Recent discussions

[Andrew M. Drozd]

In the recent discussions on SEELangs (hiring native speakers, raising
enrollments, etc.), I think one very important issue has been overlooked.
Namely, just what is Slavic Studies in the US (or in any other non-Slavic
country) supposed to be? Our failure to answer this question for ourselves,
much less for others, causes many of our other problems in large part.
        For example, what is "Russian studies" in the US supposed to do?
Are we supposed to be cultural mediators, explaining Russian language,
literature, history, etc. to a non-Russian audience? Or are we to be some
sort of mini-imitation of the Russian Academy of Sciences with our work
directed soley at imitating scholarly life in Russia (with teaching of
American students viewed as a necessary burden to support the enterprise)
and directed at a very small, specific audience?
        This easily ties in with the other questions, because, if our
answer is yes to the first option, then hiring a native speaker is probably
the least desirable option. Few native speakers of Russian have the
knowledge of English and of American culture, esp. the American university
system, to do the job adequately. (This, of course, excludes the "ideal"
candidate of George Fowler.) But if we are just to be a copy of the Russian
Academy, disdaining any notion of being cultural mediators for American
students or the American public, then let's stop the charade and stop
training American graduate students, for few non-native speakers of Russian
could ever really come close.
        I would also suggest that it is our failure to elucidate clearly
our purpose that has caused most of our enrollment problems. In particular,
by trying to imitate the "Academy" too much, we have alienated possible
students and the American public at large. American students, esp.
18-year-old freshmen, are not at all impressed by being taught by a native
speaker; indeed many are intimidated by the prospect. Likewise,
undergraduates are not particularly impressed if their instructor is a
world-famous scholar with lots of publications. They are far more concerned
with his/her lecture style, grading policies, ability to lecture in
English, etc.
        Basically Robert Beard is right: we need to pay attention to the
undergraduates. They, in effect, pay the bills. And with the high costs of
education these days, they have a right to demand relevant courses,
instructors with a native command of English, instructors that understand
their difficulty in learning a foreign language, etc. Moreover, we have to
remember that undergraduates vote with their feet. They don't write letters
of protest or otherwise complain if the course doesn't meet with their
satisfaction; they just drop Russian and pick up Spanish instead.
        In short, I believe that if we want Slavic Studies to survive and
prosper in this country, we best make up our mind what our mission is. If
we decide that our mission is to act as cultural mediators between the
Slavic cultures and the US public and take that mission seriously with all
that it implies (in particular, more emphasis on teaching), I think we can
do well. But if we decide that we are to be a reproduction of scholarly
life in Russia, etc., we consign ourselves to the margins (and to the
continual threat of the budget axe).
        I might add that this question affects not only our field, but
others as well. There has been some discussion of this in Germanic Studies.
Everyone should read Van Cleve and Willson, REMARKS ON THE NEEDED REFORM OF
GERMAN STUDIES IN THE UNITED STATES (Camden House, 1993).


Andrew M. Drozd
adrozd at woodsquad.as.ua.edu

Dept. of German and Russian
Box 870262
University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0262

tel (205) 348-5055
fax (205) 348-2042