Enrollment alarm?

[john kieselhorst]

        The recent article in the NY Times (Oct 9, p.B8) indicating a 45%
decline in Russian enrollments (1990 vs. 1995) has caused "Alarm" on the
SEELANGS lines.  For my part, I wonder that we academics sometimes fail to
understand that our own efforts are often only an exceedingly small part of
the larger world in which we live.

        The Times article  shows Russian to have suffered the greatest
enrollment decline of all foreign languages.  We do well to ask ourselves
if there is anything that we can do to raise enrollments.  However, I think
we really need to take MLA executive director Phyllis Franklin's comments
in that article seriously.  "The foreign languages chosen for study by
students have always fluctuated, and they have always reflected
international developments."  I would suggest that certain national trends
here at home have also contributed to the decline. The following are some
random thoughts on the why the figures are what they are, and some
suggestions about what to do about it.

        1) I do not have statistics at hand, but I would be willing to bet
my graduate student stipend that the 1990 Russian enrollments (the base
used in the Times comparison) were unusually high by comparison with
previous years. As we all know, rapid changes in the (then) Soviet Union
and East bloc countries led to increased ease of travel, wild political
speculation, and excitement about newly-opened markets in a population of
over 260 million.  Enrollments were bound to increase dramatically in the
wake of such developments. However, Russia's disappointing political and
economic progress in recent years, I would venture, has soured the
enthusiasm of many potential new students.

        2) Perhaps more notable than the decline in specifically Russian
enrollment was the decline in all European languages other than Spanish and
Portuguese.  This is notable, though not surprising. The klichka
"eurocentric" has become as damning on our campuses today as the brand
"counter-revolutionary" was during the Russian Civil War. Whether or not we
accept Russia as "European" really matters little; in the perception of our
potential new students, this is merely another language spoken by the "dead
white males" society.  Few outside of our field are familiar with Russian
literature beyond Tolstoevsky, perhaps Chekhov, and the film version of
Pasternak; Akhmatova, Tsvetaeva, Ginsburg, Gippius, and others, have yet to
become common coin with the American reading public.

        Having identified some sources of our enrollment woes, the question
remains, "chto delat'?"  On the international, front, we should emphasize
that the opportunity to travel to Russia still remains.  While successful
markets continue to be a thing of the future, the excitement of visiting a
nation in the process of nation building (or perhaps reconstruction is more
appropriate) is worth emphasizing to prospective students. In the main,
however, we should perhaps recognize our own powerlessness over
international events that cause fluctuations in our student populations,
and stop wasting energy trying to address issues that lie beyond our
control.

        It seems to me a more productive approach would focus on the home
front. Slavists are generally less inclined to the kind of europe-bashing
that floats enrollments in English, French and comparative literature
courses (these always find a way to invite students into their European
tents under the rubric of "colonialism"). We need to look for positive
solutions.
        One way to encourage study of a foreign language is to encourage
interest in poetry, since poetry cannot fully be experienced in
translation. Russian poetry provides a wealth of joy and challenges to
prospective students. Since much of our great poetry is written by women,
poetry can also be a vehicle for changing the perception of Russian letters
as "phallocentric".

        We might also remind our students, who find themselves increasingly
enticed by sexy courses that emphasize "anti-hegemonic" cultural ideas,
that Russian literary history is a story of continual cultural struggle
against multiple hegemonies.  It seems to me we have become too accustomed
to think of writers like Tolstoy and Dostoevsky as bastions of the boringly
conventional realist tradition. Nothing could be further from the truth, as
a review of contemporary criticism plainly reveals. Their works were
revolutionary and provocative, in form and content, defying the demands of
civic and utilitarian critics of their day.  Likewise, symbolist and
decadent poets rejected the call to civic duty that had been demanded by
the second censorship, the dominant cultural force of the utilitarians. The
Futurists vocal revolt against their cultural forebears, the "Red Hot"
20's, and the underground literature from Bulgakov and Lidia Ginsburg
through Siniavsky and Solzhenitsyn all scream the excitement of cultural
upheavals against various forms of repression.

        Perhaps I am suggesting that we need to become historians for our
students in order to make this literature come alive. Surely to some extent
our field, like any that deals with history, suffers from Zamiatin's
entropy.  "When the flaming, seething sphere (in science, religion, social
life, art) cools, the fiery magma becomes coated with dogma--a rigid,
ossified, motionless, crust." We need to try to restore the fire -- to
remind students that the cold "classics" they hold in their hands were once
molten culture.  We need to restore the sense of life these once had by
recreating a context.  Read Pisarev's article on realism with students, or
Chernyshevsky's "anthropological principle," or Zamiatin's articles on
literature, Blok's, Bely's, Trotsky's.  Encourage the sense of excitement,
significance and urgency of art in Russia, that these (read alongside the
artistic works) provide. Students will become energized, sense the
excitement of another era, and draw analogies to their own.

        It seems to me that the greater sense of history will ultimately
benefit our field as well. We will become more attuned to the fluctuations
of culture that have effected Russian literature, and perhaps become more
aware that we, too, live in a world of change and variance. Students will
be more likely to see the study of Russian culture as an end in itself,
rather than as a "plus" on a job application with a multi-national
corporation, thus boosting enrollment. We in the field will be less likely
to panic or rejoice every time our enrollments swing one way or the other.
We would also be likely to recognize the value, excitement, and currency of
our heritage,  which is probably our best defense  against critical trends
that would leave us for dead.



John Kieselhorst                              tel:847-570-0790
CTEC Project Manager                          e-mail jak209 at lulu.acns.nwu.edu
Office of the Provost                         fax: 847-467-1317 ATTN: CTEC Mgr
Northwestern University