Recent discussions

[Andrew J. Swensen]

>
> is SEELANGS a world-wide discussion group or a domestic American chat
> box?
>

I will cast my vote in favor of the former.  One of the aspects of
SEELANGS most appreciated by me is the immediate contact with the
international community, if only via my computer screen.  Yet let us
consider the larger questions of the anxieties of the profession, hiring
"our own," and having the opportunity to hire at all.

In terms of the various recent comments on nationality and hiring, it
strikes me that what is at issue in the current question stems from an
interesting phenomenon where the academic profession meets that
pressing economic topic of our time, international trade barriers and
free trade.  One wonders how much benefit trade barriers have, and
naturally in a time of relative insecurity -- while the economy at large
seems more or less healthy, our own "microeconomy" is experiencing
significant hardship as evinced by the many recent discussions -- one
seeks support and economic protection.  Ideally speaking, I, however, would
instead argue for a "free trade" of sorts.

Yet we must also contemplate the current situation of hiring, the lack of
jobs, and the dissolution of departments, and here we can turn to the
question of SEELANGS the international forum as perhaps a metonymic
reflection of the ideal situation.  I would argue that this ideal
situation would have all candidates being as eligible for positions in
Cambridge, England as they might be in Cambridge, Massachusetts and under
equal consideration by the University of British Columbia and Columbia
University.  The same standard I would hold to universities in
Spanish-speaking, French-speaking, Dutch-speaking or German-speaking
universities, although proficiency in that language would obviously  also
become a consideration.  Such principles would hold to the sense of world
economy as advanced by the likes of Robert Reich, formerly of the
business faculty at Harvard University and recently the U. S. Secretary of
Labor.  Yet as the frustrated Mr. Reich discovered -- he has since
resigned his post in the executive branch of the government -- such an
ideal requires the cooperation not merely of department chairs or even
deans, but indeed of national legislatures.

What then are we to do?  Do we resign ourselves to the curious paradox of
"universal provincialism"?  Perhaps.  Must we in this profession,
regardless of from which nation we post messages to SEELANGS, also
maintain a sense for supporting those receiving an education in that same
nation?  Perhaps.  My point then is the following: The ideal situation
would be the preservation of existing programs in all lands and the
provision for the promise of a future to all students receiving
doctorates in those various lands.  Yet such an ideal is, in a frank
tautology, idealistic.  Thus, my ideal scenario becomes something of a moot
point, for we have a reality which makes that ideal unattainable.  How then
we respond to this given reality remains open to discussion, and may
SEELANGS be part of how we resolve this matter.  I nevertheless raise the
"moot" point of the ideal situation in order to keep our focus on
discussion and dialogue, productive enterprises, as opposed to discord.

Let us return our focus to that element which will serve to
benefit all.  Let us not look to blame other disciplines, let us not
blame college and university administrations, and let us not look to
blame natives, non-natives, or nationals.  Rather let us persistently
strive to build the discipline on the principle of the student, and I
mean this in many senses.  We have all been "students," naturally, but we
remain students of one another as we read the research prepared by our
colleagues.  Moreover, as we prepare an article or book, we do so with the
assumption that we have something to teach, and in so doing we remain
engaged with that general "knowledge" to which we devote ourselves: the
literature, language, and linguistics of Slavic cultures past and present.

Yet more important, as for the creation and maintenance of
positions in any institution, we must recall as we enter the classroom on
any given day that these students, or lack thereof, justify the presence
or absence of an academic position.  We are in the business of education,
Bildung, and obrazovanie; it is a service enterprise, an enterprise of
ideas.  If anyone does not believe that our profession constitutes an
economic enterprise, then they are not considering the simple facts faced
by those making the decisions about the creation and dissolution of
departments.  A dean, a provost, and a college president, while all
committed to the ultimate goal of education, must consider the *cost* of
each member of the faculty and must consider the income of the institution.
Moreover, a student must consider the price of tuition and the benefit to
be gained by a college education; a student must decide that a year of
Russian language is worth $6,000 or that a survey of twentieth-century
literature is worth $3,000 because that is what they are paying for it (or
if their parents are paying, then *they* must be convinced of the worth).

