No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 September 2016
African studies in the United States were still in their infancy in 1958 when the National Defense Education Act was passed. One instructional program -- at Hartford Seminary -- had a long history. And numbers of anthropologists were notably active in field research on African topics by that date. But as compared with the venerable tradition of oriental studies, or even with pre-World War II area instruction and research on Latin America, the African field was only just opening up as a subject of concerted academic attention.
At the same time, it was clear that the postwar burgeoning of area studies programs had as much relevance to Africa as to Russia or India, and a few programs -- notably those at Northwestern and Boston -- had by this time displayed a serious intention of developing offerings of a scope comparable to those of the older fields. Indeed, the area approach had special pertinence for African studies, for with the exception of anthropology virtually none of the conventional departments inmost institutions included African specialists. The area approach was not an alternative to disciplinary modes of university organization, but rather a means of both focusing and reinforcing disciplinary competence with reference to a particular world region. The device helped to strengthen departments by reminding them of neglected fields and opportunities, and its corollary of multi-disciplinary emphasis helped to enable the social sciences and humanities to address themselves more effectively to the many contemporary scholarly problems lying on the periphery of individual disciplines. Thus, if East Asian or East European subjects of instruction and research could gain by the use of the area approach, the still more neglected African field was the more in need of such fortification. Moreover, African studies could, in the usual fashion of relative latecomers, avoid some of the pitfalls of the earliest area programs, e.g., needless tension between disciplinary and area interest or loyalty.
1. See Reining's, Conrad contribution to Bigelow, Donald N. and Legters, Lyman H. (eds.), “The Non-Western World in Higher Education,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 356, 11 1964 Google Scholar. For material on the NDEA and African studies during the first years of the program, see this Bulletin, August 1959 and December 1960.
2. Those languages included by 1961 in the Office of Education listing of critical languages for purposes of awarding fellowships were: Afrikaans, Berber, Ewe, Hausa, Ibo, Kpelle, (Lo)Mongo, Mossi, Shona, Swahili, Tigrinya, Twi, Yoruba. For present purposes, however, only the commonly taught languages -- French, German, Italian -- are excluded from support under the centers program.
3. Bordie, John G. (ed.): National Conference on the Teaching of African Languages and Area Studies (Georgetown University, 1960)Google Scholar.
4. Report of the Conference on Neglected Languages (New York: Modern Language Association of America, 1961)Google Scholar.
5. Bordie, op. cit., p. 15.
6. Ibid., p. 60.
7. Report …, op. cit., Appendix 3, p. 13f.
8. Area Study Programs in American Universities (Washington: Department of State, 1956)Google Scholar; newer editions for 1962 and 1964 augmented the title: Language and Area Study Programs in American Universities (Washington: Department of State, 1964)Google Scholar. See also the relevant listings in African Studies Bulletin in March each year. For the most complete account of the NDEA Centers program, see Bigelow, Donald N. and Legters, Lyman H.: NDEA Language and Area Centers; A Report on the First Five Years (Washington: U. S. Office of Education, 1964)Google Scholar.
9. On the general question of language and area studies at the undergraduate level see: Non-Western Studies in the Liberal Arts College (Washington: Association of American Colleges, 1964)Google Scholar, and the forthcoming report of the Conference on Undergraduate Instruction in Critical Languages and Area Studies held in October 1964 at Princeton University.