The second development, paralleling this political upheaval, has been a dramatic economic realignment from national to transnational (global) economies. The creation of huge economic blocs such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and European Union has already altered the global business landscape and culture. Rapid changes in the economic balance of the world posed similar challenges to economists, politicians and students of international relations. That China would assume such an economic pre-eminence, with a huge trade surplus with the United States, was unthinkable even 10 years ago. Equally, no self-respecting scholar would have predicted that such "developing" countries as South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, and even tiny Singapore, would evolve into economic powerhouses. Though deriving from different needs, U.S. universities and many universities outside the United States responded to these new geopolitical realities by re-examining their attitudes and priorities regarding international education. An almost instantaneous result was a thorough evaluation of the essential purpose of international education in defining the United States' role as a political and economic entity in a "new world order."

As a consequence, global studies programs set out to formulate a corresponding educational policy that could integrate the United States in an emerging global economic system. Simultaneously, many countries abroad embarked on a concerted effort to gain a better understanding of America. With the expectation that the world's largest democracy and most powerful economy can serve as a guiding example to emerging democracies and market economies, universities across the globe were often encouraged by their governments to establish American studies programs.

Thus, the 1990s have seen an unprecedented growth in international/area studies at home and American studies programs around the world.

In the United States, the first order of business for higher education was the identification of new approaches toward international learning. This led to a reorganization of existing programs and implementation of new ones that could address global needs. The last decade of the 20th century has sewn together a frightening quilt of frayed allegiances, atrocities and a new world "disorder." Suddenly, the quest to understand a confusing world has become not a luxury but a burning necessity, posing questions about how to sustain the United States' leadership role in the world. On Oct. 19, 1994, Stanley J. Heginbotham wrote in "Shifting the Focus of International Programs," in The Chronicle of Higher Education, that "the end of the Cold War will have a far greater impact on the way that international programs in American universities are organized and financed than many people involved in those programs now realize." His observation has since been felt nationwide. In this re-evaluation process, three major factors emerge as essential in the revitalization of international studies in the United States:

1. Promotion of an integrated and interdisciplinary focus in global education. The first factor relies on the premise that in an increasingly complex world, only cross-cultural and thoroughly interdisciplinary programs can successfully prepare U.S. students for the complex world of the 21st century. These programs must study different regions of the world as transnationally and organically interactive entities. Countries of a specific geographic region, the Baltics or Southeast Asia for example, must be viewed as not only a geographic unit but one generically bound together by historical and cultural forces, traditions and economic interests. Beyond the study of culture, this knowledge must include these countries' complex interaction, their economics, political systems and people. Thus, traditionally "international" academic disciplines such as history, literature and political science are complemented by courses in business, political economy, environment, administration, journalism, sciences and even architecture.

2. Presentation of multi-dimensional and comprehensive internationalization for the entire campus community and the community at large. The second major philosophical direction leads toward a comprehensive process of international learning that harnesses the intellectual and scholarly energies of the entire campus community. The new orientation of these programs conveys the idea that international knowledge is neither an esoteric academic subject, relegated to diplomatic circles, nor the sole property of foreign policy experts. In many ways, the old-line attitudes toward international learning as preparation for a cultural elite are outmoded. The modern world demands education for the masses -- the preparation of globally competent "world citizens." In addition to offering academic degrees, international programs are entrusted with diffusion of international knowledge across all segments of the campus community. Thus, a wider circle of students, and the general community (through continuing educational opportunities) reap the benefits of international education. An example is development of curricula that introduce international knowledge into all course offerings, reaching across academic disciplines.

3. Introduction of "problem-focused" programs. Finally, one of the most tangible proofs of rethinking global education in U.S. universities is the recent movement from area-centered toward "problem-focused" -- think-tank oriented -- academic studies. In a new market-oriented education, as Heginbotham noted, "those who finance international programs are turning their attention from traditional area studies to problem-focused programs." This development presents the philosophical premise that American educational institutions must play an active role in alleviating societal problems, providing regional instead of country-wide solutions. In this frame of mind, the public expects practical benefits from international programs, such as expertise that could assist government in policy-making or conducting business. It is hard to argue with the idea that, as Heginbotham wrote, "governments in search of advice look to think-tanks ... rather than Oxford or Harvard," creating bridges between theoretical knowledge and the practical needs of the general and business community.