Before anyone assaults such language as pragmatism, we must then consider
what we offer in this service enterprise.  Part of the dreadful myopia that
plagues students, parents, and perhaps a few of those in our profession
stems from the notion that a student who enters our courses gains only the
"marketable" skill of speaking Russian.  This is indeed *a* skill and a
skill the importance of which we should consistently promote.  Yet as we
teach literature and philology in general, we teach what Peter Senge -- a
dominant voice in MBA programs throughout the country -- terms "lifelong
learning".  Another voice in the business community, Stephen Covey,
reiterates this notion with his concept of "wisdom," and he writes that
"wisdom suggests a sage perspective on life, a sense of balance, a keen
understanding of how the various parts and principles apply and relate to
each other.  It embraces judgment, discernment, comprehension."  And it
embraces precisely what the business community now seeks from graduates of
colleges, as demonstrated from the summary of the 1994 "Business-Higher
Education Forum Task Force on High-Performance Work and Workers" which
calls for individuals with "a continuous thirst for learning" and with
strong abilities in critical analysis and communication skills.

Have we gone far afield?  Not for a moment.  What do we return for that
tuition bill of perhaps $25,000?  How do we justify the maintenance of a
position costing a university or college $50,000?  The answers lie in words
such as wisdom, learning, comprehension, and analysis.  Will any student
ever be able to make a dime by knowing the intricacies of metaphor in a
Pushkin lyric?  None that I have taught will, and I have no illusions about
that.  Yet a student who has composed an analysis of such a "system" gains
something beneficial for the rest of their days; that student gains wisdom,
judgment, discernment, comprehension.  Moreover, that student gains an
appreciation for that which matters most to me, the aesthetic.

Now let us return to where we started -- and I thank you if you have read
this far -- to the question of the creation and maintenance of positions.
If you want to increase enrollments or justify the preservation of your
department to a dean, then enter into your lecture on Tolstoy or Tolstaya
with a passion for learning in all senses of the word.  To teach
*comprehension* of systems, one may use the philosophy of history in _War
and Peace_ as a case study; to teach the nuances of communication one
learns another language, such as Russian or Polish; to teach the
interrelationships of archetypes one may use Russian folklore.  I will not
pretend that loss of the Soviet Union has deprived the profession of that
natural fascination which students formerly held about the "evil empire",
and the changing world situation has clearly had a negative impact on
enrollments, regardless of who has been teaching the courses.  However, I
know of several programs where enrollments are rising or are at least
stable, and students maintain their involvement in the department
specifically because of the *energy* of the department itself, the energy
for learning, for life-long learning.  Furthermore, I know of people who
have applied their education in Russian language and literature to the
worlds of computer technology, law, and business administration.  And
lastly, the "ideal new hire" according to the 1994 task force was
identified as having a "liberal arts degree."  In terms immediately
relevant to the reader of this message, Dostoevsky, Bulgakov, the history
of Slavic languages, and a knowledge of Russian, Polish, or Czech can make
for wonderful marketing executives, lawyers, accountants, journalists, and
computer technicians.  Indeed we thus can help to create what Covey calls
"principle-centered people" operating in the macroeconomy, and one should
keep in mind that Covey is writing for the business community, for that
"real world" mentioned on SEELANGS not too long ago: "To the degree that
people recognize and live in harmony with such basic principles as
fairness, equity, justice, integrity, honesty, and trust, they move toward
either survival and stability on the one hand or disintegration and
destruction on the other hand."

Let us learn and teach.  Let us teach with a passion which will communicate
itself to one another and to our colleagues.  Let that passion be a force
that we communicate as we daily encounter students who may consider
enrolling in our courses.  Each of us has found wisdom, however we may
define it; seize it and teach it with fervor.

Andrew J. Swensen
Dept. of German and Russian
Hamilton College
198 College Hill Rd.
Clinton, NY  13323
(315) 859-4779