Internationalization of Area Studies

By John Campbell

For the NCASA associations, this conference was the third step in a long-term effort to internationalize area studies in the United States. Of course, members of these associations usually have close ties to the nations they study, but they do not often have much interaction from scholars in other countries who study similar subjects. NCASA had met with representatives of Canadian area studies associations in Quebec in 1993, and of Latin American associations in Puerto Rico in 1994.
Our encounter with Japan was by far the largest and most elaborate of these meetings. In most cases Japan is second only to the United States in the number of specialists working on a given country or region. Japanese area study associations are smaller than ours and usually lack the resources to maintain a professional staff, but their activities are similar: publishing journals and other scholarly materials, holding annual meetings, and generally trying to impress their nation's citizens with the importance of understanding a foreign culture or region -- for its own sake, and as the best way to gain insight about one's own country.

Interdisciplinary or nondisciplinary?
The discussion at our conference ranged widely and I will just note a few themes that struck me as interesting, based on my memory, some fragmentary notes, and my own subsequent thoughts.
To begin with a perspective form the sociology of knowledge, one aspect of the development of area studies in both countries is as a reaction to the concentration on Europe and the 'Western tradition' among academics. This reaction was a bit different in the two countries, however. Americans are part of that Western tradition, and many American area studies specialists see themselves as discoverers of more exotic parts of the globe, which for the most part they view, in effect, through Western-crafted 'lenses' of the same social science or humanities approaches used in studying more familiar topics. That seems quite natural to most of us.
In Japan, these scholarly approaches themselves are seen as coming from 'outside.'The question of whether Western theories are adequate for studying Japan itself has been debated for more than a century. It is understandable, then, that some of the Japanese participants at the conference sounded quite ambivalent about the proper ways to study nations and cultures that are neither Western not Japanese.
A good example is a difference at least in nuance in using the term 'interdisciplinary.' Area specialists in both countries are naturally drawn to the view that the country or region they study must be understood in a holistic way, as a complicated system in which each aspect is related to all the others. Moreover, as a practical matter, specialists on a given area tend to cluster together across disciplinary boundaries at the university and national level simply for self preservation. For those reasons the conference participants found it easy to compare experiences between our two countries.
However, a common American assumption is that ;interdisciplinary' refers to the application of well developed theories from each of the disciplines, in their own terms. Indeed, 'mainstream' American scholars sometimes look down on their area studies colleagues' research as not very interesting in theoretical terms, just digging up peculiar facts rather than advancing the cutting edge of the discipline. Area specialists might reply, a bit defensively, that by working in unfamiliar terrain they contribute profound tests of theories that are often parochial. In fact it is not difficult to make an impressive list of theoretical advances derived from area studies research. Nonetheless, most of us implicitly accept the paradigm.
Japanese area study specialists are perhaps a bit more sceptical about the disciplinary theories themselves, and so more likely to interpret 'interdisciplinary' as nondisciplinary. That view leads to a concentration on fieldwork, on what appears to be the concrete reality of the area studied, and to keeping a watchful eye for evidence that might throw doubt on accepted academic principles. Indeed, we heard more than a few hints of area studies serving as a critique of accepted social principles as well -- a perception, perhaps a bit romantic, of third- world countries revealing overarching truths that Japan lost sight of in its rush toward modern (Western) superspecialization.
These comparisons are much too simple and black-and-white: one could easily find examples of what I have characterized as the Japanese approach among American area specialists, and vice versa (one Japanese participant hoped that area studies research would become more disciplinary in the future). Moreover, any differences might well be due to factors other than the sociology of knowledge explanation I suggested. First, the balance in area studies among disciplines is different: anthropologists seem more prominent in Japan, at least for some areas, compared with historians and political scientists in the United States. Second, research is more likely to be carried out individually in the United States and by teams in Japan -- a report written up by a team of researchers with different backgrounds will naturally not emphasize disciplinary theory too much. Third, disciplines per se are more fundamental to the organization of the American university than in Japan, with an enormous impact on criteria for promotion and thus incentives for one kind of research over another.

National interest
Incidentally, it is interesting that the trend toward establishing new schools and faculties in Japanese universities that are self-consciously both cross-disciplinary and international may be positive for area studies. Already it appears that the number of students learning foreign languages (besides English) is increasing, though from a low base. Increased japanese participation in many sorts of international activities, particularly when young people go abroad, is also bound to expand the constituency for serious area studies.
That point raises the general question of the relationship of area studies to national policy. Several American participants were animated by the threat to our field posed by the end of the cold war. A currently popular argument is that the explosive growth of area studies in the postwar era was motivated by the old national security concerns -- 'know your enemy' and even 'know your (potential) allies.' New concerns -- environment, population, and so forth -- are seen as 'global' and require different kinds of specialized expertise than the in- depth study of individual countries and cultures.
Needless to say, our group rejected this superficial critique, pointing out that the most important cause of the growth of area studies was genuine curiosity about the outside world (although to be sure area specialists were always quite willing to trade on national security worries in the quest for government and foundation support). Moreover, since all those global issues work themselves out in particular countries and regions, we really need still deeper knowledge of all parts of this more complicated world.
The Japanese participants seemed interested in this discussion but perhaps a bit detached. One scholar pointed out that the end of the cold war does not have much impact on Japanese area studies since they had not been much affected by the cold war in the first place. Another went so far as to suggest that most Japanese specialists studies these strange countries mainly for their own amusement. However one measures it, area studies (and no doubt other academic fields) do seem less closely connected to the ';national interest' in japan than in the United States. The direction of change, however, may point out the other way. These days in Japan, area studies are increasingly seen as a resource for foreign aid policy, which is a much larger element in overall Japanese foreign policy than was true even two or three decades ago in the United States.
Of course, the relationship of an academic field to government policy need not be supportive. many individual American area studies specialists have been sharply critical of how Washington deals with the regions they study, and most area studies associations have wrestled with the question of whether or not to take a stand on political questions. They answers vary considerably. Japanese participants did not say much on this issue in the conference itself, although there was some talk about was guilt vis a vis Asia during the coffee breaks.

The necessity of Area Studies
Finally, many participants had views on the relationship between area specialists and the regions they study. There was a general agreement that international research helps mutual understanding, and that it is important to work with local scholars on an equal basis and not exploit them simply as sources of data. Some Americans believed strongly that their efforts, in and out of the academy, should take as an important goal the need to assist the people or at least the scholarly communities of the countries they studied. Other American specialists saw their main responsibility as to their students and to advancing knowledge in general. Japanese participants spoke up on both sides of this old debate. Some area studies fields have a major focus on issues like ecology, agriculture and economic development, in which benefits to the country studied are important if not paramount. One scholar, however, saw himself as essentially an outsider whose work would have little interest to natives.
In any case, at risk of sounding a bit idealistic myself, I think it is true that nearly all the participants in our meeting, from both countries, revealed that sense of deep emotional connection and fascination with regard to the regions or countries they study. That has always been my touchstone of the true area studies scholar. In the day or two following the conference itself, each pair of American delegates was hosted by the counterpart Japanese associations, generally mixing sociability, scholarly conversation, (switching between English and Swahili in the African studies case), and some concrete planning for future co-operation on an association-to-association level. Reports indicate that all these talks were very productive. The topic of concrete mechanisms for co-operation came up in the main conference as well, with several good specific suggestions emerging. It will take some hard work, but judging from this conference the prospects appear bright for increased interaction across the Pacific in area studies.