Economic and political necessities have promoted a global consensus that the example of the United States could be instructive for many countries, especially the emerging new democracies in Eastern Europe. Educational institutions and political leaders in these regions have come to realize that to transform their political, legal and social institutions and ensure their assimilation into a global economic system, they must learn from the U.S. experience. In Eastern and Central Europe, for example, the implementation of democratic ideas, institutions, and governance became a prerequisite to economic restructuring. In various countries of Asia, on the other hand, American economic and business practices took precedence over democratic ideals. In both cases, American studies programs have become a key ingredient in the transmission of knowledge for a political and economic transformation.

Thus, the sudden collapse of a bipolar world and the U.S.-Soviet rivalry precipitated an educational upheaval. One result was the emergence of American studies as the fastest-growing and most popular academic discipline today in Eastern Europe and Asia. It is accepted that beyond their academic value, American studies programs abroad must serve as models for modern educational principles, playing a significant role in assisting many countries in reshaping and restructuring their social and economic systems. In a world where the language of communication, sciences and business is American English, to conform to U.S. educational and economic practices has become a priority. These programs provide a multi-faceted approach toward utilizing U.S. knowledge, democratic principles, culture and political processes. They also serve as models for other educational units in applying market economic principles to education in expanding their missions toward such practical domains as community outreach, entrepreneurship, service to the business community, income-generation and self-sustainability. Finally, these programs teach new generations about the United States' popular culture, diversity, energy management and ability to sustain a livable environment.

In conclusion, there are distinct differences between the reasons for maintaining international programs on campuses in the United States and American studies programs abroad. The purpose of traditional academic programs on the U.S. campuses is, for the most part, to learn about the world and how the United States fits into an emerging global order. In contrast, centers or departments of American studies abroad transcend their immediate educational utility and serve as practical bridges transferring American knowledge and know-how to every corner of the globe. However, there are important commonalities that bring together the United States and the world.

In the final account, the simultaneous international educational initiatives in the United States and growing American educational influence abroad are parallel in their timing and closely aligned in their quest for global understanding and a livable world. The newly organized international programs at home and American studies abroad act in a concerted manner to bring the world to the United States and the United States to the world. After all, the central mission of those programs on two sides of the Atlantic and the Pacific is to provide unique opportunities to open and expand intellectual horizons.

TEACHING RESOURCES:

International/Area Studies

Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996.

American Studies

Bronfenbrenner, Urie et al. The State of Americans: This Generation and the Next. New York: The Free Press, 1996.

Eitzen, D. Stanley. Sociology of North American Sports. 6th ed. Madison, Wis.: Brown & Benchmark, 1996.

Etzioni, Amitai. The Spirit of Community: The Reinvention of American Society. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994.

The Heath Anthology of American Literature. 2nd ed. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1994.

Lasch, Christopher. The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations. New York: Norton, 1991.

Lasch, Christopher. The Revolt of the Elites & the Betrayal of Democracy. New York: Norton, 1995.

Lears, T.J. Jackson. No Place of Grace: Anti-modernism and the Transformation of American Culture, 1880-1920. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Mukerji, Chandra. Rethinking Popular Culture: Contemporary Perspectives in Cultural Studies. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.

Radway, Janice. Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy and Popular Literature. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991.

Susman, Warren. Culture as History: The Transformation of American Society in the 20th Century. New York: Pantheon, 1985.

__________

Dr. George Eisen, a sociologist and historian, is director of the Institute for Regional & International Studies at California State Polytechnic University in Pomona. His extensive overseas experience includes service as a Fulbright Scholar in Estonia in 1993, where he was involved in establishing the Baltic Center for North American Studies. He holds a doctorate in history from the University of Maryland and from the University of Budapest in social psychology. Dr. Eisen can be reached at:

E-mail: GEisen@CSUPomona.edu
Fax: (909) 869-4464