead in this area, and we applaud its expanding efforts. We also urge American studies scholars to work imaginatively to effect change in their institutions. Several avenues are available, even in these times of economic streamlining.
As Benjamin Lee has argued, concepts of difference like those structuring internal debates on U.S. multiculturalism "can only be decentered by being examined from another perspective. This does not mean that the other perspectives will provide solutions to our problems, [End Page 487] or that ours can solve their problems, but that they may suggest strategies for disaggregating issues which may appear to go together naturally. . . . We have reached a time when no values from any single cultural perspective can provide frameworks adequate to understanding the changes affecting all of us." 30 Resituating American studies and area studies scholarship in a shared critical internationalism will help provide those urgently needed frameworks.
University of Iowa
Jane C. Desmond is an associate professor of American studies and
women's studies at the University of Iowa.
The authors wish to thank Linda Kerber and Jay Semel for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this essay.
1. "American studies" is used throughout this essay to indicate the popular name of a particular area studies formulation in the U.S. academy. We find the phrase "study of the United States" preferable to, and more accurate than, American studies, which implies North and South America as well as the United States, but in practice rarely mentions them. Finally, we take as axiomatic the need to assess critically the construction of nationhood and regard the constitution of "the United States" as the object of study in these investigations as a provisional way of denoting a national entity which is never historically stable nor innocent. It is obviously part of our goal to turn a self-reflexive eye at that formulation.
2. For example, see Johannes Fabian,Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object (New York, 1983); Henry Louis Gates, Jr., ed., "Race," Writing and Difference (Chicago, 1986); Edward Said, Orientalism (New York, 1978); Joan Scott, "Multiculturalism and the Politics of Identity," October 61 (summer 1992): 12-19; and Trinh Minh-ha, Woman, Native, Other (Bloomington, Ind., 1989).
3. Jane Desmond, "Where is 'the Nation'?"East/West Film Journal 7 (1993): 81-109; Desmond, "Mapping Identity onto the Body," Women and Performance: A Journal of Feminist Theory 6 (1993): 103-26; Virginia Domínguez, "Questioning Jews," American Ethnologist 20 (1993): 618-24; Domínguez, "A Taste for 'the Other': Intellectual Complicity in Racializing Practices," Current Anthropology 35 (1994): 333-48; and Domínguez, "Invoking Racism in the Public Sphere: Two Takes on National Self-Criticism," Identities: Global Issues in Culture and Power 4 (1995): 325-46.
4. See Linda Basch, Nina Glick Schiller, and Cristina Szanton Blanc,Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorialized Nation-States (New York, 1994); and Dana Takagi, The Retreat from Race: Asian-American Admissions and Racial Politics (New Brunswick, Canada, 1992).
5. As Virginia Dominguez argued in "Invoking Racism," along with Daniel Segal and Richard Handler, "U.S. Multiculturalism and the Concept of Culture," Identities: Global Issues in Culture and Power 4 (1995): 391-407, discussions of "difference" in the U.S. academy have remained largely inward looking, even in the midst of a genuine concern with diversity and cultural pluralism.
6. Chicago Critical Studies Group, "Critical Multiculturalism,"Critical Inquiry 18 (spring 1992): 532.
7. Benjamin Lee, "Critical Internationalism,"Public Culture 7 (spring 1995): 591.
8. Ron Robin, "The Outsider as Marginal Scholar: Reflections on the Past,the Foreign and Comparative Studies in American History," American Studies International 31 (Apr. 1993): 118.
9. Useful discussions and exemplars include: Annie E. Coombes, "Inventing the 'Postcolonial': Hybridity and Constituency in Contemporary Curating," New Formations 18 (winter 1992): 84-106; Ella Shohat, "Notes on the 'Post-Colonial,'" Social Text 31/32 (1992): 99-113; Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin, The Empire Writes Back (New York, 1989); and David Lloyd, Anomalous States: Irish Writing in the Post-Colonial Movement (Durham, N.C., 1993). Much of the literature on hybridity and postcoloniality has indeed privileged a number of non-European scholars, mostly living within the United States or United Kingdom--to wit, Edward Said, Gayatri Spivak, Paul Gilroy, Stuart Hall, Homi Bhabha, and Trinh Minh-Ha. Their individual works have become heavily cited: Said, Orientalism; Gayatri Spivak, In Other Worlds (New York, 1987); Paul Gilroy, There Ain't No Black in the Union Jack (London, 1987); Stuart Hall, The Hard Road to Renewal (New York, 1988); Homi Bhabha, "Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse," October 28 (1984): 125-33; Bhabha, ed., Nation and Narration (New York, 1990); and Trinh, Woman, Native, Other (Bloomington, Ind., 1989).
10. See Kirin Narayan, "How Native Is a 'Native' Anthropologist?" American Anthropologist 95 (1993): 671-86, and Michel-Rolph Trouillot, "Anthropology and the Savage Slot: The Poetics and Politics of Otherness" in Recapturing Anthropology, ed. Richard G. Fox (Santa Fe, N.M., 1991), 17-44.
11. Domínguez, "A Taste for 'the Other,'" 333-48.
12. Gary Gerstle, "The Limits of American Universalism,"American Quarterly 45 (June 1993): 230-36.
13. Paul Lauter, "Call for (At Least A Little) American Studies Chauvinism," American Studies Association Newsletter (June 1995): 3.
14. John Stephens, ed.,Guide to American Studies Resources 1994, supplement to American Quarterly 46 (Mar. 1994).
15. For example, see Arjun Appadurai, "Patriotism and its Futures,"Public Culture 5 (spring 1993): 411-30.
16. Stanley Higginbotham, "Shifting the Focus of International Programs,"The Chronicle for Higher Education (19 Oct. 1994), A68; Vincente Raphael, "The Cultures of Area Studies," Social Text 41 (winter 1994): 91-112; John Richards, "In Defense of Area Studies," paper presented at meeting of directors of International studies centers and programs, Duke University, 12 Nov. 1994.
17. American Studies International Newsletter (summer 1993).
18. Cathy Davidson, "'Loose Change': Presidential Address to the American Studies Association, Nov. 4, 1993," American Quarterly 46 (June 1994): 123-38.
19. Richard Horwitz, ed.,Exporting America: Essays on American Studies Abroad (New York, 1993).
20. Robert Walker, quoted in Robin, "The Outsider as Marginal Scholar,"118.
21. Richard Horwitz, "The Politics of International American Studies,"American Studies International 31 (Apr. 1993): 89-116.
22. Robin, "The Outsider as Marginal Scholar," 122.
23. Jean Baudrillard,America (London, 1988).
24. Lee, "Critical Internationalism," 565.
25. Linda Kerber, personal communication, Jan. 1995.
26. Alexis de Tocqueville,Democracy in America (Cambridge, England, 1862); Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (New York, 1944).
27. Sylvia Hilton, "American Studies in Spain: Recent Trends,"American Studies International 31 (Apr. 1994): 43.
28. Lauter, "American Studies Chauvinism," 1.
29. Ibid., 3.
30. Lee, "Critical Internationalism," 588.