I whole-heartedly agree with this article that more students will be attracted to foreign language majors/minors if these programs incorporate a broader range of subjects, as the authors call it, wider "cultural, historical, geographic, and cross-cultural frames."
During my undergraduate career, there was a period where I dropped my French major for the very reasons the authors discuss: I was tired of the almost literature-exclusive nature of the program (sorry, lit people), and general requirements were getting in the way of taking more French classes. Thankfully, I came back, but I can understand where the authors are coming from.
Quite frankly, I think the literature-heavy language major is outmoded in today's university system, which in general requires students to be well-rounded in a number of different subjects. It is also outmoded in today's globalized atmosphere. Language studies should be even more heavily concentrating on communication and real-life application of these languages: French for Business, Diplomacy, Volunteer/Mission Work, and so on. Languages are not a primarily academic endeavor anymore, and we cannot shut out the world in order to cater to our existing university structure/faculty.
The measures the MLA article proposes to change the system are all good ideas, however, I think the process of transforming (or enriching, at the very least) foreign language majors will be a long and difficult one. At many universities, faculty who are capable of teaching higher-level language courses are specialists in literature. While we may want to hire professors who could teach, for instance, history in a French department, how rare will it be to find professors who are qualified in both areas? This process would have to start at the undergraduate level, training people in both areas and continuing this on to graduate school. But how are we to do that if language programs as they are hardly allow for this? (Or at the very least, they make it difficult.)
It seems a vicious cycle, and I'm not too sure how to break it. Do others agree that this would be difficult? Any ideas on how to move forward?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with pretty much all of the conclusions you've drawn here, Mike. Certainly, what the MLA proposes is a wildly ambitious, fundamental change in the system. I am usually quick to point out pie-in-the-sky ideas when I see them; however, as difficult as this transformation might seem, it must happen. As the MLA suggests in their article, if this change doesn't occur, the future of language study in higher education may be in great danger.
ReplyDeleteIn moving forward, I feel like the answer is pretty close to home: graduate programs. Getting tenured literature professors to change their ways may not be impossible, but it will likely be no walk in the park. What might be far more feasible is appealing to the people who will eventually replace them. To do this, graduate programs will need to be overhauled and reconceptualized. Just how this should be accomplished is, at least to me, unclear; such a transformation would likely also be slow and difficult since it would depend on the same group of people to implement these changes (the already established, research-focused literature staff